The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-03-22
Government Taxation and State Authority.

Fr0m the Times.
An interesting question is now before the
Supreme Court OF the United States, growing
out of the Internal Revenue system, and involv-
ing a decision upon the limits Of jurisdiction
between the National and State Governments.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts prohibits
the sale OF liquor within her boundaries. The
United States, by their revenue laws, grant
licenses Tor such sales, under which certain
citizens OF that State, pursuing that business in
defiance of tie State laws, have been arrested
and fined by their authority.
1t is argued that the paramount right OF the
general Government to tax its subjects for its
support, implies the right to determine the
modes and objects of taxation, and that, if this
power is exercised conjontly by the State for
her own revenues purposes, the right of the lat
ter must yield in case OF conflict. This reason
ing seems 10 us to involve both an error and a
tallacy either OF which is fatal to its conclusive
ness.
In several cases before the Supreme Court, to
which States have virtually been parties, this
very question OF taxation has led to elaborate
discussions as 10 the supremacy OF the Federal
or State Governments over the citizens who are
subjects of BOTH and It has been uniformly held
that the power of raising means for lis own sup
port, being essential to every Government could
net be denied to either OF the parties TO such
controversies. That the field was necessarily
one of joint occupation and jurisdiction, and
that, from the nature of the case, reliance must
be placed on the discretion and torbearance OF
both Governments TO avoid measures which
would be mutually embarrassing OF oppressive
TO their common citizens
Under this Interpretation Of rights any State
clearly has power as to her own citizens, II her
own policy allows it, to tax any pursuit so
heavily as to drive il out of existence. What is
right or advisable in this regard is TO be resolved
by the justice and wisdom OF her legislators, not
conceded by the grace of the general Govern
ment Suppose, then, that on the ground of
public morality Massachusetts should lay upon
the sale of liquors an impost so heavy that the
addition of the excise and license lee eXacted by
the United States would amount to a prohibit
ton The Constitution, as interpreted, permits
it, and gives the National Government no con-
troll over the discretion of the State, nor any
right TO prescribe her action On the subject.
But that statement of the controversy which
represents il as one about joint rights to revenue
is merely specious The dispute is not as to
which Government shall make the most out of a
certain subject of taxation. but as to which Gov
erpment may create the subject itself. The true
point IA issue is whether the United States have
the power indirectly TO call into existence q
business whose existence Massachusetts, posi-
tiyely tOrbidsY Now nothing IS clearer than
that beyond the narrow limits OF It's granted
powers the Federal Government has no autho
rity within the several States. Allegiance and
support by the render OF military service and the
payment Of taxes, are the great dues Whlch the
citizen owes 10 the power AT WashingtOn-as u
all else, bis own State prescrbes duties anC
coniers rights in relation to his pro
perry and conduct BY her laws alone h'