The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-12-23

courts of law and equity snail nave
adequate salaries during their contin-
Gance in office Revised Code Oh NORM
Carolina, p. 16.
In the amended Constitution OF 1879,
the constitutional provision with refer
ence to the salaries of judicial offcers
was changed and the following article en-
acted: The salaries of the judges of the
Supreme Court or of the Superior
courts, shall not be diminished during
their ~continuancein office. Revised
Statutes of North Carolina, Vol. /, page
.3. And the same inhibition against
diminution appears in the article quoted
above from the Constitution adopted in
1868"
Under the Constitution of 1776, it will
be observed that the judges We're to re-
Ceiye adequate salaries" What was
an adequate salary" remarked Attorney
General Bachelor, in 1856, in passing
upon d question similar to the one sub
mittcd, was ex necessitate to be deter
mined by the Legislature, which had the
power Of fixing it, AS this was a dis
cretionary power, that body could declare
an adequate salary to be any sum 1t
thought proper. This power was liable
to abuse, and though it would nave been
a violation of the spirit of the consul
tuition to AVE fixed these salaries al a
sum clearly Inadequate, yet the Legls-
lature, being unchecked by any other
department of the government in the ex-
ercise Of his discretion could violate
at will the spirit of his part OF the Con-
stituticn. BY it the power OF reducing
the salaries of the judges during their
continuance in office, is taken away. They
NAV be Increased, but cannot be dlmln-
ished. But to secure them effectually
against diminutiOn, this provision
should extend to indirect as we'll as to
direct legislation. The power to lessen
these salaries by direct legislation is now
Nowhere claimed, yet the passage of this
act is an assertion by the Legislature OF
the power to diminish them indirectly;
and if the Legislature has such power
it can be used to any extent to which,
in it's wisdom it may see proper to
carry it,"
While Attorney General Bachelor, IN
his opinion, made no reference to the
case of McCulloch VS.. State of Mary
land, 4 Wheaton, p 316-207, his argument
is sustained by the reasoning Of Chief
Justice Marshall, who delivered the
opinion of the court in that case: that
the power to tax involves the power to
Destroy" This doctrine is exemplified in
many cases decided by the Supreme
| Courts of other Jurisdictions, declaring
| that the internal revenue acts of the
Federal government requiring stamps on
processes of State courts are unconsti-
tutioral interfefcnces with their proceed
ings. Smith VS.. Short. 40 Ala, 1856;
Craig vs.. DimOck, Al Ill, 3OS; Warren
VS.. Paul, - Ind, 276; Fifield VS.. Close. Is
- -n-. 1v,I+~ We r1-opth IJoura r1 G
Practice Reports, 357; Jones VS.. Keep, 19
Wis, 800; Bumpass VS.. Taggart, 26 Ark,
| 1858; FOREIGNER VS.. Holly, IA Fla, 279;
Latham VS.. Smith, As H., 80; Wallace
VS.. Craven, 81 Ind, 534; Pargoud vs..
Richardson, 80 La. An, 1886; Sarrow vs..
Eifier, 4S Tenn, 633; Carpenter vs.. Shell
ing. 81 Mass, ASP: Davis VS.. Richardson,
IS Mass, 499.
The principle announced in McCulloch
VS. the State of Maryland. supra, has
been affirmed by the Supreme Court OF
this State. In King VS.. Hunter, 65 N. G.
at PIP. 612-613, Readc. j., says: 1t has
been considered how far an office or al
officer, may be taxed. And it has beer
considered as settled that the State has
no power to tax an officer of the United
States, or vice versa, because the power
to tax includes the power to destroy as
was said by Chief Justice Marshall il
McCulloch VS.. State OF Maryland,
Wheaton, p. 201. And if a State Were
allowed to tax a United States officer
one dollar, it might tax him to the full
amount of his salary, and thus 'arrest
all the measures of the government
And so the United. States cannot ta1
a State officer for the same reason
Upon a similar principle the Fedora
courts have held that the United States
government cannot tax the income o
State officials.
The case of the United States VS.
Richie, Federal cases, Book y, cas-
16, 1853, involved the right of the Fedora
government to tax the income of tn
States attorney for the County of Fred
rick, in the State of Maryland. The
court held that 1.-The United States ha'
10 more right to tax these agencies thar
the State government has to tax tn
means and agencies to carry on the Fed
eral government" In Day VS.. Buffing
ton, Federal Cases, Book Z, case 1915
Clifford, Circuit Justice, held that 9TH,
salary of a Judge of the Court of Record
payable out of the Treasury of a State
is not legally taxable as income unde
the internal revenue Jaws of the United
diS iulo LII 40 dIlII ~ W III
Supreme Court of the United States. I
United States, 113.
In Freedman VS.. SeiSle, Federal Cases
Book 9, case $3.50, it was held that 9Th
United States cannot impose a tax on tn
salary of a judge Of a Superior Court o
the City of New York by imposing a ia,
Upon such salary as the income of sue,
Judge"
In DobbirS VS.. Commissioners Of Fri
County, 16 Peters, at page $50, Mr.. Jus
tice Wayne, speaking for the Suprem
Court of the United States, says: Doe
not a tax by a State upon the office
diminishing the recompense, conflict Wit
the law of the United States, which Sc
cures it to the officer in it's entireness
1t certainly has such an effect
In the foregoing cases the decisions G
the courts rest upon the principle tina
the government of the United State
has no right to tax the means, agencie
and instrumentalities of the State gov
eminent and neither has the State gov
eminent the right to tax the means
agencies and Observation-Disclosures of tn