March 10, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



371 



Resolved, That this conference recommend to 

 the states the recognition and enforcement of the 

 principles of interstate comity in taxation. These 

 principles require that the same property should 

 not be taxed at the same time by two state juris- 

 dictions, and to this end that if the title deeds or 

 other paper evidences of the ownership of property, 

 or of an interest in property are taxed, they shall 

 be taxed at the situs of the property, and not 

 elsewhere. These principles should also be ap- 

 plied to any tax upon the transfer of property in 

 expectation of death, or by will, or under the laws 

 regulating the distribution of property in case 

 of intestacy.* 



The Massachusetts Tax Commission in 

 1897 reported a bill to carry out the same 

 principle, though on somewhat different 

 lines, f 



Machinery to facilitate a concert of ac- 

 tion for the accomplishment of some such 

 result, has for some years been in existence 

 and active operation. This is the annual 

 Conference of Commissioners of States on 

 Uniform Legislation, held in connection 

 with the meetings of the Ameincan Bar 

 Association, and now representing a large 

 majority of all the states. Its office is to 

 frame and recommend to the states for 

 adoption bills for suitable laws on subjects 

 of common concern which ought to be regu- 

 lated everywhere in the same way. The 

 result of its labors may be seen in the 

 existence of identical laws in the statute 

 books of a number of states, which have 

 been adopted on its initiative, the most 

 conspicuous instance being that of the 

 Negotiable Instruments Act. 



It may well be doubted whether the form 

 of reciprocity recommended by the Buffalo 

 Conference is the best. It is not that 

 naturally suggested by the Anglo-Ameri- 

 can rules of private international law. 

 These would favor adhesion to the law of 

 the state where the succession occurred — 

 that of the last domicil of the deceased 

 owner. On the other hand, the plan so 



* ' Judson on Taxation,' p. 547 note, 

 t ' Report of the Commission,' p. 191. 



proposed might be more answerable to the 

 demands of modern society. It would 

 serve to pay for protection to property 

 actually received, in contradistinction from 

 protection theoretically imputed. 



But the only question to which the limits 

 of an address like this permit me to call 

 your attention is the larger one of the pos- 

 sibility and expediency of any reciprocal 

 arrangements looking in this direction. 



Could they or could they not be re- 

 garded as varying the public relations of 

 the states concerned ? Would or would not 

 each stand towards the other in the atti- 

 tude of a favored nation, since its citizens 

 would be freed from a burden remaining 

 upon those of other states? Is or is not a 

 statutory grant of an exemption from taxa- 

 tion in favor of those belonging to another 

 sovereignty, conditioned on the concession 

 of a similar privilege by the latter to the 

 citizens of the state enacting the first 

 statute, and followed by such a concession, 

 in substance a political compact between 

 the enacting powers 1 



If there be any such constitutional bar, 

 it could be easily removed. 



The ari-angement could hardly be deemed 

 to stand on the footing of a treaty, alliance, 

 or confederation. If not that, the consent 

 of Congress would avoid any possible ob- 

 jection. There is no reason to doubt that 

 this would be gladly given. Congress 

 could hardly fail to welcome any proposi- 

 tion from states, looking towards concur- 

 rent legislation of the description named. 

 Not only would it remove what is not un- 

 likely to prove a serious impediment to free 

 commercial intercourse between the states, 

 but it would remove it in the interest of 

 fair dealing and equal rights. 



It may be suggested that even with the 

 authority of Congress no such exclusive 

 reciprocity could be established between 

 two states by reason of the further consti- 

 tutional provision (Art. IV., Sec. 2) that 



