Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-02-20

the consentlng presence of the State OF
California, by great outlay of labor, energy
risk and money, acquired vested rights
and became amenable to the National Sow.
ereignty, as its agency, its instrumentality
if not its creature.
Whether in virtue of all these event;
of law and of fact, the defendant becam.
technically q national corporation; o.
whether it became endowed with dua
existence-an existence by the laws O
California, and also an existence by tn,
laws of the United States las this Cour
said Il Black, 1851 in the case of a corpor
alton existing by the laws of Indiana, ant
also by the laws of Ohio, might occur) is
question rather curious than substantial, s.
regards the dominion which the Constitu
ton OF California attempts to assert.
Be the defendant the offspring, or onl,
the adopted child of the National Govern
ment, practically and legally the sam
conditions deny the right of a State t
step in and seize, appropriate or contro
the estate or endowment derived from tn
United States.
"The power to tax is the power to seize
appropriate and control therefore it is
power which may be used to destroy.
"An Act of Congress, speaking of one @
these postal and military railroads brough
into being for national purposes, declares
No act of the company, nor any law G
any State or Territory, shall impede, de
lay or prevent the said company from pei
forming its obligations to the Unite,
States DC Statutes Z. s., 573.)
THE STATES POWER LIMITED.
But before this Act, without this Act
without any Act of Congress, by virtue o
the Constitution of the United States c
proprio rigore, it was and is not within tn
power Of State to tax the organs o
agencies or instrumentalities or engineer
of the General Government, whethe
created or selected. The reported case
which establish this position are too ia
nous and familiar to need reference excep
to the pages at which they are found
(McCullough VS.. Maryland, 4 Wheaton
316. Osborn VS.. Bank of u. S., 9 Wheaton
73S. Weston VS.. Charleston, Peters, 44S
Dobbins case, 10 Peters, 135. Western
Union Telegraph Company VS. Texas, 10
L. s., 1907
The counsel, in opening for the plant
if, referred generally to these authoritie'
as instances in which the Court has sal,
that State taxation is unlawful if it de
stroys or impedes the operation of Gov
eminent agencies. / think | repeat hir
correctly; and, if so, his exposition of tn
principle affirmed is radically erroneou.
The Court never confined its denial of tn
right of the State to lay taxes on nationa
agencies to instances of taxes which de
stroyed or impeded On the contrary
said the Court through Marshall, Chic
Justice, the power to tax involves tn
power to destroy; the power to destro
may defeat and render useless the power t
create. Once concede the power to tn
State, and it may be used to impede, o
even destroy; and therefore the idea is re
pugnant to the Constitution that the su
premacy Of the General Government, an
its faculties, are subject 70 the action Of tn
States, or beholden to their forbearance
That is the argument and doctrine of tn
cases cited.
"Does it not apply exactly to this case
Gould any form or application of tn
taxing power more certainly or vital
visit this national instrumentality?
"Would any species of taxation, carrie
to given extent, more certainly tend t
impede its operations and destroy its eff
cheney and existence?
would any kind or form of taxation b
so pointed and inimical as this, unles:
perhaps that species of tax forbidden b
the commercial OR 'vagrant clause of tn
Constitution?
DIRECT TAX IMPOSSIBLE.
"a tax on passengers or freight des
tined to points beyond the State, or con
ing from points beyond the State, irrespeC
tive of the relations of the road as a Gov
eminent agent, would, as your Honor
have held, be void as tax upon foreig
or interstate commerce. A direct tax o.
traffic being thus impossible, can the Cour
suggest any form of taxation which woul
reach the vitals of defendant more surel
than that here attempted?
"Would a license tax, such as Ohio un
dertook to impose on the Bank of tn
United States, in the case of Osborne, b
more destructive?
"Would tax by way of a stamp re
quired to be put on bills of lading O
shipping bills, such as Maryland attempte,
to require of the Bank of the Unite,
States, in the case of Mccullough, be NOR
vital?
GLOW can the facilities of a railway com
pany, its right to be, and to act, and d
business, be taxed, unless they are take
by the assessment of its franchise? w
shall not hear this question answered.
THE case of Captain Dobbin, abov
cited, is doubly instructive. The learne
counsel seems to doubt whether anyone O
anything can really and efectually becom
government fundamentally by adoption
He seems to incline to think that the onl
thorough, authentic, untaxable Govern
ment agency is one specially, Originate
and exclusively created by the Unite
States. This distinction certainly deserve
attention.
captain Dobbin, at the Erie station o.
Lake Erie, commanded revenue cutter
and
90 Moved the monarch of her peopled deck
HE was an officer of the revenue marine
he was employed and paid by the Unite
States. His business was to make hi
cutter walk the waters of Lake Erie an
see that nobody with rowboat or sloo
should bring keg of brandy or barre
of whisky or beer into the States with
out coming by way of custom-house an
having the duties laid upon it.
THE CAPTAIN DECLINED TO PAY.
Pennsylvania had statute taxin
all offices and posts of profit and thi
statute looked wistfully at Captain Dobbi
because he had post Pennsylvani
asked the Captain for tax on his salar
and ne declined TO pay it. The repol
says he contested the tax on the groun
that he was an officer of the United State
The State Court said that he must pay
| and he came and asked this Court whethe
he must pay. What did this Court say
Why it went with Captain Dobbin an
| authorized him to say, much as the Cor
necticut Constable said when threatene
with arrest: Take care; stand off; don
touch me. If you touch me the Who'll
commonwealth will shaker
Now, Captain Dobbin was not create
| by Congress. He was not a corporatio
sole. As to him, there was no reserve
power in Congress to repeal, amend, ett
Before he became an ofhceholder he seem
to have belonged wholly to the State
Pennsylvania. The original purpose
his creation seems to have been that b
might support the Constitution of Penn
sylvania, and support himself. In fact,
was probably for the latter purpose thu
he entered the service of the United State