The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-02-09

preSeut
arscal residence Prince Napoleon about to make
Kind of museum, where amidst numerous other objects
Of art he will place all the curosities which he has col
lected In lis voy ages.
Important Decision as to the Liability OF Nom
Residents to Taxation.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Before Hon. Judge Ingersol.
FEB s.Den'ing Duer Us. Wilson Small, Receiver of
7hres dc-The complainant is resident and citizen Of
the State Of New Jersey and has been such resident and
citizen since the month Of January 1855. During all that
time he was and still s engaged in the business of bank
ing in the city Of New York, partner in the firm Of
James G. King Sons. The defendant is the Receiver Of
Taxes in and for the city and county Of New York. The
law Of the State Of New York provides that all persons
doing business IN the State Of New York; merchants
bankers otherwise and not residents OF the State shall
be assessed and taxed all invested In said bust
Residents or onresidens with respect to taxes on
sonal property invested in business in the State put
on equality The complainant was assessed and taxed
his personal property invested in his said business in
the city Of New York in the years 1885, 1855 and 1857
The amount Of these about 400 He refuses to
pay the same BE alleges in his bill that the law Of
| the State Of New York, the substance of which is
above set forth, In violation of the constitution of
the United States and is otherwise illegal and void
He prays for an injunction restraining the defend.
ant and others who may claim authority to act, from
issuing any warrant other instrument from taking
upon any goods and chates to satisfy the Taxes
portion that each individual gives of his property in
mander Governments established for the protection of
persons and property within the limits Of the State and
taxes are levied 70 enable the government to afford or
give such protection They the price consideration
paid for the protection Afforded When the person Of
individual receives the protection Of the State M laws
right that he should afford TO the State in the way of
taxes recompensc consideration for such protection
for otherwise that protection could not be extended to
him. Without taxes the State would be poweress to
M ua1
receives the protection Of the State, Il is equally right
that the property protected no matter whether be real
or personal, should in such way yield recompense
consideration The owner Of property within the limits
Of State, no matter whether the property be real
domicil, has right to call upon the government
of the State to protect such property by its laws
such protection cannot be afforded unless means bv the
way Of taxes are furnished to afford the protection And
nss no e the q
taxes are 10 be levied upon the property Of the resi-
dent to protect the property Of the resident The proper
be real or personal is equally protected by the laws
with the property Of the resident There would appear
therefore, to be good reason why it should equally
pay in taxes for such proeconno good reason why the
RESIDENT with the RESIDENT should not give portion
order to secure the perfect enjoyment Of the remainder
The laws Of New York, like the laws Of oil the States
the Union declare that all real within the State by
whomsoever owned shall be taxed The laws Of the State
by virtue of which the taxes the bill complained of
imposed declare that all personal estate invested by
nonresident owner In business within the State land who
oy suon investing Ca upon e S.a;e ios protection to
invested by residentsthat all personal proper
~ invested in business within the State shall pay alike for
the security and protection afforded by government and
provided by the laws to make pay for such
security and protection. nonresident does not like
draw his personal property from the State and thus free
himself from such payment There 10 no law which
pes him to put his property under the protection of the
laws Of State Of which he Ia not citizen resident.
But while he asks and demands protection from the laws
there no good why he should not pay for IT,
good reason why he should demand that tho property
Of resident should pay for it, And there higher
law of the United States which gives non resident right
r e nns ne 50pey q tine citizen
" of the nonresident citizen. The equal mmunites aud
privileges secured 70 ctizens Of each State in the seve
raj states does not demand such requirement this
With respect to real estate, the resident with
draw from the State, il he does not like the Ia VS.
but is compelled to lei remain within the limits of the
state where It is taxed The superior law Of the United
States which forbds the imposition of duties by State
upon property Imported from foreign country does
not forbid the State, after II has been imported
and has become mixed with other property in
the State, and thereby requires the protection OF the
laws OF the sate from exercising the right require
that such property by whomever may be owned should
pay Tor the protection afforded it, II is admitted by the
compalnantthat the real estate OF non resident is liable
TO pay in taxes for the protection afforded by the State;
and the chief reason urged why personal estate is SUBJ
ec to the same rule is that the rule Of Is that per-
sona estate follows the person of the owner and that
therefore may be taxed in the State where the owner is
domced. There is allegation In the bill that the per-
sona estate Of the complainant invested by him in bust
ness within the State has been taxed in New Jersey the
State Of his domicl But If it - taxed would not
follow that 1t could be taxed in the state where
actually was and where protection actually afforded
it, If non resident Of real estate should be taxed
In the state OF his domc assessment of what he
was worth which included the value of the real estate
which he owned in another State, II he should be
sessed upon his income which included the rent Of such
real estate that would be good why the State in
which the real estate was and which actually affords the
protection OF s laws to H. and by which protection he
would be enabled receive rent lid not have ha right
to compel such estate to contribute expense and
personal estate According 10 the rule Of law II follows
with all other personal property the person Of the owner
such Stock whether owned by resident OF nonresident,
is Usually taxed the State where the bank is located 1t
believed that laws taxing ouch stock not obnoxious
10 the charge being opposed to any constitutional law
either state national 1t would seem 70 be enough that
the property Of RESIDENT whether that property be
READ or personal should be put upon an equality in res
poet 10 axaton with the property Of resident, without
requiring that should have greater privileges "The
taxing power Of State s Of its attributes of
rcgnty, and where there has been no combat with the
federal government ccsson Of jurisdiction for the pur
poses specified In the constitution this power reaches all
the property and business within the State
louisiana, Howard, p. So In the Of Catlin VS.
Hall q Vermont, 1852, II held that the personal pro-
perty Of the resident State where he not do
mcilcd, might be taxed in such latter State. The law Of
New York prcscribes that the the personal estate
Of such onrcsidehs may be collected from the pro-
pery Of the firm persons or associations 70 which they
eeverally belong" II 10 not necessary 10 consider this
portion Of the law which has been argued by the
plainant No one but the complainant complains Of H.
King and the other individuals Of the Arm Of which the
complainant Ia member could Justly complain Of this
particular mode presented for the collection Of the
against the complainant II should be attempted 10 be
followed on the ground that s Objectionable, as being
plant by this bill. They may never have cause Of
complaint They not parties 10 this BILL The qucs-
ton has the complainant any just Of complaint
20 this law, TO tho In which the has been
assessed against his personal property IN the State by
virtue Of s provisonaf Tho question h, he resist
the paymentY portion Of Law may be invalid, while
another portion Of tits valid An invalid provision Of
law will mot AFFECT another and distinct portion which