The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1881-05-26

Il -
cash valuation of the property, and
| to s'B" S5OO,OO0 that being the money
by him loaned.
A corporation stands on the same
grounds precisely. The fact that
| the merchant has an act incorpor-
ating him does not change the prin.l
ciple nor does it change our law. : If
this 100000 be owing not to II" but
to &C. who resides in New York, the
state of New York may or may not
tax it as it pleases. !Ga
This illustration shows that IN
directly there may be a tax on the
property and also on the money
that brought the property, when dur
| ing the period above mentioned
both are in the territory, as the
same rule will hold good if "a
owns the goods but owes "B" for
the money with which he bought
the property.
The United States in their sphere
of action are sovereign and have a
right to create property and officers
and give to the states and territories
the right to tax them or to withhold
this power of taxation from the To-
cal governments. ThiS leads us to
examine the laws of the United
States so for as they withdraw prop
erty created by itself and its officers
from the state power of taxation.
1 We have looked but looked in vain
for an inhibition by the United
States on state or territorial power
of taxation ON railroads and rail-
road bonds.
The u. p. R. r. and G. p. r. r.
are railroads in this territory author
lized by the United States. But we
lido find certain laws of the United
States relating to certain classes of
property. and certain rights which
have been withdrawn from the state
and territorial power of taxation
and find others in which a limited
power of taxation is permitted.
i In 1923 the city of Charles
ton in South Carolina passed
an ordinance taxing stock of
the United States in the
hands of the residents of the city.
! One Weston having this stock, re-
| fused to pay the tax. A suit was
instituted and was taken to the SUI
preme court of the United States.
The Supreme Court held that tax
| imposed by law of any state of the
| United States under the authority
of such law on stock issued for loans
: made to the United States, is uncon-
stitutional. Weston cS. City Council
I'LL Peters reports 449. This doctrine
has never been overruled.
The case was ably argued on both
sides, and learnedly discussed by
the court. The court said-id, p.
46S-it is not the want of original
: power in an independent sovereign
state to prohibit loans to a foreign
government, which restraints the
legislature from direct opposition to
: those made by the United States.
The restraint is imposed by our Con-
stitution. The American people
have bestowed the power of borrow
ing money on their government, and
by making that goVernmentsup
have shielded its action in the exer-
else of this power, from the action
of the local governments. The grant
of the power is incompatible with a
restraining or controlling power,
| and the declaration of supremacy is
la declaration that no such restrain
ling or controlling power shall be
exercised. The result OF this doc
| trine is this: Bonds, certificates of
r indebtneSs, or other obligation of
. the United States issued for money
loaned are exempt from taxation by
the local government without the
permission of the United States.
In 1885, 1886, and 1887, one Dob
son, a resident of Erie County, Penn
sylHania, and captain of revenue
lcutter of the United States there
lstationed, was assessed by the laws
of Pennsylvania on his Office as such
captain. This tax he refused to pay
although it was less than $11. a
suit was instituted which went
from an inferior court of Penn. TO
the supreme court OF the state.
thence to the Supreme Court of the
| United StateS-See, 10, Peters Rep.
D. 435-The court held the law of
Pennsylvania unconstitutional.
This case was also ably argued on
both sides and well considered by
the court. The result of this is that
an officer Of the United States can
mot be taxed by the local govern
ments for the exercise of the office,
The court in its'opinion-p. 447-said
taxation is a sacred right, essential
to the existance of government, an
incident of sovereignty. The right
of legislation is coextensiye with the
| incident to attach it upon all per-
sons and property within the juris-
diction of a state. But in our sys-
tenn there are limitations upon that
fright. There is a concurrent right
| of legislation in the states and the
| United States except as both are re-
strained by the constitution of the
i United States. Both are restrained
upon the subject by express prohibi-
tions of the constitution, and the
states by such as are necessarily i'm
piled when the exercise of the right
by state conflicts with the perfect
execution of another sovereign
| power delegated to the United
States.
That occurs when taxation by a
state acts upon the instruments,
emoluments, and persons, which the
II
United States may use and employ
as necessary and proper means to
execute their sovereign powers.
The government of the United
States is supreme within its sphere
of action. The means necessary
and proper to carry into effect the
powers in the constitution are in
congress. Taxation is a sovereign
power in a state. dc -te.--t :
In 1916 Congress passed an act in
cooperating the United States Bank.
In 1918 the state of Maryland pass
ed an act restraining its operations
in that state. In 1919 the act Of
Maryland was brought before the
Supreme Court of the United States
see McCullock rS the State of
Maryland, Curtis Ais. The court
here held that a law of state i'm
posing a tax on the United States
Bank was unconstitutional. In
1919 the;State of Ohio passed an act,
taxing branch of that bank doing
business in that state. This law
was under consideration in the case
of Osborn as the q. S. Bank, 6 Curtis
PSI. The case was decided in the SUI
preme court in 1924. Here the
court held that state law imposing
a tax on one of the branches of .
United States Bank was unconsti-
tutional. The argument Of the court i