The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-09-07
Reminds the District Judge That
Others Know Thing or Two.
ARE NOT "RtsPEcT TIERS OF PERSONS
" NJ Have No Better Sense han 10 Think
That The Revenue Law Of North
Carolina is Con-
stitutonal."

49,
that his salary as a Federal Judge could
not be taxed by the State. Chairman
McNeiIls letter, which quotes Judge
Purnells letter entire, is as follows;
Hon. Thos r. Purnell Raleigh, n. G.
Dear Sir Your letter of the 28th ult.
was duly received and reads as follows
Franklin Mcneil, Chairman, State Tax
Commission, Raleigh, n. c.
Dear Sir: Your communication of the
26th inst enclosing copy of notice issued
to the tax listers of Raleigh Township,
Wak5 County, n c., that among Others
my income. which is subject 10 taxa
ton has been omitted from The tax list
Of said township, ETC., an notifying re
that the review therein referred 10 Will
be had at the office of the North Caro-
lima Corporation Commission on Tues
day. September End, 1902. has hCcn re-
c6ived.
THE covert intimation, seemingly in
territorial that l, among others, i'll he
abstract for taxes, had lodged the in
come fax is unwarranted. Every member
of yoIr body knows l am United States
District judge. Every one who is COM
retent to hold a position on tax COM
mission knows, or ought to know, the
salary of United States Judge cannot
be iiminis he'd by any State authority, d.
rcctly or indirectly, by an income tax
or other method. This cannot be done
h. Congress during the term of office of
the judge. United States Constitution.
article 3. clause 1.
1.-The facts in regard to the abstract
referred to are as follows:
when the abstract was made cut, one
of the listers. Mr. C. F. Cook. offered to
and did fill out the blank. 1t is in MS
hand writing AS he came down tn list, |
he asked. Income, to which l replied, |
Five thousand dollars as United States
Judge no other income He then said /
believe that is not taxable, to which l
replied l think not. This is the sub
stance of and according to my recollec-
tion the exact conversation. Whether it
was entered on the abstract 1 do not
know. An examination of the article of
the Constitution referred to, of which |
your body may have heard and the de-
cisions thereon, also the opinions of at
least three Attorney Generals of the !
State. commencing with the exhaustive
opinion of Hon. ]. B. Bachelor, in or
about 1854. and ending with the opinion
of the present able Attorney General, |
Hon. R. D. Gilmer. should satisfy you the |
tax lister, though not lawyer, was cor
rect in his view of the law.
THE abstract speaks the truth, and
any intimation to the contrary, whether
covert or open is insidious Should your
body be of the opinion this salary is !
subject to the income tax. and so adjudge, |
when it is entered on the tax list We
shall see what we shall see
My intention was merely to state the |
facts. as you may obtain them from the |
tax listers who will be before you, thus |
aiding you in discharging a duty in 4
lawful way.
4 have not examined the act of the |
Legislature (Machinery Act, 1900, but |
presume that body has not required any
citizen to. do foolish thing, enter on the
tax salary known to every intelligent
man. which is exempt from taxation by
the State To think otherwise is to re-
fleet on the intelligence of that body.
With due respect, l am,
Very truly yours,
"THOS. r. PURNELL."
We have always had great respect for
your office and the learned and dis
tnguished men who were your predeces-
SOIS- ouCH ulSHllN anu courtesy always
characterized their intercourse with their
valued men, that it will be matter of
surprise and regret to all to know that
who now occupies this exalted po-
sition could be the author of the letter
above quoted.
We are of the opinion and have so
decided. that your salary or income as
United States judge due or to become due.
Revenue Law and cannot be taxed by the
State, but that the $4,000 actually paid 10
you by the United States Government
during the twelve. months ending June
LIST. on account of your salary, is income
within The meaning of our Revenue Law
and is subject to State taxation.
Yes. we had beard of the Constitu-
ion of the United States, Art g. Sec I,
but we had never before heard that it
was because of this section of the Con-
stitution of the United States that the
States were prohibited from taxing the
salary of a judge or other Federal Off
GERS We had understood that this sec
tion was limitation upon the power Of
Congress- The Supreme Court of the
United States has declared many times
that it is not by reason of any expressed
provision of the Constitution of the
United States that States are prohibited
from taxing Federal agents or agencies.
but that this prohibition, which exists by
reason of the necessary implications of
the Constitution of the United States.
This great court may be wrong about
this, however, and you may know bet
ter. Suppose you are right. candidly Go
you think that this requirement of the
Constitution has been fully met when the
United States Government has paid you
your salary in its entirety? Do you
understand that this section of the Con
stitution means that judges salary
cannot be diminished after it has been