The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-04-28

lmpersaae DccisIss Of the DATED ssates
Supreme CONSTITUTIONAL and State Powers
Dc0aod.
There has not been given, probably, more
important decision by the Supreme Court of
the United States than that just delivered in
the case of James Burlington, late Collector of
Internal Revenue, plaintiff in error, va.
Joseph M. Day, one of the Judges Of Probate
in Massachusetts,. The case in plain terms is
this The United States Collector of Internal
Revenue assessed Mr.. Day, judge of the
State Of Massachusetts, on his salary as Judge
of the State. The assessed tax amounted to
sixty one dollars and fifty cents and in
terest. Judge Day paid the assessment
under protest. The case first came up
before the Circuit Court upon an agreed
statement Of facts, upon which judg-
ment was rendered for Day. The Supreme
Court afirms the decision below and adds its
authority to maintain the doctrine involved in
the case 1t was taken to the Supreme Court
for REORGANIZATION. The question presented
was, whether or not it was competent for Con-
gress, under the constitution Of the United
States, to impose tax upon the salary Of
judicial officer of State. But one Judge dis
sented, Mr.. Justice Bradley, from this decision,
and it is worthy Of remark that there is seldom
such an approach to unanimity of opinion in
important decisions of the Supreme Court
when involving the constitutional or political
power of the government.
The argument of the Court is cogent and
logical, and it would be hard to find in the judi
cial decisions Of either the American or British
courts one rendered in more terse, clear or
better language. The opinion was delivered
by Mr.. Justice Nelson, whom we may well be
proud of as a citizen of New York, and no
doubt the credit of both the ine composition
and able constitutional argument is mainly
due to him. The decision opens with
reference to the restricted power of the
States to lay tax upon the constitutional
means employed by the government of the
| Union TO execute its constitutional powers
Here the language of the Chief Justice, in the
case of McCulloch vs.. Maryland, is quoted
that ''if the States may tax one instrument
employed by the government in the execution
Of its powers they may tax any and every
other instrument. They may tax the mail,
they may tax the mint, they may tax patent
rights, they may tax judicial process, they
may tax all the means employed by the gov
eminent to an excess which would defeat all
the ends of government" This it is held, was
not intended by the people or constitution.
The Court then proceeds in this decision to
show that the power of taxation by the States
was not abridged by the grant of similar
power to the government of the Union; that
it was retained by the States, and that the
power is to be concurrently exercised by the
two governments and, also, that there is no ex-
press constitutional prohibition upon the States
against taxing the means or instrumentalities
of the general government. But 1t was held,
and, as the Court says, properly held, to be
prohibited by necessary implications otherwise
the States might impose taxation to an
extent that would impair, if not wholly de-
feat, the operation of the federal authorities
when acting in their appropriate spheres. The |
States, therefore, cannot tax, upon proper |
construction of the constitution, the salary or |
emoluments of an officer of the United States
reason, and as necessary to preserve the
rights and functions of the government Of the
States, as well as those of the federal govern
ment, that the general government is pro-
hibited from taxing the salary Of the judicial
officers of State. The power TO do SO is not
expressly granted to the United States, and,
as the Court says, it is a familiar rule Of con-
Sc %yo<t
powers vested in the State governments by
their respective constitutions remain unal-
tered and unimpaired, except 80 far as they
are granted to the government of the United
States. That the intention Of the trainers Of
the constitution IN this respect might not be
misunderstood this rule of Interpretation is
expressly declared in the tenth article Of the
amendments 1.-THE powers not delegated to
the United States are reserved to the States,
respectively, or to the people" The general
government and the States, although both
| exist within the same territorial limits, are
separate and distinct sovereignties, acting
separately and independently Of each other,
within their respective spheres. The former,
in its appropriate sphere, is supreme but the
States within the limits Of their powers not
granted, or, in the language of the amend
ments, reserved" are as independent of the
general government as that government within
| It's sphere is independent of the States.
| One of the instrumentalities or means Of the
| State governments belonging TO them, and ne
cessary for their internal affairs, over which
the federal Union has no power, is the
| judicial department, and the appointment
of officers to administer the laws. 1t
is held that for the sake of self-preservation
of the States and their rights, and to preserve
unimpaired the functions of the State judiciary,
| iha radaraI povarnmant haa mt tha powor ar