New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-15
cision of the United States Supreme
Court, published at length in the New
Orleans Times Of thu ninth instant COWS.

| OouIt, puOuSneQ at length IN the New
Orleans Times Of the ninth instant, says:
OF al! the powers conferred upon govern
ment that OF taxation is most liable to
ABUSE Given purpose or object for which
taxation may be lawfully used, and the
ettent Of its exercise is IN its very nature an
limited. 1t is true that express limitation
on the amount of tax to be levied, or the
things TO be taxed. may be imposed by con-
stltutlon or statute, but in most instances
Tor which taxes are levied, as the support of
government. the prosecution Of war, the
national defense, any limitation is unsafe.
The entire resources Of the people should. in
some instances, be at the disposal Of The goe-
| e'nme,,t.
The power to tax is. therefore. the strong
est, the most Dervading of all the powers
OF government, reaching directly or indi-
rectiy to all classes Of the people. It was
SAID BY Chief Justice Marshall, in the case
OF McCulloch We. The State Of Maryland,
wheaton, that the power to tax is the power
to destroy. lOur italics.l
We assume, therefore, that the power Of
taxation is only limited by the reserved
conditions imposed by the constitution.
Who is to judge whether this limitation
has been passed by an enactment: Surely
the tribunals appointed by the constitu-
ton. The Legislature in its power Of
repeal, and the courts in their right to
adjudicate. Why have parties in other
States resorted to the courts to decide
controverted questions Of the power to
enforce special taxes? Because in those
communities the people are not disposed
to set their opinions up as law higher
than that of the tribunal they have sworn
shall be their arbiter. in all questions Of
controverted authority. II the citizens of
Topeka had chosen 70 say with the Times:
"Our Legislatures have transgressed,
VIGOROUSLY. dagrantly. ,illainously,
the limit of their power TO levy taxes
and, therefore, we will not pay the taxes.
they would have had no need of courts of
appeal. They refused to pay the tax, and
the Supreme Court decided the tax to be
unconstitutional, in this. that the prop.
erty Of all the people could not be taken
to give special value to the property Of a |
part Of the people.
The Times thus defines its position:
What the Times thinks of the obligation |
OF the people to obey their own law and |
their own courts" is this: That the people |
are not bound to obey q law, and especially |
law which takes their property from |
them, which the Legislature is not compe. |
tent TO enact. Nor are they morally bound |
to obey such lay, though j: may be Gus
tanned by corrupt courts.
That is. if the persons charged with the
payment Of q special tax will assemble and
say we do no: believe this law binding,
because the Legislature was no: compe.
tent to enact it; if, when judgmen: had
been rendered against these taxpayers,
they should say we are not morally bound
by the judgment because it is the &C. of a
corrupt court
We askany impartial reasoner how TN.
der such doctrine could it become possible
10 convict or to confine in prison any
offender? Such doctrine would be more
fatal to penal system than hiring out
elon convicts to hunt cattle in the woods.
The higher law doctrine nullifed the
fugitive slave Law. Was any abuse of doc.
rine ever more denounced at the South?
md when at the South it was contended
hat State could Judge how far federal
aw comported with the constitution, and
uspend the operations Of that act within
be State jurisdiction. was there ever any
octrine more universally condemned at {
be North? The doctrine now affirmed l
y the Times, that if man or set Of men /
hoose to utter language Of violent decla- 7
lation against law that they do not like, +
ley are therefore authorized to resist !
r evade the operation of the law, is a I
ort OF petty larceny. higher law or penny @
utilization. 1t has no ground higher 8
ian that of personal interest to stand $
y. The higher law was advocated a
y men who fancied that God had given G.
lem peculiar capacity to judge how fer Il
le law Of the land interfered with His n
They did not remember tina. n
ey had sworn to accept the interpreta. c,
On Of legal morality at the hands of the II
'urts; that, if this decision was immoral, Il
e courts were responsible, and not O,
e citizens who obeyed their commands; Il
at if citizen did not choose to allow II
e courts to interpret for him. he had the hi
served right to expatriate himself, while h,
had no right to retain his citizenship, 90
tn reserved right to Judge how the law W
IS obligatory upon him. az
The Quakers in refusing to go to war, or Il
pay taxes for the common defense, &C. @,
pied the service of other mems bodies -
d goods in protecting themselves from an
7asion. This was the same law unto ha
and to this more than any do
ng else may be attributed the decline "a,
that simple and exemplary faith. ca,
These higher law men were fanatics, and KIN
l no apparent human motive in resist mt
!, what were regarded as the lawful ,oa
ms Of the government. VII
The nullifers were also men Of high ma
lily with exalted ideas Of the absolute TIL
ereignty Of their own State. # the the
to was sovereign party to the com. vo
It, as they claimed. if the constitution bD
treaty between sovereign States, the
ir construction that each sovereign had cb.
ght to construe compact or treaty an,
itself could not have been contro- are
ted. In the present case. however, ora
ain persons who have found rate of he;
.tion inconvenient to pay, claim tina. "a,