Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1918-01-15
GARDNER, FORMER TAXLESS STATE JOBS
GONGRESSMAN, DEAD EXPLAINED BY LAWYER
Those Whose Incomes Are
Exempt Not Favored,
but Just Lucky
GUARD COMMONWEALTH
Federal Government Might Destroy
States if 1t Cared, but for
Constitutional Provision


OF States the interests Of those states
and Of the whole people must be the
prime consideration. That fundamental
principle governed in the framing Of the
Constitution of The United States and IN
the amending of that Constitution. and
hence II is that thousands of state and
city employees incomes are exempt from
taxation under the income-tax law and
the incomc-taN section OF the war-rove-
nue. law. The Constitution forbids the
taxation OF the officials and employees of
states and political subdivisions thereof.
IT does so for the purpose of safeguard
ing and protecting the integrity and SOW
ereignty Of the States. 1t happens that
IN so doing it forbids the taxation of
employees and officials Of States and po-
litical subdivisions thereof That is
merely incidental. Those employees and
officials are just lucky. that's all.
The foregoing Is the opinion of
lawyer who was asked 10 explain the
necessity for the exemption Of salaries
Of state and city officials and employees
under all the income tax laws.
The exemption was placed in the laws
I'm Observance of the supreme Courts
Interpretation Of the Constitution in the
case of Burlington against Day in 1873
The court held that:
,-,,,. ,.,,
'"' ~ ''''>'
congress cannot. under the Constitu-
no" OF '"e "'ed states impose taN
upon ,"e salary OF Judir'"' "h'cer of
The finding IN this case is the sole
pronouncement of the supreme Court on
tnin question: nut 1t was regarded as
suH'cient 10 warrant the placing of the
W" III the Jaws
IA" hot 'ns congresses governed
themselves oF Tue law as interpreted by
wv ~ ' e'le 'ouTt tne income TAX laws
',,,i i, i ''h ,'h "p'H W at'a'N' Whlch
.,I -, l'O"uleSoile AT leas'
~. ,,. -, nu'oeeSluI'
did tho I.nitcd SAL, s,,,,ao,,,' -, nE
hold ~
And ho,o l. ,,o a,,..,,.,,. L.,.,,.. Lr,-
mower 10 tax tho na, Of ae1oial.% - Ia
eunloyes of a St.to a., !, n,ii,inai II
division thereof would carr, vim n tho
power to destroy thai Stata me- roI,,icaI
subdivision since l0o nor cent tax
would he rauiyoIeut ,o dce,ructior a..
confscation. should the T-nircd states
wages of officials of the STATE IL ,vouId
by taxing them 100 pcr cent susnend
their entire official activities and yir-
1uallv wipe the state out of existence.
Tho supreme Courts ruling was I'm
the case Of attempted taxation of a iudj.
cial officer Of a state, but IL affects all
officers Of States or subdivisions thereof
such as cities, townships and counties
.- -
'i'itN RULINGS
The Courts opinion cited the case of
Dobbins against the Erie County Com
missioners, in which it was decided that
State Legislature could not tax the
salary of an officer of the United States.
/ That decision was based mainly on the
/ ground that the officer was a means ar
instrumentality employed for carrying
into effect some of the legitimate powers
of the Government. which powers could
not he lnterfered with by taxation or
otherwise by any State. In the Dobbins-
Erie County commissioners case it was
further held that the compensation of
the officer was nseparable from the
office itself. and that If the officer him
self was exempt so. for the same reason.
was the salary provided for his support
while in office.
In agreement with this was the finding
=