The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-06-13
NOT GOOD Law.

With all Difference to our present At
torney General and these courts that
have held that public officers are exempt
from all income tax provisions, we do
not believe it is sound in law or public
morals For the same service, the pri-
vate citizen as rule gets less pay than
public official. But he pays the tax.
The public official, for the payment of
whose salaries in part the income tax
is levied, escapes by what seems to us
a strained construction of the Constitu-
salary by putting him upon lthe same
basis as a private citizen for the support
of q government Of which he is the chief
beneficiary. We would like to see the
judicial and other public officers rise TO
the height of patriotism and pay the tax
imposed or incomes just like private citi-
zens. 1t would be a spectacle that would
be inspiring in this day of tax lodging
Below we give the opinion of Attorney
General Gilmer:
Raleigh. N c., June Z, 1901.
Zion. b. r. Lacy. State Treasurer, Raj
4 eigh, n. c.
'sDear Sir: Replying to your favor OF
recent date in which YOU ask If the
salary of a judge is liable to an income
tax under the Revenue Act. l have the
honor to submit the following:
"In the year 1856 similar question
was submitted to the Honorable Joseph
h. Bachelor, who was at that time the
Attorney General of the State. In we'll
considered opinion the question was an
swered in the negative. The Constitu-
ton then in force forbade the diminution
of the official salary of judge during
the continuance of his term. This pro-
vision is still a part of the organic law
of the State. The Constitution of North
Carolina, article 4, section Is. | no dis
position to disturb the opinion of MIR.
Batchelor, which seems for SO many years
toshaye been accepted by the courts and
acquiesced in by the people generally
as the correct exposition of the law gov
erning the case. | am frank to confess
that / approached the consideration OF
the question with the impression that
1Ep constitution ONLY DIOHlbilSu thS
diminution of the salary by law fixing
il at a less amount in dollars than that
established at the beginning of the term
of the Incumbent. After diligent search
can find no authority sustaining this
view. All the cases which | have ex-
amined announce the principle that where
the Constitution provides that a salary
shall not be diminished during an official
term. that the salary is exempt from
taxation.
THE case of Hepburn VS.. Mann, D
Watts and Sergeant, 403 decided by the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the
basis Of Mr.. Bachelors opinion, is an
able and exhaustive discussion of the
subject The same doctrine has been
held by the Supreme Court of other
Jurisdictions In the city of New Or
leans VS. Lea the Supreme Court of
Louisiana says: The article of the Con-
sttution which declares that the judges
of both the Supreme and Inferior courts
shall at stated times receive salary
which shall not be diminished during
their continuance in office. eXempts the
salary of the Judge from taxation. = IA
Louisiana Annual Reports, 1877
You are referred to the opinion OF
Mr.. Bachelor. which apears in the Ap-
pendx to the 4Sth N. C. Report.
very respectfully,
"ROBT. D. GILMER,
ATTORNEY General"