The New York herald., 1851-08-01

for an lpjunc tion.--The United States or Sc fled
bill for an injunction against George Weise, the
respondent q collector Of taxes in Cumberland
county, who has seized upon the property Of the
government and her officers, intending to sell it, for
the purpose OF eying certain taxes assessed against
.lbe United States garrison or barracks, near the
town of Carlisle
A the parties prefer that the complainants
should have their remedy, Gf entitled TO any,) in
this form OF action, rather than by action Of tres
pass, no question has been made as to its prcproty
There are no fa:ts in dispute in the case, and it
has therefore ensubmtted on the bill and answer
The respondent presented the following assessment
bill Of taxes to the officers of the garrison -
UNITED STATES GARRISON TAX.
County tax ..,.,.................Sb Sbz w
Sta'e 'aA '''''''''''''''''''''''' % W
Cari;s1s lima !: is,i :"
On the refusal Of payment, the respondent pro.
ceeded to levy and seize upon cert Ain property of
the government, and tho military officers, then occu
pying the garrison or barracks.
The three following questions have been pro.
pounded by the learned counsel, as properly raised
By the case before U.S.
i. Has the State power to tax tho forts, navy
yards, customhouse, mint, garri5ons other prop
erty Of the United States, used for the necessary
purposes and operations of government
II. Granting that the State has such power or
right can it be enforced by levying and seizng the
personal property Of the United States, and their
officers and servants
Ill. Has the State Of Pennsylvania authorized the
assessment of taxes on such property!
LIST. The first question here proposed has been
the subject of much discussion Of late. 1t has been
twice argued before the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted states, but remains undecided; and the pre-
sent case can be decided without expressing my
opinion upon this point, prefer to remain uncom-
mitted by my public expression Of it, till it shall
again be brought before the Supreme Court and
fully argued.
governments have no right to tax any of the con-
stitutional means employed by the government Of
the nion to execute its constitutional powers. -
lSee Mccullough VS.. Maryland; Wheaton, 3l6;
Warton vs.. the City Council Of Charleston, Pc
tiers, 4i9) That the mint, navy yards arsenals,
&C., are "means or ins truments" Of this descrip-
tion, cannot be denied. 1t follows necessarily that
ajax imposed upon these instruments, or means, as
such, by State, would be illegal But it is contend
cd that, although State cannot tax "mint or
navy yard" Of the United States, nonine yet
that, where the jurisdiction the land which
they arc erected has not been ceded still remains
subject to all the duties and burdens to which it is
liable in the hands Of individuals or private cor
porations. But however this may be, ii does not
follow, as necessary consequence, that whore
state has legally imposed tax on lands used for
forts, 81, that the payment Of such tax may he en-
forced by distress or seizure Of the personal pro-
perty Of the United states government or its Of
I'd The government Of the Union is emphati-
ealy and truly governmen. Of the people. In
form and in substance 1t emanatcs from them. Its
powers are granted by them, andare to be executed
directly on them and fer their beneft"-"a and this
government, though limited in its powers, is su-
preme within its sphere Of action II the several
powers entrusted to and exercised by the United
states and state governments were executed by one
sovereign or government, it would be an absurdity
to tax the public property, or means used to exc
ther What would be gained by taxing mint or
ortifcation, built and sustained by public taxes in
order to build court house other public build
ng or institution erected andsustaned by he same
=. u - Il
Of taxation should exist where the people have
distributed these sovereign powers to two distinct
governments? But suppose II to exist, could il be
tolerated that either Of these soveregns, TO whom
these powers were. entrusted, should treat the
other as mere private corporationl That one
should seize, distrain, or levy on the public pro-
perty in possession aud used by the other That
the United states should tax the State flou1 at
use 10y the Legislature Of Pennsylvania Or that
county or township tax collector should levy on
the cannon ip fort, the bullion in the mint, or the
soldiers horse and arms! What an absurd conflict /
would thus lie exhibited, where one ann Of power.
exercised for the benefit Of tho people, should thus
lie employed to paralyze another .!
Whatever, therefore, may be the power a,d right |
Of State TO tax all land within her territory and
make 1t contribute 10 the burdens Of the State il
cannot enforce the payment Of them from the United
states by seizing the personal property or means
used by the general government in performance Of |
the duties and in execution Of the powers entrusted
United States are sovereign, ard cannot be treaed
by the States as mere corporation, citizen, or
Stranger and subjected TO distress and execution
for claims, real or pretended, by every county and
township officer. II the state OF Pennsylvania has
any just demands against the government Of tho
United States for the use of her soil, recourse may
be had to Congress, 10 whom an appeal for justice
can be successfully made, especially when the ap-
sity for th. bun liating spectacle Of petty officers
of State distraining levying the public pro-
pery Of the general government, and treating Il
: Petty corporation or an insolyent or absconding
Fer this reason alone, the court would feel iusti
led in decreeng the Injunction in this case to be
ma perpetual but We deem II proper to yindi-
ate the State of Pennsyl ,ania from the charge Of
lsying authorized any Of her officers to assume
he power which the respondent claims a rigts to
execute.
Sd. The fact that the Legislature Of Pennsylva-
lia intended 20 authosire the taxation Of the
CIV acres Of ground occupied and used by the go.
iernment Of the United States, for mint, GUS
ON house, navy yard, arsenal, and hlrracks,
las heretoioIe betn assumed, but, to my mind, has
bot been satisfactorily proved Ii is true, 1t viii
rot suffice for me 10 say that do not believe (as
10 not) that such an intention entered into tho
mind OF any member ofthe Legislatures who enact
~ these tax laws The intention Of tho law-nslxor
60 be discovered only from tho face ofthe statute.
nd BY fair and liberal cons, ructon Of its terms
The act Of 18th Of April, 1891. Tor laying county
ates and leyies, and that Of 18th Of April, 1871,
'hich makes provision for state tax. do not differ
ery materially in their enumeration Of the subjects
4 taxation. But, ~ the latter is evidently In
ended TO be the most stringent and comprehen-
i've, IL will be sufficient II show that il does
ct, on proper construction Of its language,
ecessaTily include lands used by the United States
Dr the public benefit, as IN ans Of executing the
overs entrusted 20 them by the people.
The terms of this act are. " All real estate, TO
NJ, houses. lands lots OF ground and ground ronts,
liils manuiactories Of all kinds, furnaces forges,
loomeres, distillcres, sugar-b suses, malt houses,
ieweres, tan-yards, fisheries and ferries, wharvos,
nd all other real estate not exempt by law from
Axation."
Nov, u cannot be denied that the mint, tie navy
ard garrison, Sc. are "real estate" and that the
ord land, in its widest legal acceptation, might
lclude them. But need not cite cases 90 show
70 injustice and absurdty that would often arise
on sirninr nrnrr Wnrn of ainlnfn In N. nLsn