New-York daily tribune., 1859-02-09
LAW LNTELLIGE E.NCE.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT coURr-FrH e-BefOrs

JucEe EGER.oLL.
LIABILITY or SOS-REsIDENrs TO TANATIoS-lN-
PORTANT DECISION oS coSsTITuTIoSAL LAW.
D.puns Duer ast. Wilson Small, Receiver Of Taxes, &c
The complainant is a resident and citizen % the
State sf NewJersey, and has been such resident and
citizen since the month Of January, 1855. DurGg all
that time he was, and sill is, engaged IN the business
Of banking n the City Of New York, as partner in
the firm of James G.. King 81 Sons. The defendant is
the Receiver If Taxes in aud Tor the City and County
OF New-lofk. .
The law of the State Of New-York provides that all
persons doing busless in the State Of Ne. York a.
merchants BANKERS other wise and not residents OF
the State, shall be assessed and taxed on I'll Sums In
vested in business the same ss If they were rest
dents Of the State Residents aud non'resdens, with
resp Ct 10 taxes personal property invested IN bGs
nsss in the State, are put on an eqaality.
The complainant was assessed ard taxed upon ms
porsor property invested in bis said business 10 tue
City Of New York, in the years lso1 1876 and 1917.
The amount OF these taxes is about 81 400 lie re-
fuses 10 psy the He alleges in his bill that the
law Of the State Of NewYork the substance OF which
is above set foth in violation a the Constitution OF
the United States, ard ia othersse illegal aud void.
He prsys for il junction restraining the Defendant
All others who may claim authority TO act IRON ssl-
ing any warrant or other irstrnmenf, or from t9kns
any steps for the collection OF said taxes or from levy
ing upon any goods chaitsls TO satisfy the same
Faxes are portion that each individual gives of
his property Ii order to or have the perfect
enjoyment OF the remainder. Governments are estao-
tbed for the protection Of persons aat property with.
in the limits Ct the State; ano taxes are levied 70 eua-
be the Government to afford or give such protection
They the prce consideration PAID for the pro-
lection afforded.
When the property Of al individual receives the pro-
lection Of the State by its laws, il is right that he
should afford to the State in tho way OF taxes, a
recomperse consideration for such protectoni Tor
Otherwise that protection could not De extended 70
him. Without taxes, the State would be posersss to
afford protection. And when the property OF an lndi
ydual receives tie protection OF tae n,ate, II ID
equally light that the properly protecteo, no natter
whether I DC real personal, should IN such way
yield reconpense or consideration.
The owner of property within the limits OF state,
no matter whether the property be real OF personal
and matter where the owner he's his donici, mas
right to col upon the Government OF the state 10 pro-
tect such property by is laws and i.s ofcers acting
III der suco lave But such protection cannot be az
forced unless mears by the way OF ta1es, are Tar
nisLsd TO afford the protection. And taxes are no
more TO be levied upon the property OF the resident 70
protect tie property Of the NONRESIDENT, than taxes
are to be levied upon the property OF the nonles4eII
to protect the property Of the residert
TIE property q nonresident within the limits OK
State, whether il be real or personal IS equally pro-
tsctec by the laws with tie property VI the RESIDENT
There wculi sppesr. therefore 10 be 10 good
Why il should not equally pay in taxes for such pro-
tetion DO good reason why the nonresident with tue
resident shouH not give portion ir order 70 SECURE
the perfect enjoyment Of the remsnder.
Tie laws OF New-lork Ike the laws OF all States
in the Cniop declare that ell real estate within the
State, by whOInsOtver owned, shsll be taxed The
Lave OF the State by virtue Of which the taxes IN tue
b eomplaIed OF were imposed, declare that az per-
sonsl estste invested by nonresident owner in busi
ness wtain the State and who, by sdch investing,
calls upor the State for protection TO such property,
sDal be assessed .nd taxed the came as II II were 80
invested by residents; that I'll personal property m
vested IN business rithio the State 81 81 pay ake for
the security and protection Afforded it ~ tie Govern
NEXT, ard rseCs provided bJ the lags to maxi Il
pay for srch security end protection.
nor sds0t does not Ike 20 pay for sueo feeur'
ity snd protection, he withdraw bis personal prop
cry from the STATE and thus free himself from such
poyment. There is DO law which 60 onpes hin % put
State Of which be is DOT citizen or resident. Bot
while be asks and demands protection from the laws,
there Il no coed reason why lie should nct pay tof It
10 good reason Why he shOlld demand tas, the prop
eriy Of the resident shou pay for ti ard there i no
higher law Of the United Sta which gives non-
Iesidel. rga. to demand that the property Of TIE