The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-25
RUFFIN AND CLARK BOTH HON
esq BUT WRONG.


server. in a private letter, says 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 III rendering their decision by
a desire on the part OF the
judges to escape the payment OF
a tax on thei<ow income" We are sur
prised that such 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 precedent,
which we believe tends to create class
of officialdom, enjoying exemption from
the common burdens of government. 1t
was foreign to our idea to attribute so
small or selfish motive to the North
Carolina Supreme Court. We believe they
believed they were actuated by desire
TO save the little tax on their own incomes,
ard 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 few dollars. 1t would
not support men it believed capable of
such littleness.
1t is matter for deep regret that the
court lost so splendid an opportunity OF
rendering decision that would repudiate
the absurd contention of ancient judges
that tax upon all incomes does not apply
TO judicial officers because such tax would
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
enumerated in a decision III Pennsyl-
vania to-wit: that a tax imposed upon all
incomes bears upon judges just as upon
private citizens, and does not in any way
even tend to destroy the independence OF
the Judicial Department of government.
OF course tax levied upon judges alone
would be unconstitutional but to exempt
judges from tax that is imposed upon
III x@Io 1Nr1tIr dc
up an office holding class upon which spe-
cial privileges are conferred, and is in
conflict with the republican theory that
no special privilege is to be enjoyed by
any class.
We have no doubt that the day will
come when the present decision of the
court will be reversed. We sincerely be-
iieye it is as wrong in principle as the
monarchical decision enunclated in Hoke
VS.. Henderson. Both confer a special priv
ilege upon office-holders that is denied
to others. The public interest is superior
to the right of the office holder Hoke VS..
Henderson to the contrary notwithstand-
ing. The right of the Legislature to inn
pose a tax upon all persons in receipt OF
IN income over $1,000. including judiCNll
officers, is superior to the right OF the
judge to enjoy exemption. Purnell vs..
Page to the contrary Notwithstanding.
Judge Ruffin was wrong half a century
ago; Judge Clark and his associates are
wrong now. Every civilized country in
the world except North Carolina has re-
pudiated the doctrine of Hoke vs. Hen
derson. 1t may require quite as long to
reach it, but the day will come just as
sure as law is the perfection of wisdom
and reason when Purnell VS.. Page will
also be repudiated. Ruffn was honest
but wrong. So were the Associate JUS
tees then. Clark is honest but wrong.
So are the Associate Justices now OF
course, we may be wrong in our convic-
ton. and tho judges may be right. Time
alone will tell.