the matter of mitigating flagrant inequalities of wealth.  They concern at bottom the effect of the present system of inheritance upon the inheritors and upon society; and in so far as the system brings with it the creation of a class of economic parasites, it can scarcely be defended.  But such is precisely its general tendency.  The improbability that the children will inherit with the wealth of the parent his possibly able and responsible use of it is usually apparent to the father himself; and not infrequently he ties up his millions in trust, so that they are sure to have the worst possible moral effect upon his heirs.  Children so circumstanced are deprived of any economic responsibility save that of spending an excessive income; and, of course, they are bound to become more or less respectable parasites.  The manifest dissociation thereby implied between the enjoyment of wealth and the personal responsibility attending its ownership, has resulted in the proposal that fathers should be forbidden by the state to arrange so carefully for the demoralization of their children and grandchildren.  Even if we are not prepared to acquiesce in so radical an impairment of the rights of testators, there can be no doubt that, under a properly framed system of inheritance taxation, all property placed in trust for the benefit of male heirs above a certain amount should be subject to an exceptionally severe deduction.  Whatever justification such methods of guaranteeing personal financial irresponsibility may have in aristocratic countries, in which an upper class may need a peculiar economic freedom, they are hostile both to the individual and public interest of a democratic community.

Public opinion is not, however, even remotely prepared for any radical treatment of the whole matter of inheritance; and it will not be prepared, until it has learned from experience that the existing freedom enjoyed by rich testators means the sacrifice of the quick to the dead—­the mutilation of living individuals in the name of individual freedom and in order that a dead will may have its way.  Until this lesson is learned the most that can be done is to work for some kind of a graduated inheritance tax, the severity of which should be dictated chiefly by conditions of practical efficiency.  Considerations of practical efficiency make it necessary that the tax should be imposed exclusively by the Federal government.  State inheritance taxes, sufficiently large to accomplish the desirable result, will be evaded by change of residence to another state.  A Federal tax could be raised to a much higher level without prompting the two possible methods of evasion—­one of which would be the legal transfer of the property during lifetime, and the other a complete change of residence to some foreign country.  This second method of evasion would not constitute a serious danger, because of the equally severe inheritance laws of foreign countries.  The tax at its highest level could be placed without danger of evasion at as much as twenty per cent.  The United Kingdom now raises almost $100,000,000 of revenue from the source; and a slightly increased scale of taxation might yield double that amount to the American Treasury, a part of which could be turned into the state Treasuries.