The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-06-20

lector when he collects the general taxes.
1t is not such diminution of the salaries
Of the judges as would tend to render
them less independent or more subser-
Went to the legislative department, and
therefore within the reason of the pro-
vision of that part Of the constitution ex-
empting them. If this reasoning be true
then the reasoning for the application
fails. and the clause in this section does
not apply to an income tax What is not
forbidden by the Constitution is per-
mittted.
In Springer VS.. U. S. (102 U. S., 1861, de-
cided in 1881, the Supreme Court held that
an income tax was constitutional. The
same provision against diminishing sala-
res Of the judges was in the Constitution
then that it was when Chief Justice Ia
ney rendered the opinion supra and vet
with the light of that opinion by the
Chief Justice of the highest court in the
land before them, it was not contended
that. the salaries of the judges were ex-
empt from this income tax. In 1894 in
the case of Pollock VS.. Loan and Trust
Co. (158 U. S., GID the Supreme Court
of the United States, by q bare majority
land presto change on the part of one
of the iustices) decided that the income
tax levied by Congress at the session
prior to the sitting of the court so far as
it fell in the income from real estate and
personal property, was direct tax, with
in the meaning of the Federal Constitu
ton and therefore void. 1t was not Sug-
gested by any of the attorneys, in their
very elaborate briefs, sweeping all the
fields of history, literature, philosophy,
law and precedent, in their search for
material to 1ssst them in having the act
declared unconstitutional, that this act
violated that part of the Constitution pro-
hibiting a diminution of the salaries of
the goal perhaps gold tool was high if
they carried the point. They were fa-
miliar with every case decided by the
courts of last resort that had the Slight
est bearing upon the question. 1t was
deliberately discussed. both by the attor-
neys in their arguments and by the JUS
tees in writing their opinions land there
were several of them): and yet no one
made the point that the opinion of Chief
Justice Taney Ga most eminent authority,
to- be- ure) had any bearing on the case
If it did not bear on that question ian in
come tax, and not a diminution of sal
ary), then it would not bear on the ques-
ton proposed by the State Treasurer to
the Attorney General; and if it would
not apply in this latter question, the rul-
ing of the Attorney General would appear
to be a misapprehension of the reason
for placing that provision of exemption In
our State Constitution.
There is one other matter not passed on
by our able Attorney General but which
has been construed by some of our State
officers to come within the exemption he
suggests 1t is: That all State officers
salaries are not exempt from this tax, adj
mitting the correctness of the ruling OF
the Attorney General.
J Art III, Section 1, Constitution Of North
carolina, defines the State. officers to be,
Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, Sec
rotary of State, Auditor Treasurer, SUI
perintendent of Public Instruction, and
Attorney General. Sec. Is of that article
reads as follows 1.-THE officers mentioned
in this Article shall, at stated periods, re-
ceive for their services a compensation to
be established by law which shall neither
be increased nor diminished during the
term for which they shall have been
elected and such officers Shall receive no
other emolument or allowance whatever
There is no provision in theIState Consti-
tuition exem9ting the salaries of any
other officers from diminution except
those enumerated in Section 4 Art III and
Sec. IS, Art " Therefore, the ruling
of the Attorney General would only apply
to the officers mentioned in those Sec
tions, and to no others. j e., the judges
and the seven State officers named in Sec
tion 1. Art. III.
H. NJ. SHAW.
Oxford N G.. June IA, 1901,