 But we think that the provision of the act that exempts bequests assumes the gift of a corpus and contrasts it with the income arising from it, but was not intended to exempt income property so-called simply because of a severance between it and the principal fund.No such conclusion can be drawn from "Eisner v. Macomber", 252 U.S. 189, 206, 207 S., 40 S. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570.The money was income in the hands of the trustees and we know of nothing in the law that prevented its being paid and received as income by the donee.