The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-04-25


legislative department ct the Govern
ment. These views have not only the
support Of the highest authority in this
country, as may be seen by reference
to the cases Of Loan Association VS..
Topeka, 20 Wall, 655. and Parksburg
VS.. Brown, 100 U. S.. 4S7, but have
been distinctly adopted by the Supreme
Court of this State in Feldmann vs.
City Council % S c., 81, as we'll as
by the Courts of Massachusetts and
Maine, as may be seen by reference to
Allen vs.. Joy, so Me, 124, II Am
Rep, 1875 and Lowell VS. city Of Bos-
ton Ill Mass, 454,15 Am Rep. 45,
and what is more, they were applied to
the vital power of taxation-a power
absolutely essential to. the very exis-
tence of every Government. These cases
substantially hold that although there
may be no express restrictions Contain
ed IL a State Constitution forbidding
the imposition Of taxes for any other
purpose than a public purpose, yet
such a restriction must necessarily be
implied from the very nature of civil
government. and hence the legislative
department under the general power Of
taxation conferred upon 1t cannot
impose any tax except for some public
purpose.
Upon the same principle it seems to
US clear that any Act of the Legisla-
ture which is designed to, or has the
effect of, embarking the State 10 any
trade which involves the purchase and
sale Of an article Of commerce or profit,
is outside and altogether beyond the
legislative power conferred upon the
General Assembly by the Constitution,
even though there may be no express
provision in the Constitution forbidding
such an exercise of legislative power.
This is not and cannot properly be
regarded as u of the functions Of
government. On the contrary its fuuc-
ton is to protect the citizen in the
exercise of any lawful employment, the
right to which is guaranteed to the
citizen by the terms of the Constitution
and certainly has never been delegated
to any department Of the Government.
We do not deem it necessary to go
into any extended consideration of the
fearful consequence Of recognizing the
power of the Legislature to embark the
State in any trade arising FROM the
hazards Of all business of that charac-
ter, or to comment upon the danger to
the people of the monopoly of any
trade by the State, for if it can mono
police one it may m%onopolize any or all
other trades or employments. although
it is permissible for a Court when called
upon to construct an Act to consider
its effects and consequences. For it
may be said, that the good sense and
patriotism of the members Of the
General Assembly may be safely relied
upon to protect the people from such
a~pprehended dangers.
Bu. that great luminary of the Law,
Chief Justice Marshall, did not seem to
think that this vas a sufficient pro-
lection, as may be seen by what he
said in McCollouch vs.. Maryland 4
Wheat. SIG, and in Brown VS. Mary.
land. IL Wheat. 4l5 Nor did the
Supreme Court Of the United States in
later days seem to think that this con-
6dence in the good sense end
patriotism of the neutrality-suspicious.
was a sufficient safeguard against
exercise of a power which might be-
come dangerous, for while on the one
hand 10 the case of Dobbins VS.. the
Commissioners of Erie County, 16
Peters. 1876, it was held that a State
cannot tax the salary of a United States
officer : on the other hand 10 the case
of the Collector vs.. Day, II Wall, 113,
it was held that the United States could
not tax the salary of a State officer.
although in the case last cited, in his
dissenting opinion, Mr.. Justice Bradley
took the ground that such confidence
would be a sufficient safeguard, against
a dangerous exercise of the taxing
power.
These two cases we're decided upon
the principle that as ''the power to tax
involved the power TO destroy" as had
been said by Marshall, G. j, iD
McCollouch VS.. Maryland, supra, the
only adequate protection Vas to deny
the power of the State Government to
tax the means and ins,rumentalities
employed by the United States Govern
ment to carry into operation the powers
granted to it, and for a like reason the
power Of the United States Govern
mens is denied to tax the means
and instrumentalities employed by the
State Government to carry iuto effect
its power. although both Of these
Governments we're established for the
-.okooor ,,J ~.oeo.vosoc &c ~.