Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1854-11-23

k0h tof Tue purpose VI ueciQihg uttlnateiYt ID \
oil cases Of this description. had solemnly de-
termined that State law imposing a tax on the !
Bank Of the United States, was uneonsiitulion- 4
al and void, before the wrong was committed |
for which this suit was brought" "Bie then, /
think" the Court say, 'there is no error In the |
decree Of the Circuit Court Of the District Of
Ohio; so FAR as il directs restitution. Of The \
money taken unlaHfully from the Bank.
The Court say in effect, as staed in the syn
opsls Of the case, "a State cannot tax the bank
Of the United States. and any ;s.ismp! on the
part Of its agents and officers 10 enforce the col
lection Of such tax against the property OF the
bank, may be restrained BY injunction from the
Circuit Court.
1t is said that tie tax on the bank Of the
United States was intended to destroy its fran
ehises. The exaeton on each Of the two bran.
ches Of that bank, was the sum Of fifty thou s.
and dollars while the illegal tax on the
Commercial Bank Of Cleveland was about elev-
en- thousand dollars. This is difference in de
gree rather than in principle But the Court
say tax on the bank Of the United States is
illegal, and may be iniOned by the Circuit
Court.
Is not the tax complained Of by the CONNER.
cal Bank Of Cleveland illegal, and may it no.
he iujoined What higher and more conclu-
sve authority than this can be ciled 10 favor Of
this remedy by injunction.
In the case of Pennsylvania vs.. the Wheel
| ing Bridge Co., IS Howard, SGT, the Court
say, in reference TO granting injunctOns, there
must be such an injury, as from its nature is
not susceptible of being ade quately compensa-
ted by damages at law, or such as, from its con-
tinuance or permanent mischief, must occasion
a constantly recurring grievance, which cannot
otherwise be prevented than by injunction. -
| The character of the trespass threatened aud
complained of is not only an annual recurring
grievance, but il continued must oe fatal to the
bank The tax, and the penalty for non pay.
ment together with the costs Of co lection, would
impair the credit and destroy the usefulness of
any bank.
1t has been stated that the mode OF giving
jurisdiction in this case is merely colorado or
in other words, that it is fraud upon the law
Is this so The second section of the third
article of the Constitution declares, ths: the ju
dieial power shall extend TO contro 'ersies "be
tween citizens Of different States"
The trainers Of the Federal Constitution wer'
wise and sagaclous men. They were profound
ly acquainted with human nature in its indi
vidual and aggregate action. They were IN
structed in no ordinary school; and in nothing
? was their sagacity more eminently shown, tina
in establishing judicial power to carry out an
maintain the federal powers, ,an1 provide agains
, the effects of local excitement. For these pur
poses were the Courts of the United States
chiefly established. An option is given to cit
i. izens Of other States, than those in which suit
are brought, to sue in the Courts Of the Union.
The complainant is citizen of Connecticut
lie has stock in the bank, which he apprehendI
will be forcibly and unlawfully seized and abO
stracted. And il so seized, for the reasons sta
ted in his bill. the law will afford to him no ad-
euuate means Of redress. Under such circum
stances is he guilty of alegal fraud or OF claim
ing colorable right only, by suing in the Cir
cult Court. He claims the exercise Of con
stitutional right TO sue in this court. And if
: suit thus brought, makes the directors of th'
bank defendants in the suit, and belngsparties
on the record, brings the bank within the relic
: prayed, the fault is in the Jaw, rather than /
the complainant, and the reproach, therefore
VI should not be thrown on him.
/ This court brings into State no novel pri
:, ciples. 1t administers the law of the State
! in giving effect to the statutes of the Stat
J where there is DO conflict with the federal col
stitu tion, the courts of the Union follow imp
oitly the rule established by the Supreme Cou
of the State. This is done, not on the gr ouI
of authority, but Of policy. 1t would be I'M
rious to the citizens of State, to have II
: rules of property Such course,by the coul
:, of the Union would produce unfortunate CO
y fcts and encourage litigation. To avoid thi
:. as matter of policy, the courts Of the Unite
State courts, in the construction Of their sta
- utes.
i So far has this been carried, that the
oh rleme Court of the United States has reyersl
ho its own decision, made n accordance with
State decisions, in order to conform TO char
ed of decision in the Supreme Court OF the S'a
we in the construction of its statutes; and tr
,ai that no circumstance will ever induce the S
is preme Court cl the Union to reverse this cou
as Of decision.
ks There are but few cases in which, under
OIL Federal Constitution, the Supreme Court OF
lax Union establishes the rule of construction
ON the State Courts. Where one such case occ
In there are more than FIVE hundred cases wh
- the Courts of the Union follow the st
Courts.
I'VE If individuals and Courts shall disregard
tcr, dicial authority, and carry out their own pc
liar views of the constitution and Laws,
Sr harmony of our system of government mus
~ ''u destroyed, and the law of force must bec'
'he he arbiter of rights.
ght We think that there is jurisdiction in the
,ur. before us. and that the injunction has
ond tbaf ehnuld hp m