The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-16
JUDGE PURNELL'S
SALARY IS SAFE
Supreme Court Holds T ederal
Judge is Exempt.
OPINION BY JUDGE CLARK
Chief Justice Marshall is Quot d, "The Powt
to Tax is The Power to Destroy -sxsmp-
items Said Not TO b. Sp cjal
Privileges.

Thos r. Purnell VS.. NJ. w. Page, sheriff
of Wake county, appellant. 1t holds that
the sheriff cannot compel Judge Purnel
to pay the income tax upon his salary as
United States Judge, thus confirming
the opinion rendered on this question
some time ago by Attorney General Gil
mer.
The case came into the court on an APP
peal from Judge Purnell for an order re-
straining the sheriff from collecting the
tax. 1t was argued one day last week by
Locke Craig, of Asheville, for Sheriff Page
and e. ]. Best, w. H. Day, and f. H.
Busbee and Son for Judge Purnell. The
opinion of the court is written by Chief
Justice Walter Clark, and is as follows:
1.-The plaintiff is United States Judge
for the Eastern District of North Caro-
lima. The County Commissioners of Wake
County, under the advice and peremptory
instruction of the Corporation Commission
acting as a Board of State Tax Commits
sioners, have assessed and levied an III
come tax upon the income received by the
plaintiff from the United States, as such
Judge (after deducting the $1,000 exemp-
ton allov\1 by law and the defendant as
sheriff and tax collector of Wake county
has levied upon the personal property OF
the plaintiff and threatens to sell the same
to satisfy the income tax as aforesaid. AL.
other taxes assessed against the plaintiff
have been paid except this income tax on
his income from the Federal Government
i
and asks for an injunction to restrain the
defendant from selling his property to col
lect the same.
ut has been so long and so well settled
by the highest Federal court that NO
State can tax the compensation allowed by
the Federal Government to its officers
that it had not been thought that the
point could again be raised. Dobbins VS..
Erie County, al u S. DC Pet) 435; King
VS.. Hunter, 60 n. C. ALP. In Collector VS..
Day, rs u. S. III Wall.) 122, it is said:
In Dobbins VS.. Commissioners OF Erie
County it was decided that it was MOI
competent for the Legislature of a state
to levy a tax upon the salary or emolu-
ments of an officer o.. the United States.
| The decision was placed mainly upon the
ground that the officer was means or IN
strumentahty employed cor carrying into
effect some of the legitimate powers of the
government which could not be interfered
with by taxation or otherwise by the
States, and that the salary compensa-
ton for the service of the officer was in
separately connected with the office; that
| if the officer as such was exempt, the sal
ary assigned for his support or mainten-
| Il ole
like reasons, equally exempt. In that
case, the court held that for the same rea-
son the United States Government is pro
hibited from taxing the salary of the Of
! fcers of State Government.
GAS the power of d State to tax is limit
ed only by restriction, if any, II the
State Constitution, and there Is none III
ours, as to the income tax which can be
| levied at any rate the Legislature sees fit,
| if only it is uniform for each class and of
| this classification the Legislature is the
Judge it follows that if the General AS
sembly can tax the incomes OF Federal
officers they could tax them to be unprofit-
able, in short, tax them out of existence
as the United States did State Banks OF
Issue. Veasie Bank VS.. Fenno, 10 L. >.
(S Wall) 533. In McCulloch VS.. Mary
land, II L. s. a Wheat) 306, Marshall,
c. j. well said: The power to tax is the
power to Destroy For exactly the same
reason, to preserve the independence OF
the judges and the executive officers
named in the Constitution the General As
sembly is forbidden to diminish their sal
aries which includes prohibition of the
power to reduce them by taxation, which
| Al 10 70 l1xy4 I,o I'M ~
Attorney General Bachelor, adopted by
the Supreme Court Mash, Pearson and
Battle) As n. C. 555 and has since been
reiterated by Attorney General Gilmer and
approved by the court, 131 n. G, 692. To
same purpose, New Orleans VS.. Lea, Ia
La Ann. 1877 and many other authorities.
THE only difference is that the State
cannot tax the salary of any Federal of
| ficer, nor can the Federal Government
tax the salary of any State officer, since
| neither has the right to reduce the sup
| port allotted by the other government for
its officers, while the State is only prOhib-
| tied from reducing, by taxation or other
wise the salaries of the judges and OF
| the few executive officers named IN the
Constitution, and Congress is likewise
prohibited by the Federal Constitution
only from reducing, by taxation or other
wise, the salaries of the judges land the
executive officers named in that nstru-
ment The salaries, (and indeed the con-
tinued existence) of all officers of the
! United States and of the State, not thus
designated in their respective Constitu-
tions, being subject to the will of the Leg
islative power of each respectively are not
thus protected by constitutional rrovis-
ion from taxation by its own government.
These exemptions are not special priv
| ileges' to officials, but are made by rea-
sons of the highest public policy. If the
State could tax the salaries of Federal
Officers, or the Federal Government could
tax the salaries of State officers, either
| could destroy the efficiency of the opera
tions of the other government. since each
government must act through its officers.
So if Congress could reduce by taxation
the salaries of the Federal judges or chief
Federal Executive officers the State Leg
islature could reduce by taxation the sal
aries of the State judges, and chief exec
utiye officers OF the State, the judicial and