Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-10-25

Congress will create no new Oank with
in the District, il annuls this power Of
exclusive legislation! must say that
this reasoning hardly rises high enough
to entitle it to passing notice. 1t would
be doing too much credit to call it plau-
sible. No one needs to be informed that
exclusive power Of Legislation is not un-
limited power of legislation, and, if il
were, how can that Legislative power be
unlimited that cannot restrain itself, that
cannot bind itself by contract' Whether
as a government, or as an individual, that
being is fettered and restrained which Is
not capable Of binding itself by ordinary
obligation. Every Legislature binds it.
self whenever it makes grant, enters IN
to a contract, bestows an office, or does
any other act or thing which is in its ma
ture irrepealablc. And this, instead OF
detracting from its legislative power, is
one ofthe modes of exercising that pow
er. And the Legislative power of Con-
gress over the District of Columbia
would not be full and complete if it might
not make just such stipulation as the
bank charter contains.
As to the taxing power Of the State,
about which the message says so much,
the proper avenue to all it says, is, that
the Sfates possessed The po,rcr to tar any
instrument Of the Government ofhe United
!Siates. 1t was no part of their power be-
fore the Constitution, and they derive no
such power from any ofits provisions. 1t
is no where given to them. Could a
State tax the coin of the United States,
at the mint? Could State lay stamp
tax on the process Of the Courts of the
United States, and on custom house pa
pers' Could it tax the transportation Of
the mail, or the ships of war, or the ord
nance, or the munitions of war, OF the
United States? Tho reason that they
cannot be taxed, by State, is, that they
are means and instruments Of the Co
vernmcnt of the United States The es-
tabishment Of bank, exempt from State
taxation, takes away no existing right in
a State. 1t leaves it all it ever posses
scd; but the complaint is, that the bank
chatter does not confer the power Of tax
alton. This, certainly, though not new,
for the same argument was urged here)
appears to me to be a strange mode of as
serting and maintaining State rights
The power Of taxation is a sovereign
power: and the President, and those who
think with him, are ofopinion, in given
case, that this sovereign right should be
conferred on the States by an oct of Con-
gress. There is, if mistake not, sir, as
little compliment to State sovereignty, in
this idea, as there is Of sound constitution
al doctrine. Sovereign rights, held un-
der the grant of an act of Congress, pre-
sent proposition quite new in constitu-
tional law.
The President himself, even admits,
that an instrument Of the United States
ought not, as such, to be taxed by the
states; yet he contends for such power
OF taxing property connected with this
instrument, and essential to it's very be-
ing, rs places its whole existence in the
pleasure OF the states. 1t is not enough
that the states may tax all the property
Of her own citizens, wherever invested,
or however employed The complaint
IS, that the power Of state taxation does
reach so far as to take cognizance over
persons om of The state, and to tax them,
for franchise, lawfully exercised under
the authority Of the United States. Sir,
when did the power Of the states, or in
deed OF any government, 60 to such an
extent as that?-Clearly, never.
The taxing power Of all communities
is necessarily and justly limited to the
property Of its own citizens, and to the
property of others, having distinct local
existence, as property within its jurisdic-
ton; it does not extend to rights and
franchises rightly exercised, under the
authority of other governments, nor to
persons beyond its jurisdiction. AS the
Constitution has left the taxing power OF
the states as the Bank Charter leaves it,
Congress has not undertaken either to
take away, or to confer a taxing power;
nor to enlarge, or to restrain it; ifit were
to do either, | hardly know which Of all
would DO the least eXcusable.
beg leave to repeat, MIR. President,
that what have now been considering,
are the Presidents objections, not to the
policy or expediency, but to the consti-
tutionality of the Bank; and not to the
constltutionality Of any ncw, or proposed
Bank, but Of the Bank as it now is, and
as it has long existed IL the President
had declined to approve this bill, because
he thought the original charter unwisely
granted, and the Bank, IN point of policy
and expediency, Objectionable or mis-
chievous, and in that view only had sus
gested the reasons now urged by him
his argument, however inconclusiye
would have been Ineligible, and not, il
its whole frame and scope, inconsistent
with all well established first principles
His rejection of the bill, in that case
would have been. no doubt. an eXtraor