Case ID: serg-rawl_10/html/0179-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghman, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(Sunbury,
    June 23, 1823.]
    The Directors of the Poor of the House of Employment of Bucks county against the Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Brier Creek, in the county of Columbia.
    APPEAL
    An United States tax is not a public tax, the payment of which gives a right of set. tlement under the act of 1771.
    
    An order was made by two justices of the peace of Columbia county, for the removal of Jacob Reder and his wife, who were paupefs, from the township of Brier Creek to the county of Bucks. On appeal to the. Court of Quarter Sessions of Columbia county,' the order was quashed, and the paupers directed to be maintained by the township of Brier Creek, An appeal was entered from the order of the sessions of this court, and the case depended on a sin§le question, viz: whether the pauper, Jacob Reder, gained a setement in Brier Creek township by the payment of taxes to the United States for two years successively, amounting to 18# cents, while he resided there.
    The act, entitled an act for the relief of the poof, passed 9th March, 1771, Sect. 17, {Purd. Dig. 529,) enacts, that “if any person who shall come to inhabit in the said city of Philadelphia, or in any borough, township, or place, in this province, shall for himself, and on his own account, execute any public office, being legally placed therein, in the said city, borough, township, or’ place, during one whole year; or if any person shall be charged with, and pay his or her share towards 'the public taxes, or levies for the poor of the said city, borough, township or place, for two years successively, &c. such person shall be adjudged and deemed to gain a legal settlement in the said city, borough, township, or place, respectively, &c.”
    
      Greenough, for Brier Creek township, referred to the ease of The Directors of the Poor of Bucks county v. The Guardians Of the Poor of Philadelphia, 5 Serg. 8¡- Rawle, 417, where it was held, that a settlement may be gained under this act by paying a public tax, such as a county tax, and that the act is not limited to the payment of a poor tax. In the same case it appears, that the words “public tax,” were introduced into this act instead of the words “county tax,” which were used iii former laws, for the purpose of embracing provincial taxes. Buj the legislature could not have contemplated United States taxes in the use of these words: they could not foresee a revolution and a new government which wohld possess authority to lay new taxes. If the words “public tax,” embrace United States taxes, then the words “ public office,” may comprehend an office held under the authority of the United States. But this construction could not for one moment be contended for.
    
      Grier and Hepburn, contra.
    The words of the act of 1771, are large enough to embrace this case: an United States fax is a “public tax.” It is a lawful duty or impost: and it is derived from the public authority of the nation. The state is represented in congress, and has authorized the tax: and the United States is a government for the respective states, supreme and sovereign in imposing constitutional taxes. The principle of the act of assembly is, that those who contribute a share to the general interest of the community, shall be entitled to relief when reduced to. poverty. It is objected, that the United States government could not have been foreseen by the legislature, and therefore, was not within its intention: but the same argument would apply to the state govern-ment, which sprang from the revolution, ánd there can be no doubt, state taxes are public taxes, within the meaning of the act. As to' United States offices, there is no reason why they should fall' within the act.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghman, C. J.

By the act for the relief of the poor, passed the 9th March, 1771, Sect, 17, it is enacted, “that if any person who shall come to inhabit in the city of Philadelphia, or in any borough, township or place, in this province, shall, for himself, and on his own account, execute any public office, being legally-placed therein, in the said city, borough, township or place, during one whole year, or if any person shall be charged with, and pay his or her share towards the public taxes, or levies for the poor of the said city, borough, township or place, for two years successively, such person shall be adjudged and deemed to gain a legal settlement,” &c. It was once a question whether the payment of any but a poor tax gained a settlement under this law; but this court decided, in the case of Bucks County v. Philadelphia, 5 Serg. & Rawle, 417,.that a settlement might be gained by the payment pf a county tax, that being a public tax. It is now contended, that a direct tax, laid by the congress of the United States, is a public tax, and therefore, a settlement is gained by the payment of it. Undoubtedly it is a public tax, but it does not follow, that it was within the intent of the act of assembly. It could not have been contemplated by the legislature of Pennsylvania, in the year 1771, that a political revolution would take place, in consequence of which, this state would be associated with a number of others, in a federal government. A tax of this kind could not, therefore, have been directly intended. But it is said, that neither could any tax have been directly intended, which should be laid under the authority of the state, for .county purposes, after she threw off the authority of the British crown, and became independent. There' is a great difference, however, between taxes laid by the authority of the state, for her own particular use, and for the use of a government, composed of many states, of which she is a member. And there is much more reason for considering the former as within the meaning of the act of 1771, than the latter. State taxes, county taxes, and poor taxes, laid since the revolution, are applied to precisely the same purposes as they were before it. So far as respected them, the change of government was but nominal. There was reason, therefore, to conclude, that as to them, á settlement should continue to be gained under the state, as it had formerly been Under the province of Pennsylvania. But a tax laid by the federal government is quite a different thing, and laid for quite different purposes. The money may be applied to purposes in which the state1 has but a remote concern;, nor can if in any sense, (so far as respects' Pennsylvania,) be considered as a public tax, except that the people of the state have consented,, that congress should have power to lay it. To be sure, it is of a public nature, and it is'lawfully laid. But it is not, in any point of view, a state tax, and therefore, it soems to me, it would be straining the act of 1771, to an unaccountable extent, to make it embrace a taxi of this kind. It has nothing local in its nature, and there is no reason why the payment of it should throw the burthen of a pauper’s maintenance on one township, rather than on another’. There is another reason why the payment of this tax should not gain a settlement. In order to preserve uniformity of principle,- if we say,that payment of an United States tax, gains a settlement, we must say also, that executing an office under the United States, would gain one; a proposition which'could hardly be seriously contended for. If the legislature should think it politic to annex the right of a settlement, to the payment of a tax laid by the United States, a law will, no doubt, be made for that purpose. In the meantime, it would be usurping the legislative functions, for. this court to say, that such right was given by the act of 1771. I ani of opinion, therefore, that the order of the Court of Quarter Sessions should be quashed, and the order of the justices affirmed.

Order of the Court of Quarter Sessions quashed,'and the order of the justices affirmed.