The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-07-24
IN SENATE,
TUESDAY, July


IN SENATE,
TUESDAY, July 20, lS4l
Memorials and petitions were presented and laid on
the table ..
From citizens of Michigan for the establishment of
National Bank.
From citizens of New York, from st. Johns, New
York. ALSO from citizens of Reading, Pennsylvania,
in favor of Bankrupt Law. ....
Mr.. McROBERTS rose to state that he was absent
when the vote was taken the Loan Bill, but had
he been present he should had voted against il.
The resolution submitted by Mr.. BUCHANAN, some
days since, calling for the names Of persons removed
since the 4th March, 1871 and amended by Mr.. MAN
GUM so as to include removals made since the 18th
March, 1892 to the 18th March, l64 being under con-
sideration-4y /. s +s# -4 & ....
Mr.. BENTON rose and spoke some time beyond
the morning hour against the principle Of the removal
ofGovcrninent officers, and insisted that political Of
fences were undefinabe, and could not be brought
within the rule prescribed by the late letter ofhe Sec
rotary State directed to the officers of the Gov
eminent VA" 1''.
Mr.. LINN asked the yeas and nays on the adop-
ton of the resolution, but afterwards withdrew the
call. ..s@e ..
The question was then taken the adoption of the
Mr.. HUNTINGTON, from the Committee on
Commerce, reported the House bill for the extension
of the port of New Orleans without amendment, and
recommended that il be laid on the table.
lhe bill from the House appropriations IOT
Notifications and the suppression of Indian hostes,
twice read and referred to the Committee on Mil
itary Affairs.
5"s &@'.>. FISCAL BANK.
The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of
the bill to incorporate the subscribers to the Fiscal
Bank of the United States; when H-...-
Mr.. SMITH, of Connecticut, rose and addressed
the Senate for near two hours against the general
principles of the bill, contending that National
Bank was unconstitutional and mex pedient. sat
Mr.. NICHOLSON then moved an amendment to
the effect that nothing contained in the bill should
take away impair the right of any State to tax the
real and personal property of said bank, including its
debts due account its notes. bills bonds mortgages
contracts and public stocks whether the was in
possession or under the immediate management of
said Bank any person, agent trustee in the same
that States had the right to tax their own in
stitutions. ~ sF .........
Mr. NJ said the amendment was similar to that Of
fered in 1882 and by reference to the Senate Journal
he found that there then 20 votes for it, includ
ing the two Senators from his State. He did not
offer the amendment with any view to Cypress the
Bank but simply because his State taxed its own in
situations, and his object was to place this Bank on
the footing other State institutions, and that
the States should have the power to tax it high as
they did their own,
Mr. CLAY hoped the amendment would not pre-
vail the effect would be place the Bank in the pow
er of The State The Senator said the object not
TO tax the Bank higher than the State did its own
Suppose any wild feeling against Banks should in
duce them to tax their to destroy them
The States already had the power to tax the property
of the Bank and the stockholder, but they had no
right to tax the corporation ITSELF
Mr.. BENTON said this question Of taxation had
been extensively argued 1t was argued that the
States were sovereign that when they into the
Confederation they delivered up part Of their sove-
reign power. Among the exceptions which the States
made 10 the right Of taxation, this Bank was not
found Il was true that the Supreme Court nodded
towards the idea that il was free from taxation, but
equally true that their whole argument turned on
the words necessary and competent" applied to the
mother Bank. This decision with reference to thu
Bank was correct They then went on and said thu
same construction applied to their branches. Her
was the error Congress decided it was perfectly i'm
material to them whether branches established
The States not BY virtue of the rights of the State
these institutions were taxable, and if one of then
came within the limits of his State il would be seeI
whether they had the taxing power,
Mr.. HUNTINGTON said, il the proposition o
the Senator from Missouri was correct the amend
ment was entirely unnecessary. The Supreme Conr
nodded, the Senator had said. This was rather sin
gular in deciding great constitutional question, tina
the Supreme Court should nod. The question re
solved itself into this whether any one of the twenty
six States had the power to destroy branch; and
they were prepared for that they might vote for tn
amendment. He hoped il would not be adopted.
Mr.. BENTON said the corporation went into tn
State for the purpose Of making money and must b.
liable 10 taxation 4ts EOS a55 s5s4..s
Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, said this right of taxation
belonged to all the States without the provision nov
made, and was indispensable TO sovereignty. II wa
expressly provided that the States should tax none
the public lands within their limits allowing thu
right Of taxation Could il be supposed that State
should not have right Of taxing institutions from
other States equal othe amount they taxed their own
The right existed and could not be destroyed and un
less the States voluntarily surrendered the right they
had the undoubted right to tax property Of either in
suton in their limits. On what principle Of propri
iety should this be an exceptionl Did they give any
bonus7 No. But they proposed to confer these i'm
portant exclusive privileges Of banking certain in
dviduals without bonus and give them the interes,
on their exchanges without taxation
Mr.. SEWER said no one would have dreamed o.
exempting this institution from taxation, had it not
been decided by the Supreme Court Of the Untet
States. What was the difference between taking III,
bank and taxing pedlars, bankers and brokersl The,
taxed their own banks and why should they not th
foreign corporation? Ii they taxed their own bro
kers why should they not this great mammoth broker
He could reason, from expedency or right, tina
they should not tau this bank.
Mr. NICHOLSON said the Senators on the othe
side were accustomed TO look with suspicion on an
amendments offered on this side of the Senate
these branches were established without tax ation
would create a spirit of jealousy. II would also Gu
tail the Of the States TO the amount Of It's b,
siness, by taking from the business o. their bank
which paid taxes The Senator from Kentucky sal
they might destroy these branches. He thought III
was a case improbable, if not impossible. The que
lion was, will we concede to the States the same pow
which they had over their own institutions IL IN
right was not conceded this would be one of the fir
questions raised in the States where branches we
located and would be great cause of bringing 70
ward the question Of repca il was therefore the II
terest Of the friends the Bank 10 support the amen
ment. hW - lNt
Mr.. YOUNG said, unless you could tar the inst
tuition itself, that was the only way you could reae
IT, You could not reach the stock holders for most
them were non-residents With regard the equil
ofthis there could be mo question. II might be sal
that the United Staies owned much Of the stock, b,
by referring TO the Dartmouth College case, he col