The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1893-11-29

"a
other than question OF me mos. arn,1'afy un "
| aud tyrannicaI exercise of power? Hnu tne
State laws providsd no remedy there misHl
be some excuse for this strelGh oi huthorIty'
but under the circumstances see none "hat'
ever. ,,,o,,
that the assessments are greater than the
.'actual value" provided for in Section %, AZ.
ticle II, OF the State Constitution, OK ina.
there Is any greater lack o. .,irad avn ~ nsr
Article TX, Section l. than exists aunous
other classes Of property. Most oi tne Int'. r,u,
roads are still assessed nuc'1 neu@ ,,u,s 10 i'm.
possible under any system Of hsseSsniehC LIN ,N
can be devised. and the supreme Court OF IIe
United States has decided that mere lnequai.
ity Is not ground for reiiel 40 ions ,va a' the
actual value fixed ~ prescribed ny Inc iaW'
The claim by the railroads that tneir prop
eriy is assessed higher than some otner prop,
crty must OF necessity be true. rms Woulu
be SO even upon the basis Of their own returns,
II was always 80 and will continue 80. Al Tue
surue time IL is lower. But. that the
ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF OUR LAWS
should be unset and tile collection or the taxes
stopped I'LL the matter can be passed upon oS
the Courts is contrary TO nll precedent
The differences between the valuation ol the
property by the roads themselves. ana lnH'
zalion il about 391A per cent; 0ut II lne mere
claim that th IL excess Is Illegal Is lnaue lne
excuse to resist payment, what Woulu u.nuo, o
the roads from returning theiI Propc,uy "a, a.
one-lIal or One-iourth Of what they nov ac
knowledge tn be It's value, or even al SloV
mile, and resist the payment OF the Daiance
upon the same ground? II the mere opin-
ion OF the receiver that the propeTty WIZ ,ax
tbus-and.so Is sufficient, must nll otner "a
payers submit to the states assessment ano
property in the hands of receiver only qe
assessed by the United States juice LUIS
Is what 1t amounts tn. The Judge VINO ~
willing to claim and exercise Jurisdiction oS
reason OF the receivership would Just az read
lily sustain this contention untll ne hau pass
ed upon IT.; and no stronger afgnn'ee1nE e1n.,r, -
needed to show that the claim OF the Couri,
to pass upon the legality OF the Tax before ~
is collected, carries train ol cuIiscq uences
that are exceedingly dangerous and contrary
to the genius OF our institutions.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
in the Federalist, page 2io, discussing the
Constitution With regard TO taxation, says
" "Although am Of the opinion that tnele
would be no real danger OF consequences W
the State governments, which seems 70 oc up ny
pretended from n power In the Union 10 con-
trol them in the leyies OF money; oecause l
am persuaded that the sense OF the people,
the extreme hazard of provoking resent
merts OF the State governments ana con VIZ ~
for local purposes, Woulo 0e
complete barrier against the oppressive use ol
such power. Yeti am willing here 10 allow
in its full extent the justice or the Ieasonlng,
which REQUIRES that the individual States
should possess IN Independent aho uncontIoi.
luble authority TO raise their own revenues
for the supply OF their own wants, aug ~
making this cone res> ion affirm thai (with the
sole exception Of duties on exports and lin-
portsl they would, under the plIu OF the con-
venlipn reIuin that AM hority in the most 40
soiule aud unqual lfird sense; ana thaI an az
tempt on the part of the National Govern.
ment To abridge Them In the exercise vi IL
would be u violent assumption CT power, un-
by any article or clause III lib Con
was written the Constitution had been rati-
fed by only four states, aud Hnniitou was
trying 10 ailuy the distrust OF the states.
Had auch y calm beenhinado lnen tne 0on-
stilution would never have been ratin?d.
In the celebrated case OF "McCullougn va.
the State OF Maryland" case whlcn deas
exhaustiveIy with the question OF taxation
by the Suites aud the power OF the unteo
States In connection therewltn,
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
said. 4th Wheaton, page 42s: 1T is :admitted
Is essential 10 the very existence OF
government, and lnny be legitlmately exer.
csed on the objects 10 which The government
AGA inst the abuse OF this power Is fouhd In
the structure Of the government Itself. In
imposing tax the Legislature acts upon lls
This ts In general sumclent
security against erroneous and oppressive |
taxation. The people of.a State, therefore,
give to their government the right OF taxing
and their property. and as the ex,
igencles OF government cannot DC lntteo IN tnSa
right, resting confidently on the Interest OF
the legislator and on the influence OF The con,
stituents over their representative TO guard
them against Its abuse"
Further on be says:
"All subjects over which the power OF
State extends are objects OF taxation"
t:The Sovereignty of State extends to ev-
erything which exists by It's own authority,
or Is introduced by It's permission"
Continuing, on page 429, he says:
"If we measure the power OF taxation re-
siding in State by the extent Of sovereignty
which The people Of Il single State possess and
can possess and confer on Its government, we
have an Intelligent standard applicable t1 ey-
cry case 10 which the power may be applied.
We have principle which leaves the power
Of taxing the perple and property OF the
;state unin paired; which leaves TO the Stale
the command OF all It's resources, ana Wnicn
places beyond its reach all those powers " which
are conferred-by the people OF the united
States on the government Of the Union, aud
all these means which are given FOR the pur-
pose Of carrying those powers into execution
We have q principle which Is Sale ior lhe
State and safe Tor the Union. We are re-
lieyed, as we ought TO be, from the cIashing
from interfering powers; from
q repugnancy between u ri ht.in one govern
ment 70 pull down what there Is an ack 1 noWi, WI
edged right In another to build up; from the
of the right OF one govern
ment To destroy what there Is right In an
other to preserve"
tax Involves the power to destroy; that the
power 10 destroy may defeat and render use
less the power to create; that there Is u plain
In confering on one government
ures OF another, which other with respect 10
those very measures, Is declared to be su-
preme over that which exercises the control
irt ..-5f.,s
PROPOSITIONS NOT TO BE DENIED"
1t may be said that we are not arguing the
rights OF the State 10 levy taxes, and that
these quotations from ChiefJustice MarahalPs
opinion are not relernlit; that no one dis.
putes The right Of the State to tax and the Su-
preme Court ack knowlrtlges that the taxes are
prior and preferred lien. But Of what use
Ia the right 10 tax without the right TO col
lect9 If the National and Slate govern
,nents are to reyolve In their separate orbits
without that "clash or sovereignty from
which we ought 10 be relieved" and from
powers" the judiciary OF the
one government should never interfere with
the Legislative and Executive branches OF
the other In this delicate matter Of taxation.
except under circumstances where both JUS
tlce and law clearly confer that power and re.
quire It's exercise. II 1.-The power to tax In.
wolves The power to Destroy" the power to
the collection OF the tax Involves the
power to starve, and thereby destr0y-a pow
er denied the National Government. But
again. 1t will be urged that the recel yer claims
that lhe tax Is Illegal, and that the Jurisdic-
tiou Of the Court extends 10 controversies be.
tween a State and The citizens OF another
Saate. thereby involving Federhl question.
This is not disputed but the injustice OF OBJ
tainipg Jurisdiction through the recelvership
TO pass ON The legality Of Lhe tax and stop Its