The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-09-12
JUDGE PURNELL AND THE TAX
COMMISSION.

ton or placing upon the tax list of
wake county the salaries of Judge
Thomas r. PurneIl and other federal
officersholders Who reside in hat coun-
ty. These officials received notice OF
the action of the commission and a
day was set for the hearing. Judge
Purnell wrote d letter to the commits
sion in what We suppose he considered
d sarcastic and caustic strain. What
the commission thought of the letter
The Messengers readers a Judge
from the following reply TO it written
b. Hon. Franklin Mcneil, chairman of
the state tax commission. Sarcasm is
d dangerous weapo in the hands Of a
person who knows it when he sees 1t
and car WELD it. but in the hands of
others it generally assumes the peculiar
characteristics of the favorite weapon
OF he boriginees of Australia.
Following is Judge Purnelrs letter to
the commission which Mr.. Mcneil
quotes in full in his reply:
Franklin McNeilI. chairman, state
tax commission, Raleigh, n. c.
Dear Sir: our communication of
the 18th instant enclosing copy of no
tice issued TO the tax listers of Raj
eigh township, Wake county, N. c.,
that among others my income, which
IS subject to taxation has been omit
ted from the tax list of said township,
ETC., and notifying me hat the review
therein referred to will be had at the
office of the North Carolina Corpora
ton Commission on Tuesday, Septem-
Der 2, 1892 has been received.
THE covert intimation, seemingly in
territorial, that /, among others, IL the
abstract for taxes. had lodged the in
come tax is unwarranted. Every mem
Der of your body knows / am United
States district judge. Every one who
is competent to hold a position on a
tax commission knows, or ought to
know, the salary of a United States
judge cannot be diminished by any
state authority, directly or indirectly,
by an income fax or other method.
This cannot be done by congress dur
ing the term of office of the Judge.
United States Constitution, article. 3,
clause l..
The facts in regard to the abstract
referred 10 are as follows:
when the abstract was made out,
one of i listers, Mr.. c. F. Cook, of
fered to and did fill out the blank. 1t
is in his hand writing. AS he came
down the list, he asked, Income to
which l replied, Five thousand dollars
as United States judge. nc other in
come He then said | believe that is
no. taxable, to which 1 replied 1 think
not. This Is the substance of and &C
cording to my recollection the exact
conversation. Whether it was entered
on the abstract L do not know. An ex-
animation of the article of the consti-
tuition referred 20, of which your body
may have heard and the decisions
thereon, also the opinions of at least
three attorney generals of the state,
commencing with the exhaustive opi1-
ion of Hon. J. 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 a lawyer, was
correct in his view of the law.
THE abstract speaks the ruth, and
any intimation to the contrary, wheth-
eli overt Of open is insidious. Should
your body be of the opinion this salary
is subject to the income tax, and so
aGjudga when it is entered on h tax
list, we shall see what we shall see.
1T have not examined the act of the
legislature MACHINERY Act, 1901, but
presume hat body has not required
any citizen to do a foolish thing, enter
on the tax a salary, known to every
intelligent man, which is eXempt from
taxation by the state. To think other
wise is to reflect on the intelligence of
that body.
With due respect. 1 am,
THOS. r. PURNELL."
To this letter Mr.. Mcneil replied as
follows:
Hon. Thomas r. Purnell:
Dear Sir: Your letter of h 2Sth
ulto. duly received and reads as fol-
lows. (Then he quotes h judges let
ter as given o and continues):
I'VE have always had great respect
for your office and the learned N dis
tiguished men who were your prede-
cessors. such dignity and courtesy al
ways characterized their intercourse
with their fellow men, that it will be
a matter OF surprise and regret to all
to know that one who occupies this ex-
allied position could be the author OF
the letter above quoted.
I'VE are of the opinion and have so
decided. that your salary or income as
United States judge due or to become
due. is not income within the meaning
of our revenue law and cannot be tax
ed by the state, but that the $1,000 &C
tually paid to you by the United
States during the twelve
months ending June 1st, on account OF
your salary. is income within the mean
ing of our eyenu law, and is subject
to state taxation.
Yes, We had heard of the constttu-
ton of the United States. Art, 3, Sec. L.
but we had never before heard that II
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
ton was a limitation upon the power
of congress. The supreme u of the
United States has decided many times
thai it is not by reaSon of any eX-
pressed provision of the constitution of
the United States that states are pro-
hibited from taxing federal agents or
agencies, but that this prohibition,
which exists by reason of the necessary
Implications of the constitution Of the
Emitted States. This great court nay
be wrong about this, however. and you
NAV know better. Suppose you are
right. candidly do you think that this
requirement of the constitution mas
- u-han fhn Tinted States