It may be as some theorists claim, that the general property tax can never be enforced with absolute equity. It is an axiom of the law that no system of taxation can be absolutely fair and equitable.

Hardly a decided case upon the problems of taxation can be cited that does not advance and endorse that statement. Yet while that is true we believe the straight property tax is the fairest and most equitable system that can be devised. In theory at least it is the only fair and equitable system and if it has so far failed to work even a moiety of equity, we believe it is because it has not been fairly tried with adequate machinery of sufficient power to compel the full listing and assessment of its more evasive and fugacious forms. Before we are willing to consign the general property tax to the limbo of governmental failures, we want it tried by competent and efficient executive processes.

The new bill places a tax of five per cent upon collateral inheritances above the sum of five hundred dollars. We apply it only to collateral inheritances, because in direct descent, inheritances are most frequently the joint production of heir and ancestor. Passing to collateral heirs it is something unexpected, to which the devisee has contributed nothing and so passing the tax is held to be rather a license to take under the protection of law than a tax.

We have changed the laws relating to the collection of taxes, sale for delinquent tax, time and manner, form and effect of tax deeds but little, first because there was but little complaint as to these provisions, and second because the general public had become accustomed to and familiar with the present law and it ought not lightly to be disturbed. Again the courts have fully explored and interpreted the present statute and to disturb it without some good reason would merely unsettle things without any benefit in return. We have added a remedy to those now held by tax deed holders that

we believe is equitable and of benefit. As it now stands the holder of a tax deed out of possession must gain possession within two years or bring a possessory action. To do this he must bring ejectment and assert his tax deed as a fee simple title. When he fails to establish it as such, as is usually the case, the costs are taxed to the deed holder and in many cases these costs amount to more than the profit on his deed. True, he is given a lien and may have the property sold, but it is a losing transaction for him. We permit him to set up his tax deed as a lien, which is all it is in most cases, have it foreclosed and the property sold. Thus he secures either a title or his money and the costs are paid by the defaulting property This is no great hardship to him and protects the deed holder from loss.

There are a great many minor changes in the new law that will be apparent only to the trained lawyer. We have shortened and simplified definitions. Stricken out and eliminated useless phraseology, made the law conform to the decisions of the courts, interpreting it where its meaning was doubtful and in every way endeavored to make the statute carry plainly upon its face, the full measure of the obligations imposed and remedies given, so that both can be ascertained by the average officer from the statute itself without resorting to interpretory decisions.

We have endeavored to arrange the whole statute in a logical and consecutive way, each step following in its natural sequence, so that any one familiar with the successive processes of taxation can readily turn to the part he wants.

We have eliminated provisions like the power of compromise given the county commissioners, that have not worked well in practice, and substituted remedies more exact and proven by experience to be more certain and free from fraud or corruption.

In conclusion we present the new bill, not as a perfect measure, not as the last word that may be said on taxation nor as the finality in a tax system, but as the result of earnest conscientious effort to find the best, and as embodying the most thoroughly tested and proven parts of the most successful tax laws of the various states.

THE EDWARD THOMPSON PRIZE THESIS.

[The most meritorious of the papers of the Senior Class of
the State University Law School, in contest for the prize.]

A. L. BILLINGS.

I. SUBJECT.

May a school board of a public high school in the state of Kansas require a pupil to take elocution contrary to the expressed wishes of the parent?

II. THESIS-Affirmative.

A school board of a public high school in the state of Kansas may require a pupil to take elocution contrary to the expressed wishes of the parent.

III. ARGUMENT-Outline.

I. The constitution and school laws of Kansas provide in a general way for an uniform system of common schools, which includes the high schools of the state.

2. Kansas courts nor legislatures have never specifically determined the point put in issue by the Thesis.

3. The common law obtains in Kansas in aid of the general statutes.

4. The common law rule as applied to the common schools of the state, applies with equal force to the public high schools of the state.

5. The common law rule applicable to the Thesis, sustains and affirms the Thesis.

IV. BRIEF OF THE THESIS.

I. The constitution and school laws of Kansas provide in a general way for an uniform system of common schools, which includes the high schools of the state.

2. The common law obtains in Kansas in aid of the general statutes.

3. Kansas courts nor legislatures have never been called upon to specifically determine the point put in issue by the Thesis.

4. The legislature has authorized the school authorities to regulate and control the schools under their jurisdiction.

5. The acts of the school boards within their jurisdictions are as binding upon the beneficiaries of the common school system as if they were enacted by the legislature itself.

6. The parent by interfering in or with the management of the school forfeits his privilege of keeping his child in school.

7. The board may adopt any study not prohibited by the state (or United States) constitution, or state (or Federal) laws, and may require the use of the study. (adopted) by pupils competent to take it.

8. Exceptions to the rule are due to the anomolous wording and interpretation of the general school statutes upon which they depend.