Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1851-02-22

y impede and prohibit the operation Of the law pass
e ed by Congress carry into effect the powers vest
I ed in the National Government. The Constitution
4 alty of the act of Maryland was submitted to the
: Court on an agreed case from that State, against
McCulloch, the Cashier of the Branch at Baltimore
Il to of him the penalties imposed by the act
for its violation. The in itself was one of nc
t ordinary interest-t involved the Constitutional.
ty of the charter of the Bank THE United States
1t was argued with all the talent and ability which
I the great minds of the Nation could bring to the
: support of their respective views Webster and
Writ and Pinckney and Hopkinson and Jones and
! Martin, the Counsel engaged. If the impor-
lance of the case. and the distinguished ability OF
the advocates who appeared in it, conspred to rem
der its preparation and investigation thorough and
satisfactory, the authorativeness of its decision
was rendered no less distinguished by the learning
and patriotism of the Jurists who presided on the
occasion among them were Marshall and Story,
justly ranked the most eminent of the Jurists of
this country. After elaborate and patient investi-
cation, the Court pronounced the charter of the
Bank Constitutional means Of executing the
granted powers belonging to the Government
They declared the law of Maryland unconstitution-
al because it undertook to control and fetter ssthe
Constitutional means employed by the Government
the Union to execute its Constitutional powers -
but in making this determination, the Court most
fully recognized the powers for which we contend
as follows: 'That the power of taxation is one of
vital Importance that it is retained by the States
that it is not abridged by the grant of similar
power to the Government of the Union that it is |
to be concurrenhy exercised by the two Govern |
ments-are truths oghich hare neper been denied'
''The sovereignty of a State extends to every
thing which exists by its authority, or is in
trcduced by its permission but does itextend to
those means which are employed by Congress, to
carry into execution powers conferred on that BODY
by the people of the United States We think it
demonstrable that it does not."-( 4th Con- R., D.
484, 4th Wheaton, p. 316.)
The same doctrine is affirmed in the subsequent
case of.Gibbons VS.. Ogden, in 9th Wheaton, D. /,
as follows, to wit:
The grant of the power to lay and collect taxes
is, like the power to regulate commerce, made in
general terms, and has never been understood to
interfere with the exercise of the same power bv
the states; and hence has been drawn an areu-
ment which has been applied to the question I'M
IS conceived, similar in their terms or their nature 5
Although many of the powers formerly exercised '
by the states, are transferred TO the government of
the union, yet the State governments remain and +
constitute a most important part of our SYSTEM ,
The power OF taxation is indispensable to their ex-
stence, and IS power which, in its own nature, is '
capable OF residing in, and being exercised BY diff
erent authorities at the same time. We are ac- u
;ustomed to see 1t placed, for different purposes,
n aI,lc Il :,
ION OF taking small portions from perpetualv ac II
mass susceptible of almost infinite d.
7lSion; and power in to take what is neces- n
airy Tor certain purposes, Is not in its nature in o.
compatible with power in another to take what is
necessary tor other purposes. Congress is autbo- Z
lzed to lay and collect taxes, DC. to pay the debts
M provide for the common defence and general In
'efare OF the United States. This does not inter
ere with the power Of the States to tax for the sun
ort OF their own governments nor is the exercise
that power by the states an exercise of any por OF
on OF the power that is granted to the o. States OF
imposing taxes for state purposes they are not &C
omg what congress is empowered to do. Con- pr
ress Is not empowered tax for those purposes fe
hch are within the exclusive province of the states ma
men, then, each government exercises the power III
taxation, neither is exercising the power of the =.
her. III
The power of the State to tax goods DC, import tai
into the State, is considered directly in the case no
Brown VS.. the State of Maryland. 18th Whea- tn;
n, p 4l9, 9th Con. r. p. 561) This case arose SUI
lder law of Maryland, requiring importers of tru
reign goods by tie bale package &c. or other err
rsons selling the same by wholesale bale or pack WI
e. to take out license for which they should nav TIT
ty dollars The Court determined that this act :, 7
as unconstitutional-ben duty directly on i'm no,
rts coming within the prohibition in the Consti do,
the importer by paying the duty to
United States Government, acquired the riobt
t only to bring his goods into the country but 49,,
sell them by wholesale retail, sin the form IN tast
tch they ~ere imported - but the moment that ind
m is destroyed, and the packages are broken I'M =
1t right ceases and they become subject to State ton
Nauon. The Court says: that
This Indictment is against the importer for %
ing package OF dry goods in the form in which rnf
vas imported, without license This state of Our
ngs Is changed if he sells them or otherwise pres
Aes them with the general property of the state
breaking up his packages, and travelling with 81
M as an ltlnerant pedlar. In the first case tho C
mtercepts the import an import, in its wav is al
become Incorporated with the general mass Of publ
perry, and denies it the privilege of becomino id
Incorporated until it shall have contributed to CO.
revenue OF the state. 1t denies to the imnort-
he right OF using the privilege which he Bas ish
chased from the United States. until he sboT that
e also purchased it from tbe state In rest
IS, the tax hndS the article alraadv three