Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-07-24

been demonstrated by actual facts t
be within the compass of the power
and If considerations Of policy were i'm
portant. it might be added that. of thu
states possessed the authority to ia,
i the agencies of the national govern
ment. they would hold within theil
hands constitutional weapon. whicf
factious and disappointed parties wOult
i be able to WELD with terrible effect
| when the policy Of the national govern
| ment did not accord with their views,
| while, on the other hand, if the no
tional government possessed CORE
spending power over the agencies OF
the state governments. there would not
be wanting men who. in times of strong
party excitement would be willing and
eager to resort to this power as a
legislation upon the subjects remaining
| under their control"
1T has been repeatedly decided that
the act of Congress which provided that
certain papers not stamped should not
| be received in evidence, must be limited
| In it's operation to the federal courts.
Carpenter VS.. Smelling, 81 Mass. 452
Green VS.. Holway, 10l, Mass, 243; 3
| AM Rep, 339. Several of these cases
| have gone still farther. and declared
/ that Congress cannot preclude parties
| from entering into contracts permitted
by the state laws. and that to declare
them void was not a proper penalty
| for the enforcement of tax laws. Con-
| gross cannot make void tax deed is
sued by state. Sayles VS.. Davis, p
Wis, 225, Nor require a stamp upon
| the official bonds of state officers. State
VS.. Carton, 32 Ind, J. Nor forbid the
| recording Of an unstamped instrument
under the state laws. Moore VS.. Quirk,
| 1876. Mass, ~: Am. Rep. 499.
The case of United States VS.. Rail
road Company, II Wallace 1872. was one
In which the United States government
by virture OF an internal revenue act
passed in 1864 undertook TO collect from
the Railroad Company tax of per
cont. upon stock which had been issued
by the City OF Baltimore in its munich
pal capacity for the purpose Of building
a railroad into said city; and in this
case II was held that a municipal cor
poration is a portion Of the sovereign
power of the state. and is not subject
To taxation by Congress upon its NUM-
ciral revenues. In the opinion the
court says: There is no dispute about
The general rules of law applicable to
this subject.
The power OF taxation by the Fed
eral government upon the subjects and
IN the manner prescribed by the act
We are considering. is undoubtcd
There are. however. certain depart
ments which are excepted from the
fss. -.
Ia administer their own affairs through
their Legislative executive, and judi
clal department. in their own manner
through their own agencies. is conceded
by the uniform decisions OF this court,
and by the practice of the Federal
government from it's organization. This
carries with IL an exemption of those
agencies ana instruments, from the
taxing power Of the Federal govern
mcnt.
IF they may he taxed lightly. they
may be taxed heavily: II justly. op
pressively Their operation may be i'm
peded and may he destroyed. II any in
reference is permitted.
And 1t has been distinctly held in
Collector VS.. Day. II Wallace 1ls. thai
It is not competent for Congress under
the constitution of the United States
to Impose n tax upon the salary Of n
judicial officer II the State.
And in Dehbns VS.. Commissioner of
Ellie County. 1G Peters 4s5. II was de-
clded that it was not competent for a
legislature of a state 10 levy a tax upon
the salary or emolument of an officer Of
the United States.
Both of these decisions are based
upon the broad principle that the oin-
Ger in either case was means or in
strumentalty employed for carrying
into effect some of the legitimate OF
executive powers of the government, |
which could not he nterfered with biz
taxation. and that the salary or com
pensation Of an officer was nseparably !
connected with the office.
1t is clearly shown in the case last
cited that the power of taxation by the
states was not abridged by the grant
ing of similar power to the government
Of the Union. that it was retained by |
the states. and that this power is to be |
concurrently exercised by the two gov
ernments, and that there is no express |
constitutional prohibition upon the
state against taxing the means and in
struments of the general government |
but that by necessary implication il |
was prohibited, otherwise the State
might impose taxation to anextent that |
would impair. if not wholly DESTROY |
the operation of federal authority when |
acting IN their proper sphere. Also that |
tne sovereign powers vested in the |
state governments remain unimpaired |
except SO far as they were granted to |
the government of the United States; |
ana that the state government within |
IT'S sphere is as independent of the gen |
eral government, as that government |
within its sphere is Independent of the
state government.
That the State liquor commissioners is |
a public officer is supported by author
.ty. "A public office is the right. au,- |
thority, and duty created and con-
ferred by law by which for a given |
petriod either fixed by law or enduring
at the pleasure of the creating power. |
an individual is invested with some
portion of the sovereign functions of |
the government to be eXerted by him |
Tor the benefit of the people. The in |
divldual so vested is a public officer
Meachem on Public OfyiearS caat |