Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-09-25
ssTaxing BOnds-WhO Hold Them
Secf =. The Courier.

The editors OF Cne OlgndI aIber StaClng
both the probability and the determination to
question this power of the National Gov
ernment to issue bonds not subject to taxa
tion by State and municipal authority, they
are in duty bound to look about them for
some backing-some authority to enforce
this, their determination. Now, these edi-
tors, protesting to be simon-pure Demo-
Gratis, when they searched the records of
the past, ought to have found some Demo-
cratic authority to back them up in their
determination. But what do they adduce-
nothing but the opinion of Alexander Ham
ilton, an old Federalist, an opinion, as we
said, that was rejected at the time, and bar
red by every decision of the Supreme Court
made from that day to this touching the
question; and in the special case of these
bonds of the United States, by act of Con-
gress. There is nothing in the history of
the Government so nearly parallel to that
which the Signal men (and we suppose the
whole Democratic partly proposed and are
determined to do. as the notification move
ment of John Z. Calhoun.-COurier Of Non
day eCentng. .....-
10 be sure we quoted from the old Fed
eralist, Alexander Hamilton, to merely
show that such construction placed upon
tile United States Constitution as was done
by Chief Justice Marshall, was an arbitrary
assumption of powera and unwarranted by
that Instrument. But it is insinuated that
this is the only authority on the question at
issue. ..... ..
We have heretofore quoted the dissent
ing opinions of Justice johnson and JUS
tice Thompson in the case in which Judge
Marshall expressed the opinion of the
Court, that the taxing of the United States
bonds was unconstitutional. ~
For the benefit of that paper we quote
again. Judge johnson said:
"Why should not the stock of the United
States, when it becomes mixed up with the
capital of its citizens, become subject to
taxation in common with other capital? Or
why should one who enjoys all the advan-
tages OF society purchased at heavy ex-
pense, and lives in affluence upon an income
derived exclusively from interest on Gov
ernment stock, be exempted from taxation /?
No one imagines it is to be singled out and
marked as an object of persecution, and
that a law protesting to tax will be permit
ted to destroy. Why should these States be
held to confer bonus or bounty on the
loans made by the National Government !?
The question is not whether their stock is
to be exposed to peculiar burdens, but
whether It shall enjoy privileges and ex-
emptions directly interfering with the pow
er OF the States to tax or borrow. l see no
reason for the exemption, and certainly can
not acquiesce in it," t,.5
And Associate Justice Thompson, in dis
senting from the view held by Judge Mar
shall, used this language; s'.',,J
s""The unqualified proposition that aState
cannot directly or indirectly tax any instru-
ment or means employed by the General
Government in the execution of its powers
~ ~ 1lxrc hoc
power to raise armies, such armies are made
up of officers and soldiers, and are instru-
ments employed in executing its powers
although the army, as such, cannot be taxed,
yet it will not be claimed that all such Off
GERS and soldiers are exempt from State tax
alton. Upon the whole, considering that
the tax in question is general tax upon
the interest of money OH loan, cannot
think it any violation Of the Constitution of
the United States, to include therein, inter-
est accruing from stock of the United
States"
The reader will excuse us for reproduc-
ing these extracts from the dissenting opin-
ions of these eminent jurists. We do SO
merely because the Courier writer seemed to
think we were ashore for authority touch
ing this point. And we might quote from
numerous ofthe most eminent jurists of the
ndUlOD, TOJ ulSClpltS Vi OdlHOull, expressing
the same views as those quoted above, and
that we gave as the opinion of Alexander
Hamilton. But because we entertain such
opinions and express them we are nullifi-
ers sc. AS well might it be said that eve
ry lawyer of the bar, who goes to the SUI
preme Court of the State or the United
States, with a writ of error, or by any
other process, and asks that tribunal be-
fore which, he appears to reverse a de-
cision 1t has made, is anullifier, as to claim
that we, because we affirm decision of
the United States Court operates unfairly.
unequally and iDjuriously, are nullifiers. If
we are so for the position we have taken, we
have the pleasure of floating in the same
craft with goodly number of our citizens
of the Republican school of politics. Why
not charge that numerous Republicans who
entertain and express precisely the Views
we do are disciples of Calhoun, &c? Why
not admit, for the information Of our read
ers, that the Republican State of New
Hampshire has done, within a few weeks
past, precisely what we are advocating, and
what we trust our ownL legislature may do
at its next session. Ii New Hampshire can
tax the income or interest derived from ma
tionai bonds in the hands of her citizens so
can Ohio, and it will be no more uncopsti-
tutional for our State to do this than for that
State.-Zanesvtpe Signal. .."''@ W.. XXI y.
GY from the Newark Advocate. Sept. AL % . q