The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-10-20
JUDGE PURHELL'S
SALARY is SAFE
Supreme Court Holds Federal
Judge is Exempt.
OPINION BY JUDGE CLARK
Chief Justice Marshall is Quoted, "lhe rrae.
10 Tax IS he P,w.r to Oesroy'--exsmL-
items Said no, 10 BE- Special
Privileges.
Privileges.

The supreme Court yesterday morning
handed down an opinion in the case 81
Tlos. r. PurneI rs. NJ. ~. Page. sheriff
q Wake county. appellant. 1 holds that
TIE sheriff cannot compel Judge PurncII
e pay the income tax upon his salary a.
j United states Judge, thus confirming
tie opinion rendered on this question
some time ago by Attorney General Gil
NOR.
The case came into The court on an ap-
peal from Judge Purnell for iii order rc-
straining the sheriff from collecting the
tax. 1t was argued one day last week by
Locke Craig, OF AsneVille. for Sheriff Page
and L. j. Best, W. II. Day, and t. H
Busbee and Son for Judge Purnell. The
opinion OF the court is written by ChIct
Justice Walter clark, and IS as follows.
The plaintiff is United States Judge
for the Eastern District OF North Caro-
lima. The County Commissioners OF Wake
County, under the advice and pcrcnptory
instruction OF the Corporation Commission
acting as a Board Of State Tax Commits
Sioners, have assessed and levied an IN
come tax upon the income received by the
plaintiff from the United States, as such
Judge, fafter deducting the $1,000 exemp-
ton allowed by laW) and the defendant is
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. All
other taxes assessed against the plaintiff
have been paid except this income tax On
his income from the Federal Government,
- Il -L l. 49, =. H., =, ,I,~,1
and asks for an injunction to restrain the
defendant from selling his property to col
lect the same.
1T has been so long and 50 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 L. S. Go Pet) 435: King
vs.. Hunter, So N. c. 412. In Collector vs..
Day, IS L. s. I'll VALID 122, it IS said:
In Dobbins VS.. Commissioners Of Erie
County it was decided that it was not
competent for the Legislature OF 4 state
to levy a tax upon the salary or emolu-
ments of an officer OF the United States.
The decision was placed mainly upon the
ground that the officer was a means or IN
strumcntality employed cor carrying INTO
effect some of the legitimate powers Of the
government which could not be intcrfercd
with by taxation or otherwise by the
States, ard that the salary or compensa-
ton for the service of the officer was III
separabiy connected with the office; that
II the officer as such was exempt, the sal
airy assigned fer his support or malnten-
ancc while holding the office was also, Tor
like reasons. equally exempt. IN that
ease. The court held hat for the same Tea-
son the United states Government IS pro
nibite1 from taxing the salary 81 the Of
fcers OF a State Government.
AS the power OF a State TO tax is limit
ed only by a restriction, ii ANY, IL the
| State Constitution, ard there is zone IN
ours. as to the income tax which can be
levied at any rate the Legislature sees fl,
i only it is uniform for each class and Of
J this classification the Legislature IS the
Judge, it follows that if the General -
semblv can tax the incomes Of Federal
officers they could tax them to be unpr0ft-
able, in short, tax them out OF existence
as the United States did State Banks Of
Issue. Ncasie Bank Us. Fenno, - L. S.
Is Wall.) 533. In McCulloch vs.. Mary
land. II l.. S. a Wheat.) 500, Marshall,
c. j.. we'll 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 A.
| scmbIv is forbidden to diminish their sal
aries which includes Il prohibition of the
power to reduce them by taxation, which
WAS settled in this State by the opinion OF
Attorney General Bachelor, adopted b.
the Supreme Court (Nash, Pearson and
Battle.) rs n. c. 500, and has since bee.
reiterated BY Attorney General Gilmer ana
approved by the court, 131 n. G. 692. Tc
same purpose. New Orleans VS.. Lea, IL
La Ann. 1871 and many other authorities.
The only difference j. that tho State
cannot tax the salary OF any Federal OF
fccr, nor can the Federal Government
tax the salary Of any State officer, slnvC
neither has the right to reduce the sup
port allotted by the other government ion
It's officers, while the State j. only prohib
tied from reducing, by taxation or other
wise, the salaries Of the Judges and o.
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 and the
executive officers named in that in>tru
| jltllI. L ne sd Id H.. ldiit 1'iCtii LII VII
tinued existence OF all officers Of thc
United States and OF tn state, not thu
designated IN their respective Constitu
tons, being subject to the Will OF the Leg
~.Glativc power Of each respectively are no
thus protected by constitutional rrovi>
ION from taxation by it own government
These exemptions are not special priv
ileges' TO officials. but are made by rca
sous of the highest public policy. II IN:
State could tax the salaries Of FedcTa
officers, or the Federal Government could
tax the salaries OF State officers. eithe
could destroy the efficiency OF the opera
tons Of the other government. since caci
government must act through It's officers
So if Congress could reduce by taxatiol
the salaries OF the Federal judges or chic
Fedora! Executive officers. the State Leg
~islaturc could reduce by taxation the sal
!, aries OF the State judges, and chIet exec
f utivc officers of the State, the judicial am
executive departments would be d%ependen