Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/181

THE THEORY OF INHERITANCE. 165 That last clause contains, I think, the key to the problem. A dead man's property is at the disposal of the State. All laws regulating successions after death are, Blackstone tells us, creatures of civil policy. The son has by nature no right to succeed to his father's land, nor. is the father by nature entitled to direct the suc- cession to his property after his own decease. He who would take it must establish his claim. And on the three principles from which we started, the child is entitled to a portion. But it by no means follows that he is entitled to the whole. The same reason- ing which leads us to think that he ought to have a share of the property also indicates how large that share ought to be. On the one side, he should not be left in poverty ; on the other, the good of the State requires that he should not be permitted to live in idleness. To so much he is entitled on all principles of natural right and civil policy, and to no more. These are elastic limits, and estimates of a child's proper share may, I suppose, vary from ten thousand dollars to one hundred thousand. But when we come to the remote relatives, to a tenth cousin, for instance, on what ground will he rest his claim to the estate } "True, I never heard of this dead man," he must say, "until I was told that I was his next of kin. I never expected anything from him, nor should I have felt called upon in any way to assist him. But I am his nearest relative: give me the property." Surely a reasonable man would say, " You have not made out your case." What, then, should become of the property } The answer is obvious ; as no one has shown himself entitled to it the State should keep it. I have not time elaborately to discuss the theory of wills. The general line of reasoning which I have suggested is even more applicable to them than to descent. The law has long held that a dead man could have no property, and that giving effect to his wishes is merely a bit of legal courtesy, so to speak. Gifts by will should, therefore, be valid only to a limited amount, and the rights of children should be protected, as those of the wife now are, beyond the power of the testator to destroy them. The French law has been in accord with these ideas ever since the Revolution of 1789.^ These suggestions seem very pertinent to the discussion at pres- ent going on over the advisability of Collateral Inheritance Taxes. 1 Hale, Hist. Com. Law (Runnington's ed.), 314, n.; 40 Ed. Rev. 350, Beames's Glanvill, 139, n.