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

zzrza "a eAaxf-ss
other than question OF the most arbitrary
and tyrannical exercise OF power" Hau lne
| State laws provided no remedy There mlgn'
| be some excuse for this stretch OF authority
bnt under the circumstances see none what
ever. .,,o,,r,
that the assessments are greater than the
.'actual value" provided for In Section Or, ar.
ticle III, of the State Constitution, or thai
there is any greater lack of uniform anu
equal ra.e" OF assessments tR 8s required uhuer
| Article TX, Section ]. than exists among
other classes OF property. M)st Oh the rhii'
roads are still assessed much neloW tGe,i
value "Uuiform and equal TAXATION is iiii,
possible under any system Of assessment t,ihl
can be devised. aud the Supreme C',urt Oh tne
| United States has decided thai mere lnequal'
ity is not ground for relief 50 long Us .he
assessment Is not claimed 10 9e aovYe IL tue -,
actual value fixed as prescribed by the law,
The claim by the railroads That lneiI prop-
eriy is assessed higher than some other prop,
erty must Of necessity be true. rms Wouiu
| II was always so and will continue 80. AL Tie
snine time IT Is lower. But, That the
ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF OUR LAWS
should be upset and the collection OF the taxes
stopped Till the matter cail be i"lsseu upoo W
The Courts Is contrary u hll precedent
The difference betweu the valuation Oh tne
property by the roads themselves, ana tnai
fixed by The State Railroad Bonrd oi Equals
zatlon IL about 33A per cent; bnt !! tno n'e.e Ere
cluim that this excess Is Illegal is made the
excuse 10 resist payment, what Wouio hlnoer
the roads from returning their properly al
one-hal + or one-iourth OF what they now e,oa nc
knowledge to belts value, or even ~ faUo ~ a
mile and resist the payment OF the oaiance
upon the same grOnnu? IT the mere oplu-
lou OF tine receiver that The property is worth
thus-and-so IS sufficient, must all otneI laA,
payers submit to the States assessment apo
mr. IN a
assess ed BY the United States JUDGE? rms
Is what 1t amounts 10. The Judge VINO is
willing TO claim and exercise jurisdiction Dy
reason Of the recelvership would JuSt as reaa an.
ily sustain this contention until he hno pass
ed upon It.; and no stronger argument ~
needed to show that the Claim OF the Court,
10 pass upon the legality OF the tax before "
is collected, carries train OF cnnseqn nences
that are exceedingly dangerous anu cohIraFy
TO the genius of our institutions.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON,
In the Federalist, page 249, discussing the
scope and power Of the States unoer the
with regard to taxation, says
+" although am OF The opinion that tnere
would be no real danger OF consequence 70
the State goyernmen ts which seems TO be ap-
pretended from power In the Union 10 con-
troll them In the leries OF money; because
am persuaded that the sense oi the people,
the extreme hazard OF PROVOKING 'o reseas
tiou OF tho utility and necessity OF l1cai ao
for Iocll purposes, would oe q
barrier against the oppressive use Oh
such power. Yet L am Wiling mere W a,iom
which requires That the 1ndiFiduai Stales
should POSSESS an Independent and uncontrol-
liable authority " raise their own revenues
for the supply OF Their oTn Wants; thnt I1 ths
sole exception OF duties on exports ana lm-
portsl they would, under the plan OF the con-
ventiuu, retain that authority IN the most ao.
soluie and unquaiifird sense; anu .nas uarnr an al
lnent tU abridge THEM In the exercise VI IL
would be u violent assumption CT power, un-
by any article or clause 10 lis Con-
sIitution." -.
may remark In passing that when ibis
was written the Con. .tltution had been raul
fied by only four states, and Hamilton was
trying TO allay the distrust OF the states.
Had such . calm beensmade then me Con-
stItution would never have been ratified.
In the celebrated case OF "McCuilougn vs.
The State or Maryland" u case which oeas
sx xhaustivey with the question OF taxation
Dy The States and tile power CT tne Un!teo
states In connection herewith,
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
said, 4th Wheaton, page 42s: ut is !admitted
hat The power OF taxing the people and their
is essential TO The very existence OF
and mny be legitimately exer.
,ised on the objects to which the government s,,
against the abuse OF this power Is fouhd IN
.be structure OF the government ITSELF. In
imposing tax the Legislature acts upon lts
This is 10 genera! q sumclent
security against erroneous and oppressive
taxation. The people OF State, therefore,
give to their government the right or taxing
and their property. and as the e1,
gences OF eanaot ;ha De ~ iS;a
right, resting confidently on the Interest OF
The legislator and on tho influence OF the con:
stituents over their representative TO guard
them against It's abuse"
Further on he says:
"All subjects over which the power OF a
State extends are objects OF taxation"
And again:
arythlng which exists by It's own authority,
or IL introduced by It's pern,ission."
Continuing, on page 40, he says:
"If we measure the power OF taxntion re- |
which the people OF single State possess and
can possess and confer on Its governmen we
have an intelligent standard applicable to ev- |
cry case 10 which the power may DO applied.
We have principle which leaves the power
Of taxing the people and property OF the
State unimpaired; which leaves TO the State
The command of all Its resources, and which |
places beyond lts reach p'l those powers which |
are conferred by the people OF the United
states on the government Of the Union, and
all these means which are given for the pur-
pose Of carrying those powers into execution
We have principle which ~ safe Tor the
state and safe for the Union. We are re-
Iieved, as we ought to be, from the clashlng
from interfering powers; FROM
q repugnancy between Il righrin one govern
ment TO pull down what there is an cknoWi. |
edged right In another To build up; from the
Of the right Of one govern
Inent TO destroy what there Is right IN an
other to preserve"
On page 4sl he says: "That the power to
lax involves the power to destroy; that tne
less the power TO creute; that there IL u plain
In confering on, one government
q power TO control the Constitutional m as |
those very measures. IL declared TO be su-
preme over that which exercises tie control
are
PROPOSITIONS NOT TO BE DENIED"
1t may be said that we are not arguing the
Ltiese quotations from ChiefJust.ce MarshalI's
opinion are not relevant; that no one dis |
putes the right Of the State to tax and the Su- |
preme Court Acknowledges that the taxes are
j prior and preferred lien. But Of what use
|ect? II the National and State govern
nents are TO reyolve In their separate orbits |
Without that "clash Of sovereignty from
which we ough; 10 be relieved" and from
powere," the Judiciary OF the
one govern ment should never interfere with
the Legislative and Executive branches OF
Lhe other In this delicate matter OF taxation,
except under circumstances where both JUS
tIce and law clearly confer that power and re-
auire its exercise. II "the power 10 tax In
wolves the power 10 Destroy" the power to
prevent the collection of the tax involves the
power to starve, nnd thereby destr0y-a pow
ar denied the National Government. But
again, 1t will he urged that the receiver claims
that the tax is Illegal, and that the Jurisdlc-
tion Of the Court extends 10 controversies be.
tween State and tie ciiizens OF another
Saate, thereby involving Il Federnl question.
This is not disputed but the Injustice OF Oh.
tanning Jurisdiction through the receiVership
to pass on the legality OF the tax and stop It's |
uhen the aOOunt lnVOlyal dnal |