The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-01-17
Taxation of U. s. Property within the States.

VA S' % hEVpcFtH WtluIl tHe BrRteS.
HE PORTLAND CUsToM-HoUsE AND PH1LA,
DELPHIA MINT CAsEs.-The action of the Su-
preme Court upon these cases renders it proper that
the public should be apprised of the questions in
voved In them. For series of years prior to 1S43
the city of Portland, under the laws Of Maine. as
sessed a tax upon the United States Custom house
warehouse and wharf in that city, which the col.
lector paid, to avoid forced collection. The At
torney General, Mr.. Legare, having expressed an
official opinion thatthis and all other taxes imposed
upon property held by the United States for simi-
r purposes were illegal the United States brought
suit in the U. S. Circuit Court to recover back
the moneys thus paid. On the trial the Circuit
Judges were divided in opinion upon the constiiu-,
tlonaEty Of the law imposing this tax and certified
their division to the SupremeCour for instructions
Ihe case was argued two years since by Mr. CIE-
lord, Attorney General for the United States, and
Mr.. Evans for the city of Portland
The Court held the question under advisement
until the last erm with the view of hearing the ar
gument in the Philadelphia Mint case, before max
ing decision. The latter case was this the city
oil Philadelphia, under the laws of Pennsylvania
as she Gained, assessed taxes upon the Mint in
that city, and under them brought suit against
Isaac Roach, then Treasurer of the Mint as the oc-
clpant OF the Mint buildings and recovered judg-
ment IN the local Court, which was affirmed BY the
Supreme Court of that State, on which the United
States brought writ of Error to the u s. Su-
Preme Court, to test the validity of the law under
which the tax had been assessed. The case was
argued last winter by Mr.. r. H. Gillet then Soil
tor, and Mr.. Attorney General Toucey for the Uni
ted States and Mr., Brewster for the city of Phila-
delphia.
On consultation, the Supreme Court ordered a
fe-argument at the present term of the two causes
together, upon the single question of the validity of
the Two statutes under which the taxes had been
imposed ne Two causes were argued few days
since, by Mr.. Gillet and Attorney General John
son for the United States and bv Mr.. Evans for
Portland, and Mr.. Brewster for Philadelphia, Ii
was contended on the part of the United States
that whatever the government purchased, or pro-
yded, under the constitution, in the execution of
the powers conferred upon the national government
could not be taxed by the States, because by such
taxation the State could destroy whatever was thus
provided, or expel it from the State, which makes
the State power supreme, and would enable it to
exclude the authority of the national government
from its territories.
1t is further cOntended, that by thus taxing the
instruments necessarily provided to coin money and
collect revenue, Maine and Pennsylvania in effect
imposed taxes upon her sister States who contril
buted to the expense OF providing them. And that
II the cusom-houses and mints could be taxed ships
employed by the navy, and the war and post-office
departments, hipmaterials, arms, ammunition and
provisions and the mail establishment might also
be taxed. On the other side it was contended that
State possessed the eminent domain within ITSELF
and might impose taxes, by general law, upon pro-
perty within it, which it had not conferred ex-
elusive jurisdiction upon the United States. And
that the United States, like other propretors hold
ing lands under the laws of State, were bound to
pay their share Of the expenses incurred in admin
istering the laws which protected such property;
and that If it were otherwise, the national govern
ment might monopoze property, and thus prevent
1t from taxation, to the injury of the State, and to
the destruction of State rights
To this it was replied that the power of eminent
domain limited under system of Govern
ment, and State could only tax what she might
take and apply to her own public use, which would
authorize it to take possession of the house
and mint, and use them for Poor Houses, or quar-
tering State troops, which would be destroying ne
cessary constitutional instruments and that if the
United States purchased and paid for real estate on
which to make erections, it placed in the hands of
the former owner taxable means in its stead and
that the States accepted the United States const-
tuition upon the condition that its powers might be
executed, without molestaton, whenever necessary;
OF which the national government, often held by
the Supreme Court, must judge, unless these ne
cessary buildings were exempt when Congress had
ordered their erection the laws passed Empowering
the United States constitution would not be su-
preme provided in that instrument
On consultation after this argument, the Judges
of the Supreme Court, eight being present, were
equally divided in opinion, and, consequently, no
opinion could be given to the Judgment Of the
Court upon the Constitutional question involved.
The Portland was remitted to the Circuit
Court to be disposed of without instructions The
Mint case is left as it came to the Supreme Court,
and, Consequently, the Judgment of the Court be-
low, stands affirmed, and the tax upon the mint is
to be collected. Whether the Portland taxes are
to be recovered back, is question now pending.
and to be disposed of in the Circuit Court, by
Justice Woodbury. and Judge Ware Of Maine
Correspondents New York Posi,