The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-12-23
HAVE WE A PRIVILEGED CLASS
OF OFFICIAL TAX DODGERS?

dDCH OHt OICdoAOh " Aoid hNNN0 O
| sensible uneducated man visited his law
yer and put a case to him and asked:
What is the law upon it," The law
| yer replied by quoting this precedent and
that, winding up with the declaration
that the contention of his client could
not be maintained in the courts. The
old fellow asked: 1T not my position
| honest?" The LAWYER said it was. rs
it not based on common sense?' Again
| the lawyer said yes. "Is it not reason
able and iust?" he enquired. The law
yer said it was. "Then." said the old
fellow, eff it is honest, just, reasonable
and based on common sense why Will |
lose my case?' The lawyer answered
that it was because the presidents and
the weight of authority-the law, in
fact was against him. Thereupon the
plain man said: eff the law is agin'
Justice, reason and common sense, then
the law is a ass"
The plain man thought Of the law as
Blackstone-that sit is the perfection
of reason" When presidents, authorl-
ties. Juggling with words, and strained
construction could be made to ceny
Justice and over-rule common sense, he
was within the truth when he declared
the law is a ass
The LEGISLATURE of North Carolina, in
=. ,:Io- :,,rornJ n TOW on all incomes
from salaries, fees, etc, and from
property not taxed. An exemption of
$1,000 was allowed. Some judges in the
State declined to give in their incomes
for taxation on the ground that, though
all private professional men must pay
it, they were not liable. Attorney Gen
cral Gilmer so ruled in July last. In
spite of his incorrect ruling, some judges
and other State officers did give in their
incomes for taxation and did pay the tax
upon them. They were unwilling to shirk
their fair share Of the burdens of gov
ernment, not desiring a bomb-proof po-
.sition of special privilege, while getting
their incomes from taxes paid largely by
struggling professional men. In Novem-
her, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court addressed a letter to the Attorney
General stating that the members of the
court had not listed their incomes for
taxation because they have heretofore
were not subject to ~taXation,' and stat
ing that the Corporation Commission had
ordered the commissioners to collect tax
on their incomes. it would be "embarass-
ing if not incompetent" for them to sit
upon lis hearing, and asking his opinion
The had already given it in JULY and
stating "whatcver your opinion may be,
it will be filed for the guidance of the
court in his matter Upon receipt of
the Attorney Generals long opinion, for
| tifying the opinion he had given the
| State Treasurer, the Chief Justice
wrote the clerk that it had
! been resolved by the court that
it would consider this opinion Of
the Attorney General as settling the mat
! ter therein discussed. to the same ex-
| tent as if it were the opinion Of the
court and adding that it is "a full,
| able and indeed exhaustive discussion of
the subject involved, and in my opinion
a correct decision of the question"
The full text of the Attorney Generals
opinion was printed in these columns on
Friday. 1t deals almost entirely with an
attempt to show that section Is of Article
4 of the Constitution of North Carolina
cxempts the incomes of judges from taxa
ton. Here is that section:
"The General Assembly shall prescribe
and regulate the fees, salaries and cmol-
umcnts of all officers provided for in
! this article, but the salaries of the judges
shall not be diminished during their
continuance in office"
Every opinion and precedent quoted by
the Attorney General in support of his
fallacious argument is based upon the
idea because the power to tax is tC
diminish, Or it may be, to destroy" and
that to impose a tax upon the salary Of
a Judge would be to diminish" it during
his continuance in Office contrary to Tho
section of the Constitution quoted above
AS to authorities and precedents, the At.
torney General has made out a plausible
case for those judges who wish to dodge
, paying their share Of taxes. But Their,
is precedent and authority on the othe
side of the case. Upon the reasonable
ness, justice or wisdom of the precedent
quoted, the Attorney Generals argumen
is not conclusive. In fact, it canno
stand in the forum of right and justice
Chief Justice Furches to the c%ontrar,
Notwithstanding.
The provision of the Constitution
which the judges and law officers hav,
stretched to cover tax Exemption 70
Judges, was a wise provision. Here i
what it says: The salaries of Judge
shall not be diminished during their con