Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-05-05
bAAAN oOFN NhaA1-
Dictated,

STATE SOVEREIGNTY VIM
49,. DICATED- -vr -
A Strong Argument in support
wn OF State Rights.
The Doctrines of jefferson
Judge Nelson at the FrOnt-Massa-
chusetts state Rights Win the
Fight with Congress--NO Federal
Taxes on State Judges ~
The following is the opinion of the
United States Supreme Court in the case
of James Burlington, late Collector of In
ternal Revenue, plaintiff 10 error, VS.. Jo-
eeph NJ. Day, enc of the lodges of Pro
bate in Massachusetts. Mr.. Justice Mel
son delivered the
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is a writ of error TO the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Dis
trict of Massachusetts. Day, the plain
tiff in the court below, and defendant in
error, brought suit against Burlington,
Collector of the Internal Revenue, to re-
cover back $6l.51 and Interest, assessed
upon his salary in the years 1866 and
1857, as Judge of the Court of Probate
id Insolvency for the county of Barnsta-
BILE, State of Massachusetts,, paid under
protest. The salary is fixed by law and
payable out of the Treasury of the STATE.
The case was submitted to the court be-
low on an agreed statement of facts, and
upon which judgment was rendered for
the plaintiff. Ii is now here for re.ex-
animation. 1t presents the question
whether or not it is competent for Con-
gress, under the Constitution of the Uni
ted States to impose tax upon the sala-
ry of a judicial officer of State.
STATES CANNOT TAX A FEDERAL OFFICE OR
IT'S EMoLUMKETs
In the case of Dobbins VS.. The Com
missioners of Erie County DC Pet, 435, }
it was decided that it was not competent
for the Legislature of State 10 levy a
tax upon the salary or emoluments of an
officer of the United States. The deci.
sion was placed mainly upon the ground
that the officer was a means or instru-
mentality employed for carrying into
effect some of the legitimate powers of
the govern Mt, which could not be inter
fered with by taxation or otherwise by The
States, and that the salary or compensa-
ton for the service of The officer was in
separately connected with the Office; that
if the officer, as such, was exempt, the
salary assigned for his support or main
tenance while holding the Office was also,
FOR like reasons, equally exempt.
1t is conceded, in the case of McCul-
loch VS. Maryland, that the power of tax
alton by the States was not abridged by
the grant of a similar power TO the gov.
eminent of the Union; that it was re-
tanned by the States, and MAT the power
is to be ooncurrently exercised by the
two governments; ana also that there is
no express constitutional prohibition upon
the States against taxing the means CT in
strumentalities of the general govern
ment. But it was held, and we agree
properly held, to be prohibited by neces-
sary implication, otherwise the States
might impose taxation to an extent that
would impair, if not wholly defeat, the
operations Ofthe Federal authorities when
acting in their appropriate sphere. These
views, we think, sbundsntiy establish the
soundness of the decision of the case OF
Dobbs vs. the Commissioners of Erie,
! which determined that the States were
| prohibited upon proper construction OF
the Constitution from taxing the salary
| or emoluments of an officer of the gov
| eminent of the United States, and we
shall now proceed to show that upon the
same construction of that instrument, and
for like reasons, the government is pro-
hibited from taxing the salary of the jU'
dicial officers of State.
| EXCEPT AS TO GRANTED POWERS, THE STATES
sovEREIGN STILL
II is familiar rule of construction OF
| the Constitution of the Union that thC
| sovereign powers vested in the State gov
ernments by their respective constitution:
remain unaltered and unimpaired, except
30 far as they were granted to the govern
ment of the United States. That the in
tention of the trainers of the Constitution
in this respect might not be misunderstood
this rule of Interpretation is expressly de
| clared in the tenth article of the amend
ments, namely: "The powers not dele
| gated to the United States are reserved to
the States, respectively, or to the people.
! The government of the United States
therefore, can claim no powers which arr
not granted to it by the Constitution, ant
the powers actually granted must be sucf
as are expressly given, or given by neces
sary implication. The general govern
ment and the States, although both exis
within the same territorial limits, are sep
arate and distinct sovereignties, actin!
separately and independently OF eacl
other, within their respective spheres
The former, in its appropri
ate sphere, is supreme; but III,
States within the limits of thei
powers not granted, or, in the Language
of the tenth amendment, Preserved, ar
as Independent of the general govern
ment as that government within its spher'
is independent of the s sites. The rela
tons existing between the two govern
ments are well stated by the prestn
Chief Justice in the case of Lane COUNT
vs.. Oregon e Wall, 76): "B0th tht
States and the United States" he Oh
served, "existed before the Constitution
The people, through that instrument, es
tablishea more perfect union by substi
tuting a national government, acting wit
ample powers directly upon the citizens
instead of the Confederate government
which acted with powers greatly restrict
ed, only upon the States. But IN man
of the articles of the Constitution, III
necessary existence of the Safes, and
within their proper sphere, the independ
ent authority of the States are distinct.
recognized. To them nearly the whol
charge of interior regulation is commit
ted or left; TO them and 10 the people al
powers not expressly delegated to the ma
tional government are reserved"
WITHOUT STATE RIGHTS IN FULL vIGOl
THERE WILL BIB no FEDERAL OONsTITJ
TON.
Upon looking into the Constitution
will be found that but few of the art
cles'in that instrument could be carrie
into practical effect without the existenC
of the States. Two of the great depar
ments OF the government, the EXecCuV
and Legislative, depend upon the excl
else of the powers or upon the people c
the States. The Constitution guarantee
to the States republican form of GOV
eminent, and protects each against inv'
sion or domestic violence. Such hein
the separate and independent condiCiO
of the States in our complex system, s
: recognized by the Constitution, and IL
existence of which is so indispensab
that without them the general goVernmer
: itself would disappear from the family {
3 nations, 1t would seem to follow as re;
1 sonsble, if rot necessary, cons
ouence, that the means and instr
mentalities employed for carrying @
t the operations of their government
for preserving their existence and fulflir
, the high and responsible duties assign'
: to them in the constitution, should
| left free and unimpaired; should not
e liable to be crippled, much less defeate,
r by the taxing power of another govern
: ment, which power acknowledges l
D limits but the will of the Legislative bcC
I