Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1830-04-07


The plaintiffs would give to this char
ter the same construction as if it contain
ed clause exempting the bank from tax
alton, on its stock in trade. But can it
be supposed that such clause would not
enlarge its privileges They contend it
must be implied, because the power to tax
may be so welded as to defeat the pur-
pose for which the charter was granted,
and may not this be said with equal truth,
of other legislative powers Does it not
also apply with equal force to every in
corporat6d company A company may
be Incorporated for the purpose oftrading
in goods as well as trading in money.
Ifthe policy of the state should lead to.
the imposition of a tax on unincorporated
companies, could those which might be
incorporated claim an exemption in vir-I
tue of a charter which does not indicate
such an intentioni The time may come
when duty may be imposed on manu-
factres. Would an Incorporated COM
pany be exempted from this duty as the
mere consequence of its charter
The great object of an incorporation,
is to bestow the character and properties
of individuality, on collective, and
changing body of men. This capacity
is always given to such body. Any
privileges Which may exempt it from the
burthens common to individuals, do not
flow necessarily from the charter, but
must be expressed in it, or they do not
exist. Ifthe power of taxation is incon-
sistent with the charter, because it may
be SO increased as to destroy the object
for which the charter is given; it is
equally inconsistent with every other
charter, because it is equally capable of
working the destruction of the objects
for which every other charter is given.
lfthe grant of a power to trade in money,
to given amount, implies an exemption
of the stock in trade from taxation, be-
cause the taxes may absorb the profits,
then the grant of any other thing implies
the same exemption, for that thing may
be taxed to an extent, which will render
it totally Improbable to the grantee
Land, for example, has in many, per-
haps in all the States, been granted by
the government, since the adoption of the
I Constitution. This grant is contract,
the object of which is, that the profits is
suing from it, shall ensue to the benefit
OF The grantee, yet the power of taxation
: may be carried so far, as to absorb these
profits. Does this impair the obligation of
contract T? The idea is refuted by all,
and the proposition appears so eXtrava-
giant, that it is difficult to admit any re-
:. semblance in the case aforesaid. Yet
if the proposition forwhich the plaintiffs
contend be true, it carries us to this point.
That proposition is that power which is
in itself capable of being exerted to the
total destruction of the grant, is incon-
sstent with the grant, and is therefore,
implicitly relinquished by the grantor,
though the language of the instrument
contains no allusion to the subject. If
this be an abstract truth, it may be sup
! posed universal (; but it is not universal,
and therefore its truth cannot be admit
ted in these broad terms, in any case.-
we must look for the exemption in the
4 Language of the instrument and five do
not find it there, it would be going very
far, to insert it by construction. The
power of Legislation, and consequently
OF taxation, operates on all the persons
and property belonging to the body poll
tic, as an original principle, which has
its foundation in society itself 1t is
granted by all for the benefit of ALL 1t
resides In government as part of itself
ndnecd not be resigned, when property of
any description, or the right to use it any
manner is granted to individuals or bodies
corporate. However absolute the right
of an individual may be, it is still in the
nature of that right, that it must bear
portion of the public burthens, and that
portion must be determined by the leg
islature. This vital power may be abused,
but the constitution of the United States
was not intended to furnish the corrective
for every abuse of power, which may be
committed by the State governments -
The interest, wisdom, and Justice of the
representative body, and its relation with
its constituents, furnish the only security,
where thcse is no express contract a
galnst unjust and excessive taxation, as
well as against universal Legislation gem
orally. This principle was laid down
in the cases of Mccullough VS.. the State
OF Maryland, and in Osborn ct al. VS.. the
bank of the United States-both those
cases we think, proceed on the admission
that an Incorporated bank, unless its
charter shall express the exemption, is no
more exempted from taxation, than an
unincorporated company would be carry
ing on the same business. The case of
Fletcher VS.. Peck, has been cited but
in that case the Legislature of Georgia,
passed an act to annul its grant. The
cncpp of tho Ctoto oc Nou, -. -