The exaction complained of is a mere unjustifiable taking of private property without due process of law. State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 321, 21 L. ed. 179, 187; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264, 283, 42 L. ed. 710, 747, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 45, 38 L. ed. 896, 901, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1108; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 43 L. ed. 443, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 181 U. S. 324, 344, 45 L. ed. 879, 889, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371, 384, 385, 45 L. ed. 900, 906, 907, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 256, 51 L. ed. 461, 472, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Phillip Wagner v. Leser, 239 U.. S. 207, 220, 60 L. ed. 230, 237, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 24, 25 60 L. ed. 493, 504, L.R.A.1917D 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 238, 239, 64 L. ed. 878, 881, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499. Taxpayers are entitled to a liberal construction of § 203. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 227, 52 L. ed. | Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 64 L. ed. 887, 11 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; St. A.L.R. 519, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 362, 59 L. ed. 265, 271, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661, 31 L. ed. 205, 210, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 444, 6 L. ed. 678, 687; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. ed. 481; Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Pet. 435, 10 L. ed. 1022; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, 174, 16 L. ed. 644, 646; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L. ed. 745; Northern C. R. Co. v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262, 19 L. ed. 88; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 347; Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259, 268, 23 L. ed. 543, 547; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 568, 24 L. ed. 1015; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas. 105 U. S. 460, 465, 26 L. ed. 1067, 1068; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 129, 135, 29 L. ed. 830, 831, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 336, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1201, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. | 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Atty-Gen. 125 U. S. 530, 552, 31 L. ed. 790, 794, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. Gould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151, 62 L. 961; Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 649, 32 ed. 211, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 63; Vanhorne L. ed. 311, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 134, 8 v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304, 316, 1 L. ed. Sup. Ct. Rep. 1380; Postal Teleg. Cable 391, 396, Fed. Cas. No. 16,857; United Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 698, 39 L. States v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496, 504, 21 ed. 311, 316, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 1, 15 L. ed. 728, 730; Tennessee v. Whitworth, Sup. Ct. Rep. 268, 360; Chicago, B. & 117 U. S. 129, 137, 29 L. ed. 830, 832, Q. R. Co. v Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 235, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645; Hartranft v. Wieg41 L. ed. 979, 984, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581;|mann, 121 U. S. 609, 30 L. ed. 1012, 7 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 527, 42¦ L. ed. 819, 842, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 516, 43 L. ed. 786, 792, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283, 296, 45 L. ed. 862, 868, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 135; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 59, 49 L. ed. 78, 97, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. 211 U. S. 210, 226, 53 L. ed. 150, 158, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67; Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56, 54 L. ed. 378, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 16, 60 L. ed. 493, 501, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U. S. 625, 630, 631, 60 L. ed. 830, 835, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 473; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 55, 64 L. ed. 445, 457, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 64 L. ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Evans v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 1240; Benziger v. United States, 192 U. S. 38, 55, 48 L. ed. 331, 338, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468, 35 L. ed. 821, 12.Sup. Ct. Rep. 55; Treat v. White, 181 U. S. 264, 267, 45 L. ed. 853, 854, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611; Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 578, 583, 46 L. ed. 697, 701, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 515; Crocker v. Malley, 249 U. S. 223, 233, 63 L. ed. 573, 576, 2 A.L.R. 1601, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 270; Edwards v. Wabash R. Co. C. C. A., 264 Fed. 618; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 373, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; Re Ullmann, 263 III. 530, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1075, 105 N. E. 292, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 321; Martin L. Hall Co. v. Com. 215 Mass. 329, 102 N. E. 364; Atty-Gen. v. Clark, 222 Mass. 294, L.R.A.1916C, 679, 110 N. E. 299, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 119; Hill v. Treasurer, 229 Mass. 475, L.R.A.1918D, 337, 118 N. E. 891; Re Cooley, 186 N. Y. 220, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1010, 78 N. E. 939; State ex rel. Pettit v. Probate Ct. 137 Minn. | equality and injustice, and should be 239, L.R.A.1917F, 436, 163 N. W. 285; avoided. Torrance v. Edwards, 89 N. J. L. 510, 99 Atl. 136; Re Enston, 113 N. Y. 177, 3 L.R.A. 464, 21 N. E. 87; Re Vassar, 127 N. Y. 12, 27 N. E. 394; Re Fayerweather, 143 N. Y. 119, 38 N. E. 278; Smith v. Browning, 225 N. Y. 358, 122 N. E. 217; English v. Crenshaw, 120 Tenn. 539, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 753, 127 Am. St. Rep. 1025, 110 S. W. 210; Crenshaw v. Moore, 124 Tenn. 531, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1161, 137 S. W. 924, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 165; Re Bullen, 47 Utah, 102, L.R.A.1916C, 670, 151 Pac. 533; Schoolfield v. Lynchburg, 78 Va. 373; Re Curtis, 88 Vt. 449, 92 Atl. 965. It is the duty of the court to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed. Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152, 27 L. ed. 431, 432, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 391; United States v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 460, 477, 6 L. ed. 693, 698; Maillard v. Lawrence, 16 How. 251, 261, 14 L. ed. 925, 930; United States v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496, 505, 506, 21 L. ed. 728, 731; Eyster v. Centennial Bd. of Finance, 94 U. S. 500, 24 L. ed. 188; Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 25 L. ed. 782; United States v. Landram, 118 U. S. 81, 30 L. ed. 58, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 954; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468, 35 L. ed. 821, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 55; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662, 670, 671, 32 L. ed. 1060, 1063, 1064, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 651; Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U. S. 242, 245, 37 L. ed. 152, 154, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 479, 43 L. ed. 1041, 1053, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722; Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95, 110, 46 L. ed. 1070, 1078, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 776; United States ex. rel. Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U. S. 124, 53 L. ed. 936, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 145, 55 L. ed. 389, 411, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; United States v. Bennett, 232 Ú. S. 299, 302, 303, 58 L. ed. 612, 614, 615, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433; United States v. Standard Brewery, 251 U. S. 210, 217, 64 L. ed. 229, 234, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139. Congress intended to impose the tax in respect of only so much of a decedent's estate as should pass to those beneficially entitled. Any other interpretation would result in profound in - United States v. Goelet, 232 U. S. 293, 58 L. ed. 610, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; People ex rel. Savings Bank v. Coleman, 135 N. Y. 235, 31 N. E. 1022; Re James, 144 N. Y. 11, 38 N. E. 961; Randolph v. Craig, 267 Fed. 995; Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 58 L. ed. 285, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; Re Curtis, 142 N. Y. 219, 36 N. E. 887; Lederer v. Pearce, A.L.R. C. C. A., 266 Fed. 497; Northern Trust Co. v. Lederer, 257 Fed. 812; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 77, 44 L. ed. 969, 984, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486, 19 L. ed. 278, 280; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401, 60 L. ed. 1061, 1064, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 658, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854; United States v. Standard Brewery, 251 U. S. 210, 220, 64 L. ed. 229, 235, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139; Baender v. Barnett, 255 U. S. 224, ante, 597, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 271. If the right to deduct the New York transfer tax is to be determined by the special character of that tax, it will be found to be a necessary deduction; but it is not possible to believe that Congress intended that § 203 should be so narrow as to require minute inquiry concerning the theoretical character of the death duties of more than forty states, thus varying the practical results of the tax in different regions, and permitting the deduction to certain estates and forbidding it to others. Sayre v. Brewster, 268 Fed. 553; United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L. ed. 287, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Re Merriam, 141 N. Y. 479, 36 N. E. 505; Re Watson, 226 N. Y. 384, 123 N. E. 758; Re Penfold, 216 N. Y. 163, 110 N. E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 783; Re Swift, 137 N. Y. 83, 18 L.R.A. 709, 32 N. E. 1096; Re Meyer, 209 N. Y. 391, L.R.A. 1915C, 615, 103 N. E. 713, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 263; Re Zborowski, 213 N. Y. 111, 107 N. E. 44; Re White, 208 N. Y. 67, 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) 714, 101 N. E. 793, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 75; Re Delano, 176 N. Y. 495, 64 L.R.A. 279, 68 N. E. 871; Re Dows, 167 N. Y. 230, 52 L.R.A. 433, 88 Am. St. Rep. 508, 60 N. E. 439; Re Sherman, 153 N. Y. 3, 46 N. E. 1032; Re Hamilton, 148 N. Y. 313, 42 N. E. 717; Re Cullum, 145 N. Y. 593, 40 N. E. 163; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 290, 291, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1041, 1042, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 54, 44 L. ed. 969, 975, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Plummer 268 Fed. 233. Death duties paid in states other than the state of domicil are paid in respect of the universal succession of personal representatives, and must, therefore, be charges against the estate, within the meaning of § 203. v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 129, 130, 44 L. | H. 13, 139 Am. St. Rep. 664, 70 Atl. ed. 998, 1006, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; 916, 20 Ann. Cas. 1355; Blackstone v. Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U. S. 543, 550, Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 47 L. ed. 439, 23 551, 51 L. ed. 310, 313, 314, 27 Sup. Ct. Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Maxwell v. Bugbee, Rep. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215; Keeney v. 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. New York, 222 U. S. 525, 533, 56 L. ed. Ct. Rep. 2; Howell v. Edwards, 88 N. J. 299, 304, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, 32 Sup. L. 134, 96 Atl. 186; Mann v. Carter, 74 Ct. Rep. 105; Peterson v. Iowa, 245 U. N. H. 345, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 150, 68 Atl. S. 170, 175, 62 L. ed. 225, 228, 38 Sup. 130; Gelsthorpe v. Furnell, 20 Mont. Ct. Rep. 109; Prentiss v. Eisner, C. 299, 39 L.R.A. 170, 51 Pac. 267; State C. A. —, 267 Fed. 16, affirming 260 Fed. v. Dalrymple, 70 Md. 294, 3 L.R.A. 372, 589; First Trust & Sav. Bank v. Smie- 17 Atl. 82; Re Stanford, 126 Cal. 112, tanka, - C. C. A. 45 L.R.A. 788, 58 Pac. 462; Warner v. Corbin, 91 Conn. 532, 100 Atl. 354; Hopkins's Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, 60 Atl. 657; Corbin v. Baldwin, 92 Conn. 99, 101 Atl. 834, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 932; Re Martin, 153 Cal. 225, 94 Pac. 1053; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 521, 43 L. ed. 786, 793, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U. S. 295, 305, 57 L. ed. 842, 846, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 280, 58 L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Knights Templars' & M. Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 187 U. S. 197, 205, 47 L. ed. 139, 145, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 108; Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 211 U. S. 407, 422, 53 L. ed. 253, 264, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 497, 53 L. ed. 836, 848, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166, 175, 56 L. ed. 390, 393, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 310; Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 414, 58 L. ed. 285, 291, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; United States v. Bennett, 232 U. S. 299, 303, 304, 58 L. ed. 612, 614, 615, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433; United States v. Standard Brewery, 251 U. S. 210, 220, 64 L ed. 229, 235, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139; Baender v Barnett, 255 U. S. 224, ante, 597, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 271. Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Carr v. Edwards, 84 N. J. L. 667, 87 Atl. 132; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 47 L. ed. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Bullard v. Redwood Library, 37 R. I. 113, 91 Atl. 39; Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 506, 103 Atl. 647; Callahan v. Woodbridge, 171 Mass. 597, 51 N. E. 176; Greves v. Shaw, 173 Mass. 209, 53 N. E. 372; Kingsbury v. Bazeley, 75 N. H. 18, 139 Am. St. Rep. 664, 70 Atl. 916, 20 Ann. Cas. 1355; Orcutt's Appeal, 97 Pa. 179; Coleman's Estate, 159 Pa. 233, 28 Atl. 137; Lewis's Estate, 203 Pa. 215, 52 Atl. 205; Van Beil's Estate, 257 Pa. 156, 101 Atl. 316. The enactment, as part of the Revenue Act of 1918, of an express prohibition of deductions of the sort here claimed, indicates that Congress considered that the previous statute, which is now before the court, permitted the deduction. Cole v. Ralph, 252 U. S. 286, 294, 64 L. ed. 567, 576, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 321; Pearce v. Lederer, 262 Fed. 995; Dixon v. Russell, 79 N. J. L. 490, 76 Atl. 982; Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Co. 233 Mass. 474, 7 A.L.R. 696, 124 N. E. 265; Re Miller, 110 N. Y. 216, 18 N. E. 139; Re Enston, 113 N. Y. 183, 3 L.R.A. 464, 21 N. E. 87; Re Romaine, 127 N. Y. 84, 12 L.R.A. 401, 27 N. E. 759; Re Hoffman, 143 N. Y. 331, 38 N. E. 311; Re Harbeck, 161 N. Y. 218, 55 N. E. 850. The diversion to a state of part of the property of estates by means of death duties is pro tanto a denial of the right or privilege to transmit from the dead to the living, and Congress is without power to impose a tax in respect of the denial of any privilege. Senff v. Edwards, 85 N. J. L. 69, 88 Atl. 1026; Kingsbury v. Bazeley, 75 N. Mr. John B. Gleason, by special leave, argued the cause and filed a brief for the Comptroller of the State of New York: The estate tax is void if its necessary effect is to make a deduction from the estate or from the transfer prior to the imposition of the state transfer tax, or if the state tax must be adjusted. Re Bierstadt, 178 App. Div. 836, 166 N. Y. Supp. 168; Re Sherman, 179 App. Div. 497, 166 N. Y. Supp. 19, affirmed without opinion in 222 N. Y. 540, 118 N. E. 1078; Re Penfold, 216 N. Y. 163, 110 N. E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 783; Re Gihon, 169 N. Y. 443, 62 N. E. 561. The tax is upon the transfer of the The Federal estate tax imposed by the net estate to the beneficiaries, and is Act of September 8, 1916, is, in its oppaid by them or for their account pro-eration and effect, an invasion of the portionately; for no one else has any sovereign power of the states to regulate money to pay it. the descent and distribution of property of decedents. Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, ante, 638, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Gleason v. Thaw, 236 U. S. 558, 59 L. ed. 717, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287. If the tax is an estate tax, it is void as a regulation of the transfer, and as a tax on property without apportion ment. Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence, Campbell's ed. ¶¶ 572, 573, 1056, 1094, 1103; Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 493, 12 L. ed. 1168, 1170; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Re Watson, 226 N. Y. 384, 123 N. E. 758; Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 250, 47 L. ed. 1035, 1036, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803. Mr. J. Weston Allen, Attorney General of Massachusetts, by special leave, argued the cause and filed a brief for the commonwealth of Massachusetts as amicus curiæ: The Federal estate tax cannot be sustained upon the grounds on which the succession taxes were sustained in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, and Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331, 23 L. ed. 99. Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501, 103 Atl. 647; Knight's Estate, 261 Pa. 537, 104 Atl. 765; People v. Pasfield, 284 Ill. 450, 120 N. E. 286; State ex rel. Smith v. Probate Ct. 139 Minn. 210, 166 N. W. 125; People v. Bemis, 68 Colo. 48, 189 Pac. 32; State v. First Calumet Trust & Sav. Bank, Ind. App., 125 N. E. 200; Northern Trust Co. v. Lederer, 257 Fed. 812, affirmed in - C. C. A. 262 Fed. 52; Re Miller, Cal. -, 16 A.L.R. 694, 195 Pac. 413; Woodward v. United States (March 14, 1921, Ct. Cl.); Hanson, Death Duties, 6th ed. pp. 1, 2. The several states possess the exclusive power to regulate and control the descent and distribution of property. Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 493, 12 L. ed. 1168, 1170; United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 55, 52 L. ed. 95, 109, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679, 685, 24 L. ed. 558, 559; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 550, 23 L. ed. 588, 590; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 124, 20 L. ed. 122, 125. Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56, 65, 54 L. ed. 378, 385, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 214, 29 L. ed. 158, 165, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. ed. 1015; Ludwig v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 216 U. S. 146, 162, 54 L. ed. 423, 429, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 280; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 27, 54 L. ed. 355, 366, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456, 15 L. ed. 127; Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 285, 46 L. ed. 196, 200, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; Strode v. Com. 52 Pa. 181; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 456, 50 L. ed. 261, 267, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737. The Federal estate tax is a direct tax, and therefore unconstitutional because not apportioned in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Constitution. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 89, 44 L. ed. 969, 988, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Thomas v. United States, 192 U. S. 363, 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; South Carolina v. United States, 39 Ct. Cl. 257, affirmed in 199 U. S. 437, 50 L. ed. 261, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; McCoach v Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U. S. 295, 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 43 L. ed. 60, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U S. 217, 227, 52 L. ed. 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; State ex rel. Garth v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287, 40 L.R.A. 280, 65 Am. St. Rep. 653, 45 S. W. 245; Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, ante, 638, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, No. 21. Mr. Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney Gen eral of Minnesota, and Mr. Egbert S. Oakley, filed a brief for the state of Minnesota as amici curiæ: The Federal government is supreme within the scope of its delegated powers, and the state governments are equally supreme in the exercise of those powers not delegated by them nor inhibited to them; and when these supreme functions are exercised by the Federal and state governments within their respective limitations, they never come into conflict. But if either government enacts a law upon a matter which is within the exclusive concern and power of regulation of the other, the validity of such law depends upon the supremacy of the power by which it was enacted. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 199205, 6 L. ed. 23, 70-72; License Cases, 5 How. 504-588, 12 L. ed. 256-294. The United States, not possessing, as the states do, the right to regulate successions, when the United States calls into play its taxing power over the subject of the passage or receipt of property by death, the extent of its authority is to be measured solely by the scope of the taxing power conferred by the Constitution. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747. While the taxing power of Congress extends to all usual subjects of taxation, including receipt or transmission of property occasioned by death, yet its power to tax cannot be so exercised, in the constitutional sense, as to impose burdens on the exclusive power of the states to regulate successions. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 59, 44 L. ed. 969, 977, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747. Whether an exercise of the taxing power by Congress, as manifested by the act in question, does or does not burden or impair the states' power of regulation of successions, depends upon the operation and effect of the act as enforced, and not upon the manner in which the taxing scheme has been characterized. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326. There is a difference between the Estate Tax Act and the act involved and construed in Knowlton v. Moore. Re Hamlin, 7 A.L.R. 701, and note, 226 N. Y. 407, 124 N. E. 4; Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Co. 233 Mass. 471, 7 A.L.R. 696, 124 N. E. 265; Knight's Estate, 261 Pa. 538, 104 Atl. 765. The question of burden of state power of regulation of successions must be determined by the mode of the imposition of the exaction, and its operation and effect as enforced, and not by mere name or characterization of the particular tax. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; Meyer v. Wells, F. & Co. 223 U. S. 298, 56 L. ed. 445, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Fargo v. Hart, 193 U. S. 490, 48 L. ed. 761, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 135, 62 L. ed. 624, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 292, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 617; Looney v. Crane Co. 245 U. S. 178, 62 L. ed. 230, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U. S. 227, 60 L. ed. 617, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436, 38 L. ed. 773, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 664, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 363, 59 L. ed. 265, 271, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 31 L. ed. 205, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273. The power to regulate descent and succession of property on death is a sovereign power, and belongs exclusively to the states. United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276, 22 L. ed. 536; Chanler v. Kelsey, 205 U. S. 466, 51 L. ed. 882, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 47 L. ed. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 52 L. ed. 95, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L. ed. 287, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1127, 1197; Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 12 L. ed. 1168; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 37 L. ed. 867, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906. The so-called succession or inheritance tax enactments by the several states were but an exercise of the power of regulating the devolution of property by death. |