Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-03-01

ElrSt, Inat tile occupation OF the town az
Beaufort was the occupation of a phi lie
enemy OF the State, and that for the tina
of its continuance he cannot now be II ade
liable to pay taxes for business whicl, bo
carried on while under the dominion of tho
enemy Secondly, He contends that no
was licensee of the Federal Government
that as such he supplied the army and the
country, within the Federal lines, with pro
visions, &C., and that to tax his business
would be to tax the means employed in
part by the United States Government for
the suppression of the rebellion
In support of his first position, nndar
this objection. the counsel relies on tLo
case of the "United States Us. Rice. Wheel
Rep. 246-(4 Curtis 391.) During the war
of the United States with Great Britain
which commenced in 1872, the enemy can
tured the port of Castene in the State nf
Maine, and held possession of and exercised
complete dominion over it until the treaty
OF peace between the two countries in 1916,
when 1T was restored to the United States
During its occupation by the enemy cool
we're imported into it, which, after the way
were held not to be liable to the dnties i'm,
posed by the United States Revenue
laws. Such goods at the time of their
importation were not imported into the
United States, and hence upon the Do
per construction of its Revenue laws
they were held not to be liable to pay du-
ties. The sole question in the case was las
was correctly said by the counsel for the
State) one of construction only, aud can
not be used as an authority for any other
purpose. 1t does not decide or pretend to
decide, that after the territory was restored
to the United States in 1915, the State of
Maine might not have taxed the property
and business of its inhabitants in the same
manner as it taxed the other citizens of
the State. But admitting, for the sake of
the argument, that the law is otherwise
then we say, that the case is not at all, in
principle, the same with the one before us.
To make it so, is to concede that the State
of North Carolina had II right in 1861 to
secede from the United States, and there
by become an independent nation for IN
such case it must be admitted that "A cap
ture of portion of her territory by the
United States in the war which enSued
won d have been conquest by foreign
enemy. But such right of secession was
repudiated by the first ordinance of the
Convention of 1865, and the attempted act
IF secession in 1861 was declared to have
been at all times nullandvoi The capture
Of Beaufort by the military force of the Uni
ed States was not, therefore, the conquest
by foreign enemy of the territory OF the
State of North Carolina, but merely the
suppression of the rebellion in that part Of
the State, and when afterwards the State
was rehabilitated, its loyal Government was
restored to all it's former powers nm
changed, including its power of taxation
over all its inhabitants in every part Of It's
territory. This view is fully sustained by
the opinion of Judge Sprd9ue Ill the case
of the Amy Worbeck, before the United
States District Codrt of Massachusetts, and
by that of Judge Nelson, of the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the matter
of Jones Egan on a writ of h0be0S corpus.
The second position under the last OBJ
lection is equally untenable. The defend.
ant was certainly not an officer Of the Uni
ted States. He did not hold any commits
sion under that Government nor receive
any pay by way OF salary or otherwise from
it. He was merely acting under Il license
from the authorities of the general gov
eminent, which enabled him to trade on
his own account aud for his own profit, with
the officers and soldiers of the army, and
with the people ofthe surrodndingconntry.
For this privilege he was indeed required
to pay q tax to the United States, but that
did not prevent his liability to pay another
tax to the State. NcCWl0ch rs. .ShHr
Of MayLnnd,- ubi supra. The same
principle has, we understand, been re-
Gently decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States in what are
called the liquor and lottery cases. ii
the defendant can be considered in any
proper sense an agent of the general gov
eminent, yet his emolument as such is liza
BILE TO State taxatian. Hecannot be regarded
in better light than clerk in postofiice,
and it has been decided by the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts, that the income Of
such clerk derived from his employment
as such, is taxable by the State. Meicher rs.
CHy Of Boston, 9 Met. 73 That case was
distinguished from DObbi1S as. Commission
erS Of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435, in which a
tax upon the "office" of Captain in the
United States Navy by statute Of Penn
sylvania, was held to be contrary to the
Federal Constitution. The Massachusetts
Courts intimate that the decision in Dob
bins case might have been different had
the tax been imposed upon the income in
stead of the - office" of the party How
ever that might be, it is certain that the
present defendant cannot claim any immu-
nifty from State taxation on the ground Of
his having been an officer of the United
States. The Judgment of the Court below
is believed to be right and must be al
frmed. WILLIAM H. BATTLE.
Mr. N. p Willis's last letter was the fol-
lowing, published in the Home JOu7wal--
He who could write such letter under
such circumstances is true man after all
SICK Room IDLEwILD,
December 4, 1866.
Dear Philips-The promptness and eff
cheney and devotion with which you sprang
to my side on the doctors announcing me