The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-12-21
ijvc IS ERRONEOUS.
CIV Bonds Of Public Officials
~ No Revenue Stamps. 4. ii. 81.
I, GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT
rax on state Agents, ms
isr Ia Tax involves the
e power to Destroy.

ra,as December 2o.--The fol-
yam Attorney General Crane 10
~ general of the United States
m explanatory; $500.
Y tonn, W. Griggs, Attorney General
..sGpg,on, D. c.
'' :. Tsxas, December i9.-S.r: My
N. Mas been called to a ruling of the
Y, e,ates commissioner of internal
a. which he holds that an internal
- stamp is required to be placed on
..,..,I bonds OF State and county Offs
81, believing that this ruling Is stls-
~ ths law. take the liberty OF
~ Your attention thereto to the end
,,t,sion may be avoided and unnec-
~ litigation prevented.
..lhe nurpose of this letter 1t Is not
airy 10 make any distinction between
!. and rnunielpal officers. tUniled
- IS. Railroad Company, IL Wall,
=, ,ower TO tax involves the power 20
Nv cCuhoch VS.. Maryland, 4
10 1917 For that reason II has al
,u BEEN held that a sCase government
ma power 10 tax the agencies OF tle
II, k.ye. nlheil1, ana t--eJ. uiiSi redel.il
r,rouleat has no power 10 tax the agen-
81 The State government. tCoJiey s
n Lin., 59z; MeOuiiocn VS.. Maryia nd,
sasa,. 400; Collector VS.. Day, II wall,
Eailroad Company VS.. Pennis, on, Is
a /. Weston VS.. City of Charles on,
h., 1861
Ia been held that State is prohib-
4 fom taxing the officers OF the general
fragment for their fees or emolmments
IA such tax having tine effect to reduce
/, d. flpeil.ay.5n !oi tEe services per-
med and provided by the aot OF con-
q. would to that extent conflict with
"a act and tend 10 neutralize its pur-
= (DoDbing VS.. Commissioners OF Erie
ttoty. is Pet, 435: Cooley's Const. Lin,
D.
has been directly held that congress-
VI not Impose a tax on the salary OF a
he officer Collector VS.. Day, ii Wall,
II Ftseman VS.. Segel, 10 BHDtch., 800.
Ma power to tax for State purposes is
nuca an exclusive power I'm the Suite
tie power to lay and collect taxes to
b debts and provide for the common de-
zss and general welfare of the Ualtsd
Ess Is an exclusive power in congress.
Eri vs.. Maryland, u WALL, 4l72D.
Gngrsss has no power u make tax
IA issued by the State void for want OF
eamp (Sayles vs.. Davis. 20 Wis, 225).
No can congress forbid the recording
an Dastamped Instrument under the
lite laws. Moore vs.. Quirk, 105 Mass,
law Of congress requiring authorized
syGal process to be stamped could nos
applied to the process of the State
aEss. (Werren VS.. Paul, % Ind, 2l5;
s Us. State, 10 Wis, 1863; Fiffield VS..
l@s is Mich. 3O5; Smith VS.. Saort. 40
b, 3s5l
lie precise question in point has been
iem.ned. however, by the supreme court
Indiana in the case of the State vs..
fdon 80 Ind. /. in which it was he'll
h congress can not require a stamp upon
official bond of State officer.
have thus given YOU the reasons for the
|RT that | entertain. that the Federal
Ernment is without authority to i'm
~ tax en- bonds given by State or
lrnJ officers. An examination Of the au-
rAies cited viii disclose the fact that
are based upon the fundamental prop
100 that the State and Federal gov
lnents are each sovereign within their
~ defined spheres; that a State can not
retfere with tine agencies of the Federal
Gnment in the transaction of strictly
l@nmtntal business. and that the Fed
government can not interfere with the
xe agencies in the transaction OF State
xaless. Remembering that a State Is
q eorporatiGn. and that 1t can not act
a'sp through its agents. bEe State and
oony officers. and that the official bends
ihs contract by which it's officers are
Ns'Natai It's agents, IT is plain that 1t
me right to enter into SuGh contracts
40 rs officers without any hindrance or
dieence on the part of the Federal au-
asltles. III. as Chief Justice Marshall has
" lle pawer to tax involves the power
ossiroy the power of the Federal gov
iefnt 10 tax a contract entered into by
Nate government with Its citizens in
so Inc power to destroy the right or
lang these contracts. 1T is universally
:ts'ed that the Federal government may
AK bo1its and other obligations issued
We STATE government and delivered to
auIens. Why? Because the issuance
aan bonds is necessary for the trans
.N OF governmental business. They
susuts contracts between THE State and
csi0e.is But bends issued by the citi-
coniition precedent to his accept
vince from the State are contracts
HseA the State and the citizen. and
~ 10 be entered into before the
". y. can transact its business through
ornamental agencies. II the Federal gov
800. can impose a tax on the official
State or county officer, II can
M 'ax upon the privilege OF c!tizen
.s ADe to act as an agent of tbs State.
!, Hha words, The Federal government
IVY franchise tax or occupation tax
~ pilN1ege of citizen accepting a
kTs.r county office. and thersfore the
,,ssa government may by a pnohibitiye
$3.50 tax destroy the right Of a citizen
N.Y. en- Office at the hands of the State
~ pal governmsn.. 1t Will then
h,s. mat the Federal government can by
R.,n.s prevent the States from securing
- W transact It's business. and there
ffnu. 'y destroy tha STATE govern
.aa an abiding conviction thst the
~. uo'en OF the Internal revenue COL
wrung, and believing thai the
~ ~. .te state TO condunt hts own brsi-
srss S.%ga It's own agencies without con-
hts Interference or without paying
)keri, 70 me Federal government either
Es,sS% ~ indirectly. have, as above in
krms,, saken the liberty of addressing this
- ~ :. to YOU. l trust, therefore
= 6rs, is net one Of which Won should
J 4 H. axe cogn zance, that Won will refer
b - ~ proper Officer so that considera-
49, , ny question may be secured. Very
y' NJ. NJ. Crane,
Attorney General OF Texas.
n ""sg Ordered to san Antonio.