Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-02-14

1
The Commiee OF Finance. 10 whom was referred
solution Of the House OF Delegates istructng them to
enqnire into the expediency OF taxing in those
branches OF tie Bank of the United States which
located in this Commonwealth, what other
u may be proper and e>pedeut To adopt with .said to
those bianchts-have, according order, had the
nnder consideration and have come to thr following re-
solution theregpon:
ResOiped, As the opinion ofthis Committee, that IL IS
not e%peuien TO in the branches OF the Bank
OF the United States located in ibis Commonwealth 10
adopt amy other measures at this time With iySaId 10 The
DIR. Chdnbeyiayns moved 10 amend the reso-
uiion, SO as To declare IL TO be crpediest TO tax
| the branches OF the Bank fthe United states,
Iocated within This commonwealth.
Some debate took place on tins motion.
Mr.. Chamberiayne supported II on the
ground, that The general government had no
tight TO establish the bank that foreigners
held a large share of its stock aud that IL
ought not 10 have any advantage over the
state banks, by paying smaller bonus. He re-
terted 10 the precedent which had been by
Georgia IN taxing the old United States Bank.
Mcssrs. Btackburn aud NdgiH opposed the
| motion they cxpatiaied upon the advantages
OF maintaining the harmony winch existed be-
tween the general and the state governments.
Mr. B. said he should not faiito protect our state
institutions; and that the momen' the United
States Bank should manifest disposition to
lay Its hands on the state banks, he should be
ready TO lay tax upon IL F.; but at present no
symptoms Of such an encroachment wero
visible. Mr.. Magiii contended that the state
banks had 30 right 10 lay the tax because the
courts and practice OF The United States had
settled tue constitutional right of the general
government 10 establish the bank. ~.
Mr.. LeUisreferred to the Georgia precedent
and stated that in IA CONVEX satiOn with Judge
Johnston before when the point is said to have
been decided, he had understood from him.
that when the state sheriff had seized some OF
tie money of the hank iopay the tax, the bank
had sHed him in the cont OF the u. ). !; in
which case ne had decided against the bank,
because being ID corporate body, tEey could
t.as sa.asa
appeal was taken, aud The supreme court
reversed the decision, and sent the case back
TO tie court below. The case however had
never come Oh, owing 10 the expiration of the
charter OF the bank.-'ilus the case in Georgia
had gone offupon subordinate poIBt, aud did
not eventnate in establishing the right of the
state TO tax the bank.-Hir. l.. contended, that
If The United States had right to establish
the bank, the states had no right to tax it
these conflicting rights cannot exist for By
laying a very heavy tax upon it, the states
might drive II beyond its jurisdIction.-He
attempted 10 shew the iueApediency of such
measure; because il nigh; disturb the tran
guilty between the two governments he
cause the bank might withdraw its branch,
and with IL, the capital, which was so much
wanting in the state because the bank was
so useful, IN all the fiscal operations of the
government, and in the mercantile transactions
OF distant merchauts.--ie said, that the u. S.
bank had already paid bonus of one and an
half millions TO The United States of which
received eur full proportion. Was 1T right To
compel Ike bank TO pay double bonusi
Mr.. Chdnberiayne contended that the Geor-
gia case was in his favor; the tax was collect
ed and paid until the expiration of the charter;
that we would but follow the example which
the United States themselves had set us, in
taxing the Siate-banks during the late wal
He commended, they had 10 right under The
constitution to establish this hank at all that
they now claimed right 10 establish roads
and canals, ahd If they went on as they were
gong, might soon incorporate manufacturing
companies in the state and il would then be
said, as is said in this case, you would have no
right 10 tax them, because the United states
had a right TO establish them.-As to tiie bonus
paid by the bank, what was IL | ] millions on
26-about per cent. OH their capital, while
our state banks are compelled TO pay 70. He
expatiated Oh the fatal effects of this inequai-
~ upon the state institutions all he wished at
present was, TO make the BONUS equal.-As to
Withdrawing their branch from Virginia they
might do II aud weloOme-but, it every state
should follow our example, they would contn-
TIE their branches aud quietly pay the tax
The gentleman from Bath had said, he would
vote 10 tax the bank, il he found It attempting
| TO control our state baDkS-Mr. G.. cOnteIded
that this was already the fact. He was conf
| dent of our right TO levy the tax and unless
we do exercise II soon, the time was not far
distant when we shaulu scarcely have power
| To exercise any OF our rights. When was it
more necessary TO resort 10 the old principles
| OF The republican party? for, if the United
| states proceed, as they are going, we shall
| soon verge into consolidation
| Mr. MagM asked, when was the case or d G.
| ciSion which Showed, that the power was claim
! ed TO tax the bank was constitutional ASto the
| Georgia case, ii decided uoIhiDg--ii leaves us
| where il found us. Had tue United States a
| right to establish this bank { This was the great
| point cE which the present que stion turned.
| but ON this point he was content to think with
| the IiilstfiOus man who was lately at the head
| of eur affairs (Mr. Madison) -tla at the court of
| - GIul had oh Oh.
| tile bank into effect and at what tribunal
| asked MIR. MagIiD is any law TO be decided
| constitutional unless II be the court Mr.. Ma.
| gill said, he was as much the friend of state
| rights as any man but il the United States
| had right to establish this bank, what right
have the states to tax il Mr.. Nj. proceeded
| to enlarge upon the benefits oftlIs institution;
| The deplorable state in which it had found the
currency OF the country; and the restoration
| IT had effected.-He dwelt upon the acconmO-
| dation IT furnished to the trade of the nation
| The gentleman from Henrico had affirmed
| that III The course of year our state banks
| would he at It's mercy; is ii right then for MS
| to hasten this event! But lie hoped that 10
| hostility would exist between the banks, as
| tue happiest results would flow from their har.
| hiony.- Again, the difficulty was, 10 get at The
| bank how can you ascertain the amount OF
| the capital il has IN this slater Would you
| like Pitt, tax Income One gentleman talks of
| consolidation; but If the bank be consistent
with the constitution, how can itcOntribute to
| lead to that event.
Mr.. Robertson (of R) opposed the amend
| ment-de begged the house TO reeollect, that
| the resolution, as reported by t.e committee,
| simply declared that il was iRerpedieHf at this
time TO lay tile tax, without deciding upon the
| right TO do so. Why tax il now II must be
TO raise revenue, or drive it out of the state.
LII we expect II 10 remain here, we ought not to
| clog its operations other states will gladly
receive it. The injury would be ours; Tor we
want ITS paper, to pay our taxes to the United
States.-The moment the bank was removed
| from this state, its paper would sell at pre-
| MUM above Ourown.-As to raising a revenue,