Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1866-04-26
,=s 7ozernment Bonds

~ a fOrzf=r @r&tle upon bdiS suO
80 "a noticed he fnct that Demo
rr.tic iour1als and politicians in all
ns<ts of the country are attempting
: mauufacture political capital out
- the fact, that the bonds issued by
he general government during the
var are by express enactmentexem
from State taxation, And in that
article we conclusively showed that
;nasmuch as this exemption from
4sxar;en was secured by an express
.nroyision in the law of Congress
authorizing their issue, therefore any
attempt on the part Of the States to
tax these bonds would be an open
and direct violation Of that article in
the Constitution of the United States
which provides that no State shall
uxss any law s'impairing the obliga-
t;ou of contracts" And that all
those. who advocate such taxation,
are doing nothing more nor less than
urging the people to violate and des-
troy their own Constitution.
In the present article we propose
to go step further and show, that
these bonds could cot, without vio-
lating the Constitution, be subjected
TO State taxation, even If they had
been issued ,oitkot this express con-
tract exempting them from such
taxation. That they are exempt
from taxation independent Of any
action of Congress. That Congress
had not in the first instance, and has
not now, the power to authorize the
Stales to impose taxes upon the ma
tional bonds; and that the power of
a State to tax the securities of the
United States is prohibited by
higher authority than statute of
Congress; that it is prohibited by the
Constitution itself. This question
has been decided again and again by
the Supreme Court of the United
States, and the decision has always
been one way. 1t was so decided by
Chief Justice Marshall, in 1919, in
the case of McCulloch VS. the State
of Maryland a Wheaton 3l6.) The
question involved in this case and
upon which it was taken to the Su-
preme Court, was this, whether the
State of Maryland could impose taxes
upon the Branches of the United
States Bank situated within the linn
its and jurisdiction OF that State.
The case was considered as involv-
ing questions of the highest impor-
tance both to the National and State
governments, and it was therefore
most fully and ably argued before
the Court by the best legal talent the
country could afford, that great con-
stitutional lawyer and Statesman
Daniel Webster participating in the
argument, and the decision being
rendered by Chief Justice Marshall
himself.
This case settled the following
great principles, and we transcribe
them literally from the report of
the case found in the Fourth Volume
of Wheaton's q. S. Reports. That
the act of the 10th of April, 1916, to
incorporate the subscribers to the
Bank of the United States," is law
made in pursuance of the Constitu-
ton. That the Bank of the United
States has, Constitutionally, right
to establish its branches or offices of
discount and deposit within any
State. That the State, within which
such branch may be established, can
not, without violating the Constitu-
tion, tax that branch. That the State
governments hare no right to tar any of
the Constitutional means employed By the
government OF the Union to erecute its
Constitutional poaOers. And the Chief
Justice goes on to say, that ''if the
States may tax one instrument, en-
ployed by the government in the exc
cution of its powers, they may tax
any and every other instrument.
They may tax the mails; they may
tax the mint; they may tax patent
rights; they may tax the papers of
the custom house; they may tax ju-
dicial process; they may tax all the
means employed by the government.
to an excess which would defeat all
the ends of government. This was
not intended by the American peo-
pie. They did not design to make
their government dependent on the
States"
If this case settles anything, it
settles beyond all question the prin-
cipal, that the States cannot, without
violation of the Constitution, tax
securities of the United States. And
besides, this case does not stand
alone and unsupported. The same
principles were decided and settled
in the case of Weston VS.. The city
Of Charleston, q Peters, 449, and
again IN the case of Osborn VS.. The
United States Bank, 70 wheaton's
1897 and still again. in the case of