Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1868-09-17
PENDLEToN on THE FINANCES.
Mis- Statements at Norwaik.

PENDLETOz ON THE FINANCES.
Mis- Statements at Norwaik.
In Mr.. Pendleton's recent speech, al
Norwalk, Ohio, Gen. NettletoE, of the
Sandusky Register, felt that he did in
justice to the Republican party in his
one sided statement of the bond question
and addressed him the folluwing tote =
Mr.. PENDLEIoN-You COM plain that
the bonds of the general Government
are exempt fromState and local taxation
As Republican, respectfully ask how
you propose to have the evil remedied il
the Democracy obtain power? Has not
the Uuited States Supreme Court, on
three separate occasions, decided that
State can not tax National securities
Have you any remedy except to pay the
bonds in greenbacks before maturity?
Yours truly,
A. B. NETTLETON.
Mr.. Pendleton did not notice the COM
munication in his speech, but afterward,
in private, defined his position to Gen.
Nettleton. as follows:
"The usual argument against State
taxation of Government bonds is that
it viii not do fer the General Govern
ment to give the several States control
over the market value of its securities
by admitting their right to- tax them
like other property. But the practical
difficulty in the way of State taxation OF
the bonds is the fact that the General
Government does not assent to such
taxation. Now would have the Cen
nrit O.
sent.n i @
The question was here asked: But
must not this assent be given when the
bonds are issued, so that purchasers may
know what they are buying?, Mr..
Pendleton said:
"That is an undecided question. My
own opinion is, but I hold IL subject to
future modification, that the National
can. change its rule and
rate of taxation after the bonds have
been issued. In my opinion there Is
nothing amounting to contract that
the present bonds shall not be taxed
higher than a specified rate. The Gov
ernment changes its rule and rate of tax
alton on other property-why not oD its
bonds as well! But if there are good
why State should not tax the
bonds, then the National Government
ought to tax its bouds to an amount
equal to the tax, both State and National,
which is levied on other property.
General Nettleton thus editorially re-
views Mr.. Pendleton's position:
The United States Supreme Court has
decided in five distinct cases that aState
does not possess the right to tax the
bonds of the United states first by
Chief Justice Marshall in the case of
VS.. the State of Maryland,
"a Wheaton 16); again by the same jurist
in the case of Weston VS.. the City of
Charleston, q Peters 449); again in the
case of Osborn VS. the U. S. Bank again
in 1862, in the case of the Bank of Com
merce VS.. New York q Black 620); and
again in he case Van Allen VS.. the AS
SCISSORS, e Wallace 5S5). Mr.. Pendleton
does not question the binding force of
these decisions, if we understand him,
but he would have the National Govern
ment confer the right of local taxation
of its bonds by acts of Congress. Now
it is by no means certain that this right
can be conferred. The question has
never been adjudicated, but the best
lean to the opinion that Con-
gress can not legally authorize State or
mum icipality to tax the bonds of the
United States. The States are restrain
ed from levying such taxby an implied
provision of the Constitution itself, as
was affirmed by the Supreme Court in
each of the cases we have cited, and an
act of Congress can not repeal any pro-
vision of the Constitution, express or
implied.
In 1885, when a measure involving
the same principle was pending in the
senate. Daniel Whistler, the Defenderl
of the Constitution" held that Congress
could not by enactments confer on a |
State the right to tax the bonds of the
United States. He said
"Now, sir, l ask how can we relieve
the States from this constitutional pro-
hibition? 1t is true that this prohibi-
lion is not imposed in express terms,
,ut it results from the general provisions
If the Constitution, and has been judi
,ially decided to exist in full force. This
s protection, then, which the Consti-
ution of the United States, by its own
orce, holds over this institution which
Congress has deemed necessary to be
treated in order to carry on the Govern
nent. So soon as Congress, exercising
is own judgement, has chosen to create
t. can we throw off from this Govern
nent this constitutional protection =?
.hink it clear we can not. We can not
'epeal the Constitution. We can not
ay that every power, every branch,
every institution, and every law of this
Government shall not have all the force,
III the sanction, and all the protection
which the Constitution gives it.
We give this view of the case, not as
necessarily committing ourselves to its
'oundness, but as proof that it is by no
means certain that State can tax Gov
bonds even after being author
zed to do SO by Congress. To go no
urther. we have Danel Webster on one
.ide and George Pendleton on the oth-i