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


officer is means or fundamentally en-
| ployed to carry into execution enc of its |
most important functions, the admins
tration of the laws, and which concerns |
the exercise of right reserved to the |
States We do not say the mere cireum- |
stance of the establishment of the judicial |
department and the appointment of Off |
GERS to administer the laws, being among
the reserved powers of the State, disables |
the general government from leyying the
tax, as that depends upon the express
power ssto lay and collect taxes" but it |
shows that it is an original inherent pow
er never parted with and in respect to
which the supremacy of that government
does not exist, and is of no importance in
determining the question; and further that
being an originaland reserved power, and
the Judicial officers appointed under itbeiDg
means of ms rumentalIty employed to
carry it into effect, the right and neces-
sity of its unimpaiIed exercise and the
exemption of the lficer from taxstion by
the general g venment, stand upon as
solid ground and are maintain d by pfin-
ciples and reasons as cogent as those
which led to the exemption of the Fed
erai officer, in Dobbins VS.. the Commits
sioners of Erie, from taxation by the
| Stat; for, in this respect-tbat is, in rc-
spect to the reserved powers-the State
is as sovereign and Independent as tie
| general government, and if the means ard
instrumentalities employed by that gov
| eminent to carry into operation the
| powers granted to it are necessarily and
| for the FAKE of self preservation exempt
from taxation by the States, why are not
those of the States, depending upon their
reserved powers for like reasons, equally
exempt from Federal axstion2 Their
unimpaired existence in the one case is as
essential as IN the other.
| POWER OF MISREPRESENTATION OF NO USE
TO STATE IL CONGRESS MAY TAX IT TO
DESTRUCTION.
II Is admitted that there is no express
provision in the constiiioH that prohibits
the general government from taxing the
| mesns and iEstIumentalities of the
States; nor is there any prohibiting the
States from taxing the means and inst1I-
mentalities of that government. Of what
avail are these means if another power
bcA tAOA1 az NAoNlSbhObE l1ub We olO
! referred to the Veazle Bank VS.. Fenno. s
Wall, page 533, in support of this power
of taxation. That case furnishes strong
Illustration of the position taken by the
Chief Justice in McCulloch vs. Maryland,
namely, that the power to tax involves
the power TO destroy. The power invOl-
we'd was one which had been exercised by
the States since the foundation of the
government, and had been, after the lapse
of three quarters of a century anhihilated
from excessive taxation by the general
government, just IS the judicial Office
in the present case might be if subject at
all to tsxa'ion by that government. But
notwithstanding the sanction of this tax
a.ion by majority of the court, it is
cOnCedt in the opinion that the reserved
rights of the States, such as the right to
pass laws, TO give effect to laws through
ex' cutive acton, TO administer justice
through the court, and 10 employ all
necessary sgencies for legitimate purposes
of State government are not proper cub
jects Of the taxing power of Congress.
The concession covers the case before us,
and adds the authority of this court in
support of the doctrine which we have en-
dIayored to msintain. The judgment of
the court blow is affirmed.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE BRADLEY.
Mr.. Justice Bradley, dissenting, deliv-
cred the following:
dissent from the opinion of the court
in this case, because it seems to me that
the general government has the same
power of taxing the income of officers of
the State governments as il has of taxing
that of its own officers. 1t is the com
mon government of all alike, and every
citizen is presumed to trust his own gov
i eminent in the matter Of taxation. No
man ceases to be citizen of the United
States by being an officer under the State
government. | cannot accede to the doc
trine that general government is TO be re-
garded SIS in any sense foreign or autag0-
nistic Of the State governments, their
officers or people; nor Can | agree that q
presumption can be admitted that the
general government will act in manner
hostile to the existence of functions of
the State governments, which are con
stItuent parts of the system or body poll
tic, forming the basis on which the gen
eral government is founded. The taxa
ton by the State governments of the in
struments employed by the general gov
eminent in the exercise of It's powers is
a very different thing. Such taxa
ton involves an interference with the
powers of a government in which other
States and their citizens are equally in
terested with the Safe which imposes the
taxation. In my judgment the limita-
ton OF the power of taXstiOn in the geL-
eral government which the present decir
sion establishes, will be found very diff
cult of control. Where are we to stop
in enumerating the functions of the State
governments which will be interfered
with by Federal taxation If State in
corporate rsilrosdSto carry out its pur-
poses of internal Improvement, or bank
to aid its financial arrangements, reserv-
: ing, perhaps, percentage on the stock
and profits for the supply of It's own
treasury, will the bonds or stocks of such
an institution be free from Federal taxa
ton? How can we now tell what the
effect of this decision will be2 l cannot
but regard it as founded on q fallacy,
and that it viii lead to miscLievOus con-
sequences. am as much opposed as any
man csn be to any interference by the
general government with the just powers
of the State government. But 10 con-
cession of any of the just powers of the
general government can easily be recalled.
I therefore consider it my duty to al
least record my dissent, when such con
cessiOn appears TO be made. An extended
discussion of the subject would answer