The Indianapolis daily herald. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1865-1868, 1865-12-09

such consideration. The gentleman was not
II the caucus: he may have been AZ the Thea
ter. But IL the bill passes here, we will take
The question 90 a forum where there can i'e nc
prcdeicrmination-the forum q the people.
IL submitted whether II was right that the
whole ~ this state Debt burden he taken from
the capitalists and placed on the shoulders OF
the labor q the state. lie then replied in de-
tail % the argument Of Mr.. Speaker Petit.
submitting statements in figures which can not
be justly sketched. and would exceed our
space. lie summed up the capital Of the seV-
enty national hanks in the state. In this. the
sixth Congressional District these banks had
a capital Of about three millions,-which he
thought would embrace about one-hfth Of the
National Banking capital in the state, and that
would give the grand total in the state Of about
fifteen millions.
lie got his estimates from one Of our most
intelligent National Bank Presidents. He had
made his estimate of this total AT Sl4.VD.WJ,
and the Government deposits with these banks
AZ 81 .b1. to0. including. also. the L. :. sectfi-
ties held by the Free Banks Then, xsiS,OlO.-
900 Of Government stocks were held by the
people. Then, the eirculation-Treasury notes
and National currency in the loyal states he
estimated In round numbers ut 81 OoO,OOO,VJo.
This would give To Indiana for her share, say
0.O0o, OOO-Indiana being an average state.
30 his estimate Of S1o0. $4,000 exempt from
taxation was exceeded by the sum Of estimates
just recited.
Mr.. HIGGINS. The gentleman counts it
twice-the bonds and the currency. The cir
culati0n emanates from the capital.
Mr.. C0FFROTH. Not at all-or If so, it
was proper; because the bonds were held by
the banks-the currency by the people. The
capital was taxed against the banks, the circu-
lation against the people.
lie then referred to the allegation Of Mr..
Speaker Petit, that the stocks Of these banks
are subject 10 taxation. But not dollar OF 1t
was on the duplicate; not a stakeholder pays
dollar Of tax on his stock, so far Is he knew.
The gentleman says deposits are taxed IN the
hands of depositors. But deposit was spe-
cial loan. In the case of individuals, the
holder Of the deposit and the holder Of the
note therefor were both taxed. Ii was not so
in the case Of these national banks holding de-
posts OF the people; because as he showed
the deposits were greenbacks. He referred to
the decision in the case of Whitney against
the city OF Madison-November term of the
Supreme Court, 1S64-p. 33l, to the effect, that
bank stock and stock of the United States held
as bank capital, are not taxable.
Mr.. COWGILL asserted that this decision
was under an act Of Congress passed prior TO
that read by Mr.. Petit.
Mr.. COFFRoTH replied that Mr.. Petit read
from the act Of June g. 1854, and this decision
was in November of the same year. The
then taxation is prohibited by the constitution,
and not by virtue of any act OF Congress. The
Supreme Court had made this decision, and,
right or wrong, il was rule unto us.
Mr.. NEWCOMB. The act Of Congress pro-
yides that the shares may be taxed.
Mr.. COFFROTH. The statute simply says,
page ll2 of the statutes at large of is63-6I,
that they may be taxed If the State OF NUM-
cipal authorities have the authority so TO do
simply throwing the question back upon the
constitution. So he answered Mr.. Petit as
to this. lie then replied to Mr.. P's allega-
ton, that greenbacks are taxable as money.
He showed from the act of Congress that
greenbaeks were treasury notes; and that " all
bonds, treasury notes, and other securities of
the United States" shall be exempt from tax
alton. He read further from the act to the
same effect, that all currency including cou-
pons and stamps, shall be exempt.
Mr.. MILLER. Would it have made any
difference if this provision Of the act had not
been passed.
Mr.. COFROTH. Perhaps not so far as bonds
are concerned. 1t was a decision by Judge
Marshall, who was constantly disposed to ia
yor the central power. The only appeal from
this hardship was TO the people. So far as the
national currency was concerned, there would
be clearright to tax that, were il not for this
act of Congress; and notwithstanding that act,
national currency could be taxed by State or
authority. The act oflS65 did not mil
itate against the act of 1864. If a more injuri-
GUS and Internal way OF defrauding the people
were desirable, or which would be more fruit
full of revenue TO the privileged class il could
not have been devised better than this sy stem.
the creature of that political charletan, Salmon
y. Chase. Capitalists make from 30 and 40 to
80 per cent, annually on their investments in
these national banks. Nonational bank was ma
king less than 30 per cent. per annum.
In reply to the hopefulness of Mr.. Il. that
the people will still endure taxation, because
they had endured "a tax of 800 cents on the
hundred dollars, he said, IL was like the prac-
tice Of DIR. Sangrador-warm water and bleed,
and bleeding and warm water till the patient
dies.
The County Commissioners were not restrict
ed from levying the whole amount Of the local
county tax in one year, as the gentleman from
Wabash had said. With reference TO the
gentleman's allegation, that we would have
had no troubles and no debt if the party Of the
here had been true to the flag, he
would say nothing, but admit that the gentle
man himself did take military service as Colo
mel of the 10Th regiment; and when the regi-
men marched to the field the gentleman march
ed-home.
Mr.. COWGILL denied that Mr.. F., his col
league, ever accepted Colone's commission
Mr.. COFFROTH. The gentleman from
W abash was commandant of the post, but he
insisted upon nothing about that, only he
thought ii an ungenerous fling at the party,
and that it came with bad grace from the
gentleman, in the face of those of the minor
ity on this floor, Mr.. Milroy and Others who
had served in the field rs well.
The House then took recess till o'clock
p. VI.