Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1853-10-05
aas1anrgnr6
WHOLE Z: NO. s431..szs :

----=~@------&-
Vile, then State Treasurer Numerous questions
were decided in the case, Judge Wright and; Mr.
Hammond ably contended that "the Bank of the
U. S. is subject to the taxing power Of the State.
and that the law of Ohio, the execution of which
was enjoined was constitutional" Judge Mar
shall delivered the opinion of the court His opiA
ion upon that point above made begins on page
$50. He commenced by reviewing and coafrpc
| ing the same question in the case of McCulloch
Vs. The State of Maryland. The Judge says:
/ .eThe foundation of the argument in favor Of
the right ofa State to tax the Bank, is laid in the
supposed character of that institution, The
gument supposes the corporation to have been
originated for the management of an individual
eoncern,to be founded upon contract between ip-
dviduals, and having private trade and private
profit for its great end and principal object,
fz2''H these premises were true, the conclusion
drawn from them would be inevitable, This
mere private corporation engaged in its own bus
Finess, with its own views, would certainly be sub
ject to the taxing power Of the State as any indi
vidual would be and the casual circumstance Of
its being employed by the government in tranea c.
ton ofits fiscal affairs, would no more exemptits
private business from the operation of that power,
than it would exempt the private business Of any
individual employed in the same manner. But
ItRebfefnises are not true The Bank is not con-
sdered as private corporation, whose principal
object is individual trade and individual pfoft but
as q public corporation, created for public and
national purposes.'sa 7.ls - q, ~ 80 -
He aft irns, this more distinctly afterwards He
reiterates Ethrough the decisionthe reason, that
! the unconstitutionaty of the tax and @cfowbar'
bill of 1919 springs from the national character
| Of the Institution On page 862, he says, 'sWe
do main tain that the corporate character of the
Bank exempts it's operations from the action of
State yauthority.nu He likens the U. s. Bank TO
the, Secretary of the Treasury, (p. 1867 holdDgit
to- be the mother of agencies 7auxiliary to the
functions of government. The questions Isl (s64)
are these fnndti6ns essential to- the fiscal operas
tons sof the government! II So; then the Bank
must not be taxed nor hampered by State taxes.
eff the trade Of the Bank be essential to tschar
acter, as machine for the fiscal operations of the
government t'niuSt be as exempt from State con.
troll as the, actual Conveyance of public money!"
(p 867:) But there is no use in, making theseex-s
uacts.uf IF anybody cares toidispute whatwesayg
let them look up tlhebook. sd 70 si72 9iat9aS's
-iUuF first quotation is sufficient to show, that,
even this federal Court held that if the corporation
had been engaged jnaits own business, with Its
ownsyiewsst would be subject to tax as any indis
vidual wosild be.' Our State Banks are of this
c1dss. Hence the tax against them and the mode
ofits collection, by search and seizure, is not void
Hence, the attempt of Wing papers, to crush the ?
force of Mr. Means precedent fails signally un.
der this decision On the contrary, the decision
sanctions, such laws against corporations which
are not national, but which are for the benefit of
Stockholders Could there be stronger prece.
dent9 Was ever miserable falacy so apparent
boo olyaJo - hv T,,drr
Wright-one of the very men who was cognizant
Of the whole case as counsel ms and who must have
been familiar with its, importl ,g.v 40 lAYIgRA
In. what we have, said, we do notwish to be un-
derstoad as approving of the decision of the us.
Court, to the uncopstitutionality of the law of
1919. Were the same thing now attempted, that
decision would bereversed, if not by the Court, by
the people. It has been virtually reversed by the
people. The Sub-treasury performs the functions
of the old bank. The, Democtatic party of this
country have so progressed, that no speculatiaS
zqoaseytdry institution however closely hitched to
the Federal car, allowed to ride rough shod over
state rights. The right to tax all speculating in
fstitutions belongs to the State. The general
government can hold property-an arsenal for
instance, without State tax; because it isInaton-
al property 1t has end of private emolumentsr
But when it endeavors to connect with public
functions, private interests, that moment the State
should tax, But where is the exemption, when
the Institution is purely State bank. Where 10
the limit to- the power to tax and to make this tax
out of the State Banks! '~i i.a1e' q tr 2'..S -.
l There is but one limit to this power-the State
Constitution. Here is the real question: If our
courts say, that the present Bank tax law violates
this instrument---we bow. - Until then, we wish
4 to see the men, who will dare expunge this crow
! bar bill from the law book If there were no
other 'Fprecedent for it, than its own virtue and
right, it should not be repealed till it is tried on
Tits own merits. We wish to know, wHETHER
WHrds VIII BE ALLOWED TO GET INTO POWER
THIS WINTER, to barter away, at the bidding of
Banks-the right of equal taxation and to repeal
4 the CRowBAR which opens the vaults, whose
i locks withhold the dues to the State 80 s{'Y
!, Shall this be-lovers of Justice and Democrats
of Ohio! Even old federal precedents forbid it,
Enlightened progressiveness forbids it. The
people will forbidit. 80. a. --sT' I;
ANOTHER SICK Room SToRY.-We sat up some
nights since with friend, who was under the
influence offeverSand quinine, and consequently
was rather "light-headed." He conyersed with
a number offriends whom he imagined to be press
ent-among the number was a cehstables Il They
i commenced "spoutins3 Shakespeare, and after
several had attemPtedit and broke down. as he in,