The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1868-09-24

! present members of that Court
unanimously concur in this opinion.
What if they do ?'' replies the Dem
ocracy. Simply this: sh ould any
State Legislature attempt to exer-
else the powerof taxation over Fed
: eral bonds, the existing Supreme
Court, a majority of whom are Dem
Eocrats, would declare the law
unconstitutional, and set the tax
asids, and there the matter ends,iust
as it did i1- South Carolina, under
the judicial opinion of Chief JUS
Marshall, and the Democracy
knows It, 5it@!.I} i.'
'a Why then, is it constantly harp
ing upon the subject of taxing Fed.
eIal bonds by State authority, when
it knows that such taxation is i'm
possible ? Have not the Democracy
controlled the Legislature Of Ken
tucky ?. God knows they have
Laughter. Yet to this hour Ken
tucky has never attempted the tax
alton of Federal bonds. creme
Has not the Dem mocracy controlled
the Legislature Of Maryland? Yet
Maryland has never imposed a tax
upon Federal Bonds Has not the
Democracy. controlled the 1egisla-
ture of New Jersey? Yet New
Jersey has taxed no Federal bonds.
In our own State of Ohio, wllere the
principle of toxing Federal bonds
had its birth and origin, the DEM
ocracy controlled the Legislature
OF last winter, and was elected upon
the issue OF taxing Federal bonds,
yet, when they came into power,
they did not dare to assert it. lh F. .
/ In your own Senatorial District,
one of these pilgrims went about last
year, who was, himself, the largest
bondholder Of your county, pro-
ciai ming the doctrine oftaxing bonds
by State authority, telling you it
ought to be done, promising that if
you would elect him it should be
done. Yet, wnen he came into his
seat in the Legislature-a body
which continued the longest period
Of time that any Legislative body of
Ohio has ever continued, and in
Cured heavier expenditure than
any other has ever incurred, pass
ing laws upon all conceivable and
Uncomfortable subjects yet your
own Senator, the cashier Of your
own National Bank, John Winner,
during his long term, never lisped
the subject of the taxation of Fed
eral bonds. Renewed laughter J
And shall the people be longer
deluded and hoodwinked and de-
ceived by this popular clap-trap
proposition; to tax Federal bonds +?
FOh, they tell us that Congress is re-
sponsible for their non taxation by
the Legislature, because it has in
corporated into the law under which
they were issued q clause prohibit
ing it. Not SO. Suppose that clause
was this day stricken from the law,
the Constitution itself and alone for
bids it. No such prohibitory clause
existed in the law of 1922; no such
prohibitory law existed in lS4S no
such prohibitory law existed under
the law of 1857, under all of which
bonds were issued. Yet it was un-
der these old laws that the decisions
kof the Supreme Court were made.
So that the prohibitory clause in the
existing statute created no new ex-
emption, nor did it give strength
thereto. Why then was it inserted !?
Simply as notification, to the peo-
la 1ub nt fo
become the purchasers of the bonds
issued during the war, that they were
already exempt. This was it's only
object, so that in the statute the peo-e
pie might the more readily see and
learn what the law was, and what it
had been already declared long an
terror by the Supreme Court.
Does the Democracy propose,
then, to override the CONSTITUTIONS
Tt must do so in order to effect
the taxation of Federal securities by
State authority. .- -s-.fI
Does it propose to trample upon
the decision of the Supreme Court :?
It must do so if it ever effects this
object. Why, then. charge upon
Republicanism the responsibility of
their non taxation. Republicans did
not frame the Constitution. 1t is
the Constitution Of Washington.-
Republicans did not create the Su-
preme Court. 1t is the tribunal ere
ated by the Constitution. Republi-
canism simply stands upon the pro-
g T1na4.tnt;, .,,ko
preted by that Court, and the quarrel
is, therefore, not with Reublicanism,
but with the Constitution and the
Court, and there We are content to
leave it,. Hence, I say, that the tax
alton of Federal securities is an i'm
possibility, however desirable it may
be. .'- au.
Is it not, then, unWise to lash our
selves into fury and become infat-
uated with gilded impossibility-
q fascinating promise that can never
be fulfilled; to rush into the arms
and the power of the Democracy
under the seductive delusion of tax
ing the Federal securities, when we
know, or ought to know-and the
Democracy does know-that those
securities can not be taxed !? 81
It is possible, under the Constitu-
ton, to tax future securities or bonds
that may be issued hereafter. How?
If the law under which bonds are is
sued contains q reservation or grant
of power to the States to impose the
tax, that reservation of power enters
into contract with the holder, and
thus, by his own consent, he valves
the constitutional Inhibition and au-
thorizes the taxation: so that if
Congress hereafter should authorize