The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-10-27
aUFFIN AND CLARK BOTH HON
ESl BUT WRONG.

An esteemed friend OF the News and Oh
server, in 9 private letter, ays that
recent editorial in this paper upon the
decision OF the Supreme Court With ref
erence to the taxation Of the income Of
judicial officers is capable OF the con
struction that you believe the judges were
influenced i'll rendering their decision by
a desire on the part Of the
Judges to escape the payment OF
a tax on their own income" We are sur
prised that such a construction has been
placed upon the editorial. Our purpose
wa to dissent strongly from the opinion
of the court and to express regret that
they had not departed from a precedent,
which we believe tends to create a class
Of officialdom, enjoying exemption from
the common burdens of government. 1t
was foreign to our idea to attribute so
small or selfish a motive to the North
Carolina Supreme Court. We believe they
have erred but we never for a moment
believed they were actuated by d desire
TO save the little tax on their own incomes,
and we are surprised that any regular
reader of this paper could put such a
construction upon the vigorous dissent.
This paper, having labored to secure the
selection and election OF a majority OF the
court. could not believe the members ca.
pable Of rendering an opinion solely to
save themselves a few dollars. 1t woul
not support men it believed capable OF
such littleness.
1t is a matter for deep regret that the
court lost so splendid an opportunity OF
rendering a decision that would repudlate
the absurd contention of ancient judges
| hat a tax upon all incomes does not apply
| to judicial officers because such tax woulc
| tend to destroy the independence of the
| judiciary. The editorial in question was
| written to express this regret and dis
| appointment. also to put on record what
we believe to be the saner view
enunciated in a decision III PennsyI-
| vania. to-Wit: that a tax imposed upon all
incomes bears upon judges just as upon
| private citizens. and does not in any wa
| even tend to destroy the independence o
the judicial Department OF government
OF course a tax levied upon judges alone
| judges from a tax that is imposed upoI
all others enjoying a like income build
up an office-holding class upon which spe.
cial privileges are conferred, and is IL
conflict with the republican theory that
no special privilege is to be enjoyed b.
any class.
come when the present decision Of tht
court will be reversed. We sincerely be
ieve it is as wrong in principle as the
monarchical decision enumerated in Hokt
VS.. Henderson. Both confer a special priv
ilege upon off~ice-holders tina is denied
to others. The public interest is superiol
to the right of the office holder, Hoke VS.
Henderson to the contrary notWithstand
ing. The right of the Legislature to i'm
pose 4 tax upon all persons in receipt o
an income over s. 1000, including judiOa
officers, is superior to the right OF tn,
judge to enjoy exemption, Purnell vs.
Page to the contrary notwithstanding
Judge Ruffin was wrong half Il century
ago; Judge Clark and his associates ar,
wrong now. Every civilized country il
the world except North Carolina has re
pudiated the doctrine of Hoke VS.. Hen
derson. 1t may require quite as long t
reach it, but the day will come just a
sure as law is the perfection of wisdom
and reason when Purnell VS.. Page vii
also be repudiated. Ruffn was homes
but wrong. So were the Associate Jus
tees then. Clark is honest but wrong
So are the Associate Justices now. 0
course, we may be wrong in our conviC
ton, and the judges may be right. Tim
alone will tell.