The union Democrat. [volume] (Sonora, Calif.) 1854-1946, 1871-05-27

FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS DEFINED.

| 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. VS.. Jo-
seph VI. Day. one Of the Judges of Probate
! in Massachusetts. The case in plain terms
is this = rhe Unied States Collector of H.
terna Revenue assessed Mr.. Day. judge OF
The State of Massachusetts. on his salary as
! Judge of the State. The assessed tax amount
ed to sixty che dollars and tifty-one cents and
interest. The case first came up before the
Circuit Court upon an agreed statement OF
facts, upon which Judgment was render
ed for Day. the Supreme Court affirms the
| decision below and adds its authority 20 main
tain the doctrine involved in the case. 1t
was taken to the Supreme Court for re.exam-
ination. The question presented was, wheth-
er or not it was competentfor Congress- under
the Constitution of the United States, to i'm
pose a tax upon the salary of a judicial officer
Ut STATE. Bat one Judge dissented, Mr..
Justice Bradley. from this decision, and it is
worthy of remark that there is sldom such an
approach to unanimity CT opinion in impor-
tant 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 he hard to find in the
judicial decisions of either the American or
British coarts one rendered in more terse.
clear or better language. The opin on was
delivered by Mr.. Justice Nelson. whom we
may well be proud of as citizen of New
York. and no doubt the credit of both the fine
composition AMI able costiutional argument
is mainly due TO him. The decision opens
with a reference to the restricted power of the
States to lay tax ucon the constitutional
means emplavei BY the government of the
Union to execute its constitutional powers.
Here the language of the Chief Justice, In
the case Of McCaiach vs. MARYLAND, is quot
ed, that IF the States may tax one instru-
ment employed by re government in the ex-
ecnsion of its powers, they may tax any and
every other instrument. They may tax the
mail they NAV tax the mint. they NAV tax
patent rights, ihey may tax Judicial process.
they may tax all the means employed by the
government to an excess which would defeat
all the ends of government This, it is
held. WAS not intended ey the people or Con-
stitutieu.
The Cnurt then proceeds in this decision to
show that the power of taxation hv the States
was no, abridged by the grant If a similar
pnwer To the government of the Union: that
it was retained by the States: and that the
power is 20 he concarrentlv exercised by the
two governments; ard. also, that there is M
express constitutional prohibition upon TIE
States against taxing the means or instru-
mentaI'tcs OF the general government. But
it was held, and. the Court SAYS. properly
held. to be prohibited hy necessary mplica-
ton; otherwise the States might impose taxa
ti"n to an extent that wouli impair. If not
wholly defeat. the operation of the federal
authorities WHEN acting IN their appropriate
spheres. The State. therefore, cannot tax.
upon proper construction of the cunstitu-
tlon The salary or emoluments of an officer of
the United States government. 1t is then a.
gaed. ny parity of reason, and as necessary
to preserve the rights and functions of The
government of the States, as well as those Of