The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1865-09-27


Now / affirm that this provision is not
only clearly constitutional, but that even
without It no State, county or town could
assess q tax upon Government securities.
This provision was inserted ip the body
of the law simply to give notice to the
holders Of these securities OF what would
be their legal rights. 1t has been re-
|peatedly decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States that no State can
LAY or authorize levy or any tax what
ever upon Government securities. This
question was first presented to the Su-
preme Court of the United States in the
celebrated case Of Nc cCul'ough against
the State Of Maryland, decided in 1919.
The case presented was an attempt by
the State OF Maryland to impose tax on
the Bank Of the United States and the
Government securities held by it. 1t is
one of the most remarkable for the for.
ensic eloquence displayed in its argument,
as well as for the great learning aud abil.
ity Of the decision of Chief Justice Mar
shall in announcing the opinion of the
Court. Among the points decided by
the case was that the State Government
had no right to tax any means employed
by the Government of the United States
10 execute its constitutional powers that
as the Constitution Of the United States
conferred upon Congress the right to
borrow money, all the money SO borrowed,
and the agencies used for that purpose,
could not be taxed by the States that
such tax would be an authority to re-
tard, impede, burthen and control the
operations of the laws Of Congress. and
might be a means of nulifying them.
This decision has been repeatedly referred
to as the established law Of the land
But the tax was then imposed upon
United States Bank stocks, and not di--
rectly upon the United States bonds, the
occasion came again before the Supreme
Court of the United States 1929, in the
case of Charles Weston against the City
Council Of Charleston, South Carolina,
and the subject was again discussed at
great length. e5
AT this point the argument of Chief
Justice Marshall was read
The subject was again brought before
the Supreme Court of the United States,
as late as l842, in the case Of Debbins
against the Commissioners OF Erie county,
Penn, and it was held by the Supreme
Court, every Judge concurring, fancy
among them, that any tax upon any agent
in the employment of the United States
or any security of the United States, or
by any State was unconstitutional and
void, These decisions have been repeat
ed and acquiesced in, in every form, BY
the Supreme Court Of the United States,
and if anything can be settled by the
decisions of that tribunal, it is settled that
no State can tax bonds or Other securities
of the United States. If, therefore, the
Democratic party should convince you
that it is right to allow the State Of south
Carolina or the State of Georgia, and
other rebel reconstructed States when
they come into the Union, to tax, al
pleasure, the securities of the United
States and thus not only destroy their
value but destroy also the credit of the
United States, still the Supreme Court of
the United States will stand in the way
Of their decision, and will hold these Sc
curities exempt from taxation. except that
which is imposed by the United States
itself. Isle .if