The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-12-21

| everybody else" or words to that eff
| that any claimed exemption must be set
| out in the plainest terms, the presump-
| ton Of law being against any special ex-
emption or special privileges If the Leg
islature had passed an act specifically
declaring that judges should pay a certain
tax on their incomes and had not imposed
the same tax upon all other professional
men, then the Attorney General might
invoke section Is of article and save
them from discrimination. But when the
Legislature, in order to get money to pay
of government, impose an income tax
upon all people who have incomes in ex-
cess of one thousand dollars there is no
HAVE WE A PULVERIZED ETC-TWO
common sense. common justice or COM
mon honesty in exempting judicial Off
Gals from the operations of that law.
This paper would oppose any taxation
that was imposed upon public officers as
such just as strongly as it protests
against exempting any public officers
from the common burden of government
by strained, forced and unjust Ito all
others) Interpretation of Constitution
that nowhere grants exemption from COM
mon burdens or confers special privilege
upon any class of citizens.
| ,;nl fc
principally placed to exempt judges from
the income tax in North Carolina the case
of Commonwealth VS.. Mann Watts and
Sergeant in Pennsylvania the position
maintained by this paper and the Cor
poration Commission is in fact upheld, to-
wit: That no special tax can be i'm
exemption from tax Is given them as
public officers. On page AIT in that opin-
ion. the court uses these words:
THE property OF Judge, his income,
whether derived from this or any other
source, we admit is a proper subject for
taxation. His security will then consist
in being placed on the same footing with
other citizens, and an abuse of them by
any will be speedily corrected. OF this
the relator does not complain but he does
| complain that he with others, is selected
as a special object Of taxation, contrary
to the charter which he has solemnly
sworn to support
Here is the truth: THE PROPERTY
OF A JUDGE. HIS INCOME, whether de-
rived from this or any source. WE AID
NIT IS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR
TAXATION" Why? Read this sound
principle enunciated: HIS SECURITY
WILL THEN CONSIST IN BEING
PLACED ON THE SAME FOOTING
WITH OTHER CITIZENS" Exactly.
That is what the lawmakers intended.
1t was never their intention. in their
righteous purpose to protect the judges
against being starved out by an opposition
Legislature, to make them a privileged
of government and the emoluments of
office, without paying JUST LIKE COM
MON FOLKS the expenses of government,
including their own subsistence.
Chief Justice Furches, in his letter,
says the court considers this opinion Of
the Attorney General as settling the mat
, ter therein discussed" He will find
himself greatly mistaken if he supposes
that this erroneous opinion will settle
this question in North Carolina. No
matter is ever settled until it is set
tied right. The Corporation Commits
sion has ordered the county commission
ers to collect the tax on the incomes Of
judges. 1t should not be deferred by
this exparte opinion of the Attorney Gen
eral, and should carry the question to
the Supreme Court where it may be ar
gued and fully discussed in all it's
phases. 1t is to be hoped that the new
judges, who go on the bench in January
will look underneath the precedents
quoted, down to the mudsill principle
involved. and it ought not to be too
much to hope that the judges who will
continue on the bench will bring open
minds to the argument that will be
made before the court.
| -
1t may be law in North Carolina that
a judge enjoys special exemption from
taxation imposed upon all others enjoy
ing incomes over 81, 900. That may be the
law. But if it is-if such special priv
ilege extorted from strained construc-
ton of section IS. article 4, of the Con-
stitution is law-then "the law is ass"
WHY 1T LOOKS DARK"