The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-04-09
Ghe9atelIfaerrter
Taxing Property Outside OF the
Stnte.

NANNHNNAHA ANNAAAAAAHHARhNN We NSs ~ ANENN~
nue., that appeared in the March number
OF the ALlpltic Monthly in regard to the
proper subjects and functions Of State
taxation. We took occasion to illustrate
his position in regard to the powers OF a
State to tax property outside Of its limits
by referring to the fact that in West Vir-
gnia, land in several other States also) 1t
wa, the law that all personal property
owned by a citizen Of this State, whether
situated in or out Of the State, must be
returned for assessment in the assessors
district wherein he resided, no odds II
said citizen could produce tax receipt
showing that certain property situated in
OhiOOr Pennsylvania had paid taxes in
those States. We referred to the fact that
the Auditor had ruled, under this law,
that stock in furnace, iron mill, or glass
factory on the Ohio side Of the river,
owned by citizen Of this State, must be
returned by said citizen to tho assessor Of
his district on this side, no odds II the
company in which he held stock had paid
the State, county and municipal taxes on
the other side that were chargeablc upon
the property Of the company
The effect OF this Law Of West Va, Is
tOsubjecta number Of people to double
taxation, and that too In the face Of Sec
lat Article X Of the Constitution which
declares that "taxatiOn shall be equal
"and uniform throughout the State, and
"all property, both real and personal,
"shall be taxed nproportion to It's value,
ITO bc ascertained as prescribed by law.
"No one species Of property from which
IN tax may he collected, shall be taxed
higher than any other species OF pro-
'perty Of equal value"
The point madein connection with this
citation from the Constitution was this,
that whereas Real Estate situated In m
other State, and owned by citizen Of
West Virginia, need not be returned for
taxation here, yet personal property
similarly situated must be returned.
The question was asked how this could
be legally done In view Of the explicit
language that we have quoted above from
the Constitution. No one has yet answer
ed this question, and wcpresnmo it would
be difficult to reconcile our tax law
with the Constitutional provision re-
icrred to. .
We observe that Mr.. Wells is still
writing on this subject Of cxtra-tcrri-
torial taxation. lie has published u long
letter in the New York Ercniag RaA in
which he quotes u number Of decisions by
the Supreme Court Of the United States
on the subject. Here Is one from 10th
Wallace, page 800, that seems to he quite
pointed;
"rPropcrty lying beyond the jurisdiction
of the State Il not u subject upon which
her taxing power can be legitimntely ex-
ercised. Indeed, II would seem that no
adjudication should be necessary TO cstab-
lisl 80 obvious n proposition"
Another decision quoted by Mr.. Wells
is from lth Wheaton, page 400, in the
case Of McCulloch rs. the State Of Mary
land, In which Chief Justice Marshall
held that
All subjects over which the sovereign
power Of n State extends are objects OF
taxation; but those over which 1t does not
extend are upon the sOundest principles
exempt from taxation.
On the l9Gth page Of the same volume
is n decision in the case Of the United
States "a. Rice, which declares TINT the
right and power to tux arises solely from
Jurisdiction over the property and the cor
relative duty to protect the property.
Again, in the case Of Green rs. Van BUS
kirk (7th Wallace, page 1907, the sh'
prcme Court held that
II now New York cannot compel the
personal property Of Bates one OF her
cititens) In Chicago to contribute to the
expenses Of her government, and II hates
had the legal right TO own such properly
there, and was protected IN It's ownership
by the laws Of The State; and as the power
10 protect implies the right to regulate. 1t
would seem to follow that the dominion
Of illinois over the property was com
plete.
These quotations show, first, that a
State cannot tax property owned by one
Of its citizens which Is situated outsidco ol
itslimits. Under these rulings Mr.. Wells
holds that II resident Of West Virginia
owning property in Ohio, had judgment
rendered against him for taxes on that
property In both States, he can carry the
question by writ Of error to the United
States Supreme Court, and says Mr.. Wells
Uthere will he no more possibility Of llis
being obliged to pay both Of these judg-
ments than there would be Of his being
obliged to pay thirty-eiglt similar jndg'
menls entered In each Of the thirty-eight
States in the same cause Of action for the
same debt" He adds;
The constitutional question here refer,
ed to did really arise IN the celebrated
ease Of Green against Van Buskirk < y
Wallace, 1897, In which the Court held
that Judgment rendered in Illinois tln-
der an attachment Of property having an
actual Niius there must prevail against a
conflicting Judgment rendered In New
York, based upon the fiction Of law that
personal property follows the person,
although all the parties to both suits were
citizens and residents Of the State Of New
York; or In other words, this decision
settles the question that actual Mius gives
absolute dominion or jnrisdiction over
property, and absolute dominion must
nnqueslionably carry with II absolute
power Of oiexclnsive taxation or any other
constitutional exercise Of dominion.
Tprnado at EIinbnfg, 1llinois..::
Church lIlOWn DOWiiss.Fntnl