The Portland daily press., 1869-12-15
DAILY PRESS.
Wednesday Morning, December 10, 1869.
The Veazie Bank Case.
PORTLAND c

In the us. Supreme Court at Washington
Monday, in the case of Veazie Bank of Ban
gor v. Jeremiah Fenno, collector, Chief JUS
tice Chase delivered an opinion. After re-
ferrlng to the change in the banking system,
to meet the eXigencies which arose during
the war, he referred in detail to the action of
Congress relative to the issuance of treasury
notes the establishment of national banks
and to the taxation imposed on the latter
and State banks.
The general question to be considered is
whether or not the tax of ten per cent on
state banks or national banks paying out
notes of individuals in State banks used for
circulation, is repugnant to the constitution.
The bank is corporation chartered by the
State of Maine, and notes ON which the tax
was imposed were reissued by the State au-
thoritles. The judges of the U. S. Circuit
Court disagreed ON these questieDs: first,
whether the second clause of the ninth sec
tion of the act of Congress of July, 1866, un-
der which the tax in This case was collected.
Is valid and constitutional law.
The other two questions differ only in form.
Justice Chase reviewed at length the question
OF power conferred upon Congress relative
to taxation, and the kind OF taxation author
lied by the Constitution. Previous decisions
In this court were referred to as showing that
direct taxes comprehend only capitation taxes
and taxes on land, and perhaps taxes on per-
sonal property by general valuation and as
sessment in the several States. 1t follows
that the power to tax without apportionment
extends t1 all other objects. Taxes on other
objects are included under the heads of taxes
not direct, imposts and excses, and must be
laid by rule of uniformity. The tax under
consideration may well be classed under the
head of duties, and is not direct tax. 1t may
be said to come within the same catego-
ry OF taxes, as that on incomes, of insurance
companies, which this court has held not to
be a direct tax in previous decision.
The question of taxing franchise granted
by State does not enter this case, as the OBJ
Ject OF taxation is not the franchise of the
bank but property created or contracts made
and issued under the franchise or power TO
issue. Bank bills, railroad freights, receipts
bills OF lading and passage tickets are not ex-
empted from taxation by any relation to the
State which grants the charter of the railway,
and it seems difficult to distinguish taxation
Of notes issued for circulation from the taxa
tion of railway contracts. Both descriptions
OF contracts are means of profit to the corpor-
ations issuing them, and both may properly
M De made contributary to the public revenue.
Ihe plea that in this case the tax is so ex-
cesslVe as to indicate purpose on the part of
Congress to destroy the franchise of the bank
and is therefore beyond the constitutional
power of Congress, this question cannot be
determined by the court. The Judicial can
not prescribe the legislative department of
governmental limitations an exercise of ac-
knowledged powers. The responsibility of
the legislative is not to the courts, but to the
people. Having in exercise of undisputed
constitutional power undertaken to provide a
currency for the whole country it cannot be
questioned that Congress can constitution
ally secure the benefit of it, to the public by
appropriate legislation.
To this end Congress had denied the quail
ty OF legal tender 10 foreign coins. and as
provided by law against the imposition of
base coin in the community to the same end.
Congress may discourage by suitable enact
ments, money or any notes not issued under
its own authority. Without this power in
deed its attempts to secure a sound and uni.
form currency for the country must be futile
Viewed in this light as well as taken in the
other light of duty or contracts or property
we cannot doubt the constitutionality of the
tax under consideration. The three ques-
tions certified from the Circuit Court for the
OF District of Maine mus therefore be affirm
ed.