New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1862-10-22

r.o, q q. i,nea essass which have my application 70
he question Of the exemption Of stoek bonds ana Ins
., in the opinion delivered in the Court
In The People on Relation Of the Bank OF the Com
nSn. for The City end County Of Newyork 23 N. Y r..
isa According to that opinion mcCullSsh as' nIsyana
Wheaton 2s sns o.oo'n 1 s bs,ors US Viii
to Weston ast The City Council Of Charleston q Peters
tq was held that decision in that case applied only to
tss TAXATION rot laid with the bulk Of the prop
rty Of the citilen. bat specially upcn seearss Of u
mem :, Borrower ard iutspoins obstsces by invidous
ebarras them In the xercne OF power eA
r. as considered therefore by the Of Appeals In the
case TO which have referred that the question an open
~ citizen. IN loan to the United in consyen
ton of III. Federal Constitution Aer mature debeTstion
they decided that Sef (, 10 hG or BY
constutionsy taxable BY the leeis.u,e Of we STATE
opinion states II had been Intended 10Y the nsms' 80,
state. OF the Union advantage otter all ether borrowers
tsiny remarkable that more explicit language was moi
And then procsedst say: We give no opinion on the
lenders of money to the should enjoy the advsn
tage of exemption om State taxation In respect TO snrh
losnsr should have supposed that having arrived al the
conclusion tia, Constitution Of the United States has not
given Fedea Government adyaniaee over other Dor
in the States II would follow that Congress could not
confer that advantage II the Constitution ss not conferred
this expressly impedy IL Is dieolt to see that
NE after can exercise no powers which expressly
implicitly given to IT. A. the Constitution says nothing
either expressly impedy the subject no affirmative
lers,a,ion by Congress can make Constitutional and II the
Constitution does exempt the property In question nom STATE
federal legislation would 20 be necessary unless tbs
Constitution provided for legislative regulations on the sub
ect or LET Il 10 the discretion OF Congress to exercise the
IoweT The opinion, however delivered IN the Court OF
pea seems to consider that although the Federal Cons1n
on Ia no, forbidden tsIsion by the State OF property
invested in loan TO the Federal Government the question
rsins open one, whether Congress by direct legislation
can do in considering this question It IL PIoIeI 10 IN
Frat Whether Congress POSSESSES the power 70 exempt
any property belonging TO citizen. Of state nom STATE
Fed. aud the several state OovenH ens and
by virtue Of the inherent power which necessarily r. .de. ~
the former Arising from the purpose aud nature OF It's oons
tor Or secondly does derive any such power from thn
clause Of the Constitution which auhsLes Congress TO make
nawny. la other words. has Congress the
rh, to forbid aIs by State, because /. necessary or
Copg.ss de- II TO enable to cary into oAecu.
ton express given to the Federal Government Of
| borrowing money!
nature OF the relations existing between the Federal and the
State and consequence OF the inherent
mower which necessarily resides in the former arising from
he purpose and nature Of its orsanzaonl In other words
to apply the proposition specifically to the case before
money Is an express sovereign that every power sup
posed TO In the States the exercise o. which could n'
pended or "a .iudedl
In avor OF the affirmative Of , proposition, It ia broadly
asserted that otherwise the Federal power borrow money
would not be sovereign power and a. consequence Of me
i,ba5 dssared ssem1on rom state taxation or With
any other privileges attached 10 them was the exercise oil the
states The tax in question It ia said s tax upon the
tact between the Government and the individual Tat I
operates upon the contract the instant II !. named
aud must imply right TO affect that con-
tract tina, In the exercise Of the0 power to
borrow money the Cove applies directly TO is citizens
FOR the loan withsnt the Of st.te Authority
seeks AID from the state aud is exempted from control
aud that il essential TO it, eIsFc'e .hsi the power should be
entirely uutrameed by any burden thrown upon by state
authority In aword tho and substance Of the whole
g. that the borrow being sovsf
eirn power carries with 1t the power to define tie relstn'
Of eireus to the loan, and to exempt IL nom oil State Inter
occurred 70 those ~ho emy this .onins that
II be urged quite psnby In favor Of State sssn-
any OF the United s,ae in favor Of the United
States sg.ns, Any taxation Of State In answer th.
ss,es supreme law Of the land for the oon,i u0n
and al laws ,de Ia pursuance thereof arc the apte.
fthe land Now the question wo have 10 deiefnne
In thi. case whether Tie Il" sss5Iss s,a s,na an
tim I, in pur,aance Of th, Consultation.
The poweI 20 borrow money ,s 'o,e-e su npmhed and
ndepeudent Ia each state IN the United sts.s AMI
Won poi appear ,ey s,Isuse hear aay ~ coT'
Of Jases denying the tshi VI ID. au't TO Ia any ''9,
- =. az, ST.. 40 I,I,ss no,., aud on M.
ground that the ererese O sny pef on &c past q ,h-
/ state, il Of necessity e1cluasdt
Let sry shi: claim on behalf q The fsdersl Govern
other OF sovereign osefs Tie rowef 10 In
esisblsh posofces snd roads This although, a.
some have oontsIeed. It be only
rent power with the several states st sovereign power
supreme 90 the power TO borrow money ilcindes the
night carry the ss and 70 maze contracts with common
carer. or other, or tBs purpo,c l. nfce.sTy incids
this sovereign power that TO esshe tho Federal Govern
he vehicle, herles ia other property Of tie
employed Tor purpo.e should be sIempt hom taI.on
TIL. exemption sy be deccd quite necessary by Con
sre,s enable Federal Government to cary the mails
money Ihs .i,nn,sg. hieh exemption would give
them over Other eont-seio' ~s sem9on .sief. ~cd se
tuition tie advantage which te exemption would sve
men over o's , 80 s"s gF,nr. Tb. die,,s
can DULY be in the fact tina. aconiac TO carry the '
d he o,hr 4, contract 10 borrow money The snaogy IA
d ~ ID
! power to borrow money are ih soyefeign posefs
The difference only IN ne degree OF then upor'nc,
favor ofthe AZ another umr, and under Other c
,tSnee. nay .'si,y " ~ s er, o., "a i,d
ing power 81 he United stste In the eject
p.rty and osed burdens from hitch the oihef
property ~ tue slate e1emp' that such disc int
10 obsuc the FL iera In the exercise OF
uonL power and such isrston would be analogous 10
/ The City of Charleston q Peters 4'yl.
Or II the Government owned mall wagons end other yehl
oes horses he purpose Of carr the mails inesd
do also slmit thu, the taxation Of such property
would be unconsautioBa IL would be tsratlcn Of the
IaachnoTy employed by tie Fedora Goyemeu TO
cary into e1scaon power conferred On and such
Met uough hs the State Of Msrysnd q Wheat 3lel and
osbuFn sgt tho United states Bsk % Wheat, 100 The
wagons and horses la this supposed could be
tened by state Authority than the LIessuy Department the
scton sssn,t tie CASHIER Of the Branch Bank tho
United States u recover penalty FOR issuss unltanped
| notes.
Bu: when II determined that the Bank was an intru.
Of the United states Government, ia is fool opera
,iors that II Ia wcTi the Bank Of The United States.
and that lie establishment was constitutional It declared
70 lie exempt om taxation by the state tie Mint itscl
The second these action 10 test the validity
statute Of the State OF Ohio imposDg annual Of
go the Ohio Brsnc Bank Of the United States This
held to be tax on tho operations OF al nstmeD. - BANK
belonging TO the Federal Government TO its in
to execution But not pretended that the in
vested by the citizens Of either Mary Ohio In
Of these branch banks exempted from State taxation
In these instances the fiscal operations Of the Federal
Government directly ntereied with by the penalty
In posed in the one, end the imposed In the other
But. sthough Ia the instance before by exemption from
State taxation the action OF the Federal nego
inrin he