« AnteriorContinuar »
frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining terest of stock or bonds held by it in a railroad or the boundary between the nation and the States of canal company, because the municipal corporation which it is composed, would have disappeared, and was a representative of the State, created by the with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and State to exercise a limited portion of its powers of private property.
government, and therefore its revenues, like those We are of opinion that the law in question, so far of the State itself, were not taxable by the United as it levies a tax on the rents or income of real es- States. The revenues thus adjudged to be exempt tate, is in violation of the Constitution, and is in- from Federal taxation were not themselves approvalid.
priated to any specitic public use, nor derived from Another question is directly presented by the rec- property held by the State or by the municipal corord as to the validity of the tax levied by the act poration for any specific public use, but were part upon the income derived from municipal bonds. of the general income of that corporation, held for The averment in the bill is that the defendant com
the public use in no other sense than all property pany owns two millions of the municipal bonds of and income, belonging to it in its municipal charthe city of New York, from which it derives an an
acter, must be so held. The reasons for exempting nual income of $60,000, and that the directors of all the property and income of a State or of a munithe company intend to return and pay the taxes on
cipal corporation, which is a political division of the income so derived.
the State, from Federal taxation, equally require The Constitution contemplates the independent exercise by the nation and the State, severally, of
the exemption of all the property and income of the their constitutional powers.
national government from State taxation." As the States cannot tax the powers, the opera
In Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138, tions, or the property of the United States, nor the 162, this court said: “ Bonds issued by the State of means which they employ to carry their powers into New York, or under its authority by its public muexecution, so it has been held that the United nicipal bodies, are means for carrying on the work States have no power under the Constitution to tax
of the government, and are not taxable even by the either the instrumentalities or the property of a
United States, and it is not a part of the policy of State.
the government which issues them to subject them A municipal corporation is the representative of
to taxation for its own purposes." the State and one of the instrumentalities of the State
The question in Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U.S. government. It was long ago determined that the 592, was whether the registered public debt of one property and revenues of municipal corporations are
State, exempt from taxation by that State or actunot subject to Federal taxation. Collector v. Day, ally taxed there, was taxable by another State when 11 Wall. 115; United States v. Railroad Co., 17 id. owned by a citiren of the latter, and it was held 322, 332. In Collector v. Day it was adjudged that that there was no provision of the Constitution of Congress had no power, even by an act taxing all
the United States which probibited snch taxation. incomes, to levy a tax upon the salaries of judicial | The States bad not covenanted that this could not officers of a State, for reasons similar to those on be done, whereas, under the fundamental law, as to which it had been held in Dobbins v. Commission- the power to borrow money, neither the United ers, 16 Pet. 435, that a State could not tax the sala- States on the one hand, nor the States on the other, ries of officers of the United States. Mr. Justice
can interfere with that power as possessed by each Nelson, in delivering judgment, said: “The gene- and an essential element of the sovereignty of each. ral government and the States, although both exist
The law under consideration provides “that within the same territorial limits, are separate and nothing herein contained shall apply to States, coun. distinct sovereignties, acting separately and inde-ties or municipalities.” It is contended that alpendently of each other, within their respective though the property or revenues of the States or spheres. The former, in its appropriate sphere, is their instrumentalities cannot be taxed, nevertheless supreme, but the States, within the limits of their the income derived from Stute, county and municipowers not granted, or, in the language of the tenth pal securities can be taxed. But we think the same amendment, “reserved,' are as independent of the want of power to tax the property or revenues of general government, as that government, within its the States or their instrumentalities exists in relasphere, is independent of the States."
tion to a tax on the income from their securities, and This is quoted in Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 | for the same reason, and that reason is given by U. S. 151, 178, and the opinion continues: "Apply- Chief Justice Marshall in Weston v. Charleston, 2 ing the same principles, this court, in United States Pet. 449, 468, where he said: “The right to tax the v. Railroad Company, 17 Wall. 322, held that a contract to any extent, when made, must operate municipal corporation within a State could not be on the power to borrow before it is exercised, and taxed by the United States on the dividends or in- I have a fensible influence on the contract. The ex
tent of this power, depends on the will of a distinct proofs are not lacking. By what gauge do we government. To any extent, however inconsider- measure a woman's superiority? Consider the quesable, it is a burthen on the operations of govern- tion, and it should be readily apparent that there ment. It may be carried to an extent which shall are three very important laws affecting women in arrest them entirely.
The tax on govern- general — the laws of property, marriage and diment stock is thought by this court to be a tax on the contract, a tax on the power to borrow money First, then, the laws of property. According to on the credit of the United States, and consequently the common law of Christian countries, a cruel husto be repugnant to the Constitution.” Applying band or father has it in his power to deprive his this language to these municipal securities it is ob- wife and daughters of property by testamentary disvious that taxation on the interest therefrom would position. He can make his will as he pleases, and operate on the power to borrow before it is exer- neither wife nor daughter can do aught to prevent cised, and would have a sensible influence on the the perpetration of the manifest injustice. The contract, and that the tax in question is a tax on Mahomedan law, on the contrary, gives full relief. the power of the States and their instrumentalities | The wife, sisters and daughters are made “legal to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to sharers,” and until their claims are settled the male the Constitution.
residuary heirs can get nothing. Upon each of the other questions argued at the
Again, in Christian countries the wife has no bar, to wit, 1, Whether the void provisions as to
separate condition in the eyes of the law. During rents and income from real estate invalidated the coverture, the existence of the wise is actually whole act? 2. Whether as to the income from per- merged into that of the husband, and in the eye of sonal property as such, the act is unconstitutional
the law they are one. Hence, no contract can be as laying direct taxes ? 3, Whether any part of the made between a man and his wife, unless with the tax, if not considered as a direct tax, is invalid for intervention of trustees. She is regarded as sub want of uniformity on either of the grounds sug- potestate viri, and he cannot grant to or covenant gested ?-the justices who heard the argument are with her, inasmuch as to do so would be to suppose equally divide, and, therefore, no opinion is her separate existence. Moreover, the hushand is expressed.
entitled to the rents and profits of the estate of the The result is that the decree of the Circuit Court is wife, and, if he chooses, he may reduce her chattels reversed and the cause remaniled with directions to into his possession. In some measure these laws enter a decree in favor of the complainant in respect have been amended of late, but for centuries this only of the coluntary payment of the tux on the rents was the law of enlightened England. Compare it and income of the real estate of the lefendant company, with the Mahomedan law. I quote the learned and of that which it holds in trust, and on the income Moulevi Syed Ameer Ali, who states: “The confrom the municipal bonds owned or so helil by it.
tract of marriage gives the man no power over the woman's person beyond what the law defines,
and none whatever upon her goods and propOUR DEGRADED SISTERS.
erty. She retains in his household all the rights By GIFFORD Knox.
which the law vests in her as a responsible member T is a mistake to regard Mabomedan women as
of society. She can be sued as a femme sole. She legally inferior to the women of Christian coun- can receive property without the intervention of tries. It is to be regretted that the missionaries trustees. She has a distinct lien upon her husband's should represent in the blackest colors the degrada-estate for ber ante-nuptial settlement. Her rights tion and miserable condition of Moslem women. as a mother do not depend for their recognition
She The mistake appears, all too often, as one of pur- upon the idiosyncrasies of individual judges. pose, as one foisted upon the prevailing ignorance
can enter into binding contracts with her husband, of the truth.
and proceed against him in law.” So far from degrading women, Islam bas elevated
This is a law that has been in force in the Mosthem, and maintained for them an elevation the lem world for more than twelve centuries, and will highest that their sex can reasonably claim. It remain as long as Islam exists. Is not the law of gives them far greater privileges than Christianity our Christian countries debasing in comparison? bestows, and in many Christian countries their posi- Founded upon the teaching of Christ — “ They are tion, until a comparatively recent time, was far in- no more twain, bit one flesh” -- is not Christianity, ferior to that of Mahomedan women in every coun- therefore, responsible for the civil death of women try, even Africa and Arabia.
in Christian countries? Husband and wife, being I anticipate the incredulous “Impossible?” The in law one, it follows that neither can maintain an
action for tort against the other, but the husband and his laws of marriage gave distinct rights to can at common law recover, in his own name, wages
men and women. In his famous Arafat discourse, that accrue to his wife, or the profits of a business he said: “Ye men, ye have rights over your wives, carried on by her. He can sue for her work and and they have rights over you.” He made marlabor, and for goods sold or money lent by her. riage, therefore, a civil contract, and to this day its How many times a miserable husband has deserted validity depends on I' jab, or proposal, on one side, his wife, and then demanded, under the strict au- and Kabul, or acceptance, on the other. As a conthority of the law, the money which she had by tract of partnership it requires two witnesses, and hard labor acquired. The husband of your laundress is a simple and natural mode of formation of the can claim her wages at your hand. The father of your nuptial tie. What is the civil character of the music teacher cau sell her piano. The husband of the Christian contract of marriage in comparison? It Hon. Mrs. Norton could require that the publishers is true, and “beautiful,” that the man undertakes of his wife's books should pay the profits to him- protect" and 'cherish” his wife, but in the self. Tom Loker and George Shelby, in ante- matter of liability he is not responsible for her bellum days, conld hire out their slaves as they debts, as is the Mabomedau husband. The latter is pleased. Slavery is known by• more names than legally bound to maintain his wife and her domes
But in the Mahomedan law, as Mr. Justice tic servants, and is held to her full maintenance. Ali says, “No coverture is recognized, and a wife's To quote the lIidaya: “The word of God appoints property remains hers in her individual right. She the wife subsistance and a maintenance.” Furthercan alienate or devise it without his leave. Her more, our laws are lame in inadequate provision for earnings, acquired by her individual exertions, can- widows; but the Koran says that one year's mainnot be wasted by a prodigal husband.” In fact, he tenance must be the provision for every widow out has no more right to her wages or her property than of her husband's estate. This is in addition to an utter stranger.
dower, and every Maliomedan wife is dowered. A Mahomedan wife can sue any of her debtors Ameer Ali says: “In order to make a legal marwithout an intermediary. If necessary, she can sue riage, it is required that there must be an anteher husband on contract. In this country and the nuptial consideration moving from the husband in countries of Western Europe the woman is helpless favor of the wife, for her exclusive use and benefit." as compared to her Eastern sisters. Helpless? | Fatawa-i-Kaza says: “Dower is so necessary to marYes, and such complete helplessness! As an illus- riage that if it were not mentioned at the time or in trative case, there was a woman in England a few
the contract the law will presume it by virtue of the years ago who was deserted by her shiftless hus- contract itself." band, and left to rear a family of little children. This dower the wife can demand at any time she She met with a railway accident, and brought suit
likes, and until it is satisfied she has a distinct lien against the railway company. The latter at once on the property of her husband. By such proviobtained a nonsuit, on the ground that, as a mar- sion she can maintain hierself in case of accident, ried woman, she could not sue. Her attorneys sent desertion or separation. Need I contrast this with to this country, and by dint of search found the our laws and customs of dower? husband, and induced him to join in the suit with What of the laws of divorce? We know, all too the wife. The case was tried, and the company well, what it is in our Christian lands. The Church had to pay £1,000 damages. When it came to be of Rome and many eminent authorities in the paid, it was necessarily paid to the man, as damage Church of England, the Greek Church and the dishad been done to “his property.” He took it, and senting bodies maintain that the bond of marriage is returned to America, leaving the crippled and pau- of such a special and sacred nature that if once conpered wife to go to the workhouse. This is one stituted, only death can dissolve it. That is one illustration of many. Just as in Rome, a slave extreme, and the lax laws of some of our American could bring no individual action, he having no per- States supply the other. Between the two there are song in the eyes of the law, so in this and other all sorts of middle-grounds. In England, until like cases the woman is only a slave. In Turkey, if | 1857, divorce was no part of the regular law of the a woman sustains an injury, she need not so much country. Blackstone says: "The law is tender of as consult her husband about bringing suit. If her dissolving marriage.” Even adultery was not husband assaults her, and she is injured in person, deemed sufficient cause for divorce by tle English she can sue him. It is done time and again. divines, and in almost all cases it was refused to What about the laws of marriage in the East as
In fact there are records of but four cases compared to ours? Here is another plain and in- altogether, previous to 1857, in which a wɔman had structive contrast.
obtained a decree, while a man might btain diMahomet was himself a married man and a father, vorce on charge of adultery without permitting her
to make defense. How much better is it now? The The Mahomedan law has also to do very decibest lawyers admit that the laws of divorce are ex- dedly with the treatment of parents by children. tremely imperfect. Davidson says of them that in Christian countries, although there exists a strong they are “unreasonable, ignoring facts, and refus- moral obligation on the part of children to support ing remedies." Let us ask, with shame, if they are their parents, when poor or incapacitated, there is any other than cruel and unjust? But look at the little, if any, legal obligation. The Mahomedan Mahomedan law. The Koran says that men and law is very explicit on this point. Alamgri bas women should be agreed and reconciled if it is a said: Daughters as well as sons are liable for the possible thing, in every instance.
maintenance of their poverty-stricken parents." If, however, it is impossible, both equally may Again: “If a mother is poor, and the son is able to obtain separation. Both are entitled to representa-work, he is bound to support her, even though he tives, and dissolution is allowed at the initiative of is in straitened circumstance.” And again: “ If either party. Upon disagreement the woman can
a son is able to maintain but one parent or granddemand release and a settlement. Divorce proceed-parent, the mother or grandmother has the prefer
No ing from the woman is called khula, and that from ence,” that is, over the father or grandfather. the husband is tlak. On proper application, any
law in the universe enjoins so much respect for judge cancels the bond. But do not think that the mothers. Indeed, Mahomet once said, “Paradise Mahomedan law encourages divorce. Far from it. is under the feet of the mother." Ibraham Halevi says: "No Mussulman can justify
In this connection let me observe that it makes divorce, either in the eyes of religion or the law,
10 difference if the Moslem has become a Christian. for the prophet says, 'God's curse rests on him who It is still his to keep legal obligations. In Concapriciously repudiates his wife.?" But, neverthe-stantinople
, Cairo, Smyrna and other Eastern cities less, the wife is entitled to the decree for adultery, dans carrying on their backs their mothers and
one may see on almost any Sunday young Mahomedesertion, cruelty, degradation and threats of bodily injury. During the period when the divorce is grandmothers to and from the Christian chapels.
Christian countries can show no nobler examples of pending the husband must still maintain the wife,
warm devotion. It is the same with man and wife. and after the issue of the decree she is under an ob
The Christian wife of a Moslem is provided with a ligation to wait a specified length of time before re
conveyance to take her to and from her place of marriage, namely, three months. Another import
worship; and if there is a matter of contributions, ant point is as to the provision for custody of he sees to it that she has the money. There is little children in cases of divorce or separation. In our
of friction in the Mahomedan families. Though the country and others the mothers are often deprived
man is liable for maintaining his wife, he is rarely of the children. A learned English judge is quoted
forced to do it, but agrees to do it of good will. as saying: “The law does not recognize the mother Though divorce is so readily had, it is a remarkable at all; it only sees the father and the child.” Ma- fact, that among India's sixty million Mahomedans hoined, however, laid down as his opinion the state
divorce is rarely heard of. The very liberty acts as ment that "The claims of the mother to the cus
a natural check, by making man and wife respect tody of the child so absolutely outweigh those of each other's rights and privileges. Edmund Burke, the father, that he really ouglit not to come into
when asked an antidote for the abuse of liberty in the question at all.” Alamgri says: “The mother the House of Commons, said, “ Give them more libis best entitled to the custody of her children.”
erty.” Other writers are equally emphatic in maintaining
I am not inclined to regard the women of Islam that it is the mother's natural right. They are un
as legally inferior to their sisters of Christian counable to conceive that a father has any right at all
tries. If there is any
degradation," it is not of to his children that can for a moment outweigh or
the kind that the law correct, and makes, and modieven compete with that of the mother. The law is
fies. The Moslem wife regards her husband as her therefore very explicit, and the mother is given the
lord, and serves him with devotion. If, however, custody of daughters until they arrive at puberty,
he is in any wise a transgressor of rights, she has it and of sons until they are able to earn their own
in her power and province to summarily correct living. So completely is the law in favor of the
bim. women in this matter, that on the death of the
WESTFIELD, N. J. mother the custody is given, not to the father, but to the female relatives of the mother. The order of right runs thus: First, mother, then grandmother, LIBEL-PUBLICATION. — Giving a letter containthen sisters, then mother's sisters, and, finally, ing matter defamatory of another to a clerk to copy, father's sister's. The preference is for women to which he does, is a publication. (State v. McIntire men, and relations of mother to relations of father, [No. Car.], 20 S. E. Rep. 721.)
OUR GREATEST LAWYER.
of his philippics are still extant, and you feel sorry
for the modern Philip when you read them.
If, however, you mean by the greatest lawyer the “ lawyer,” I may answer you more readily and easily cinating and irresistible of men, then you must take
most persuasive, the most delightful, charming, fasthan without such an explanation. I could name several men who answer this superlative descrip
Ogden Hoffman. He may not have been at besiegtion. But the qualities that make up a great law-ing strongholds. He may not have understood
counterscraps, circumvallations, redoubts and the yer are so diverse that the question might be ob
like. I really believe he could not have captured jected to as vague and indefinite. Charles O'Conor was the greatest lawyer that my
Alesia 2,000 years ago, as Cæsar did, but when it
came to storming the jury-box, to sweeping away generation has known, in one sense of the word intervening obstacles in spite of all the rules of He was thoroughly imbued and saturated with the
war-except those that rested on honorable carlaw, its principles and its philosophy. He exuded law learning, as some men are said to radiate good- riage-Ogden Hoffman was the chief of them all.
His onslaught was simply irresistible. He was in If the law had been an inflammable sub
the jury box with the jurors, telling them what to stance, he might have been expected to perish in a
do, and they obeying him, before the case was out blaze of spontaneous combustion, the material being of the judge's hands. He charmed men from their furnished from the essence of numberless tomes determination, as Apollo with his lyre drew the which he has perused and digested.
oaks by the roots from their mother soil. He hypThe reports, text-books, treatises, briefs, essays notized and wrought a spell about them. His voice on the subject of the law which he had assimilated,
was like a silver flute in the hands of an enchanter. would in their original form have heated the baths of some modern cities, as long as the baths of Alex. courteously, that really it was not fair to the other
And it was all done so modestly and gently and andria were kept in operation by the volumes that
side. a ruthless barbarian conquerer turned into fuel.
Fortunately for the administration of justice, naTo build up a clean-cut, technical case was as
ture, in giving Hoffman such possibilities of wrongmuch an object of love to him as the erection of a doing, had limited his capacity for mischief by a temple would have been to an architect of old double and very effective infliction. He was lazy Athens. Logic was his constant companion and
and he was a gentleman. He would never willfriend. Rhetoric he looked on with suspicion, and ingly harm a human being, even if it could be acif at times he did allow himself to be drawn away complished without labor, because he was a gentlefrom the mathematics of his profession, it was only
And as for doing a wrong or anything else a short-lived truancy. He did show in these brief
to any one where labor was involved, be scorned moments of infidelity to his stern-browed mistress such baseness.
He was incapable of thus flying in that he might enter the lists with the best sophists the face of the good fairy who had lovingly enof them all and gather laurels with them on the dowed him at his birth with a splendid fund of unslopes of Hymettus or Parnassus. But he soon conquerable laziness. tired of the flowers that he picked, and flung them
James T. Brady completes the trio of great lawaside, as though weaving garlands were beneath his yers whom I have known. Perhaps he was the most dignity.
richly endowed of them all. He was a man of inTo put it in plainer prose, he sometimes gave me
tense personality. His massive head, with the deepthe impression that he was reigning in his fancy, set eyes, liis charming smile and winning ways, his Jest it carry him away. It was a disappointment, exquisite command of language, his wit, his fancy, and I longed to see him lose his self-control and his eloquence, his genius-were his, and the union give a free field to his imagination, and a touch of his alone. On the whole, take him altogether, he the
spur to the poetical side of his genius. But he way second to none. Had he chosen he might have never yielded wholly to the temptation. He rode been first. back in season to the beaten track, and grappled But there was a cui bono note in his efforts before with court and jury on the prosaic ground of hard, court and jury that handicapped success. Expractical sense and prosaic demonstration.
cept in great cases, especially criminal cases, he As lawyer, and simply a lawyer, he was great. seldom called out his reserves. He fought his battle If he had allowed himself to be an orator besides, with a light brigade, as it were, and made use of a he probably could have done so. Imagine Demos- brilliantly uniformed cavalry when less picturesque thenes with no Philip to denounce, and making it allies might be necessary. But you know that he his business to elucidate the law of trusts, and to had the forces behind him, and when he did take make contingent remainders intelligible, you have upon himself the responsibility of a human life he my idea of Charles O'Conor. I may add that some was inimitable, and never failed to do his best, and