The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1869-12-17
Important Bank Decision

Important Bank Decision.
In the Supreme Court the case of
| Veazie. Cashier Of the Bank of Ban
gor, Is. Jeremiah Fello. Collector,
Chief Justice Chase delivered the
opinion. After referring TO the
change in the banking system,
brought about by necessary legisla-
ton to meet the exigeneies which
arose in the finances during the war, he
rehearsed in detail the action Of Con-
gress relative to the issuance Of Treas
ury notes, the establishment of Ma
tional Banks and the taxation impos-
ed on the latter and on State Banks
The general question to be consider
ed is whether or not the tax Of ten
per cent. on the State Banks, on the
National Banks paying out notes oil
individual or State Banks, used for
circulation, is repugnGnt to the Con-
stitution. 1t is presented by certif-
cate of division Of opinion between
the Judges of United States Court,
for Maine, 10 suit by the officers of
the Veazie Bank, against Jeremiah
Fello, Collector Of Internal
Revenue, for the recovery Of
the tax, penalties aad costs paid
under protest. The bank is
corporation chartered by the State
of Maine, and the notes on which the
tax was imposed were issued by State
authority. The Judges disagreed on
three questions: First, whether the
ID clause of the 9th section Of the
act of Congress, of July, 1866, under
which the tax was collected, is valid
and constitutional law. The other
two questions are different in form.
Justice Chase reviewed at length the
question of the powers conferred up
on Congress relative to taxation, and
the kind of taxation authorized by
the Constitution. Previous decisions
in the Court we're referred to as
showing that direct taxes comprehend
only capitation taxes, and taxes on
land, and, perhaps, taxes on personal
property by the general value and as
sessments in the aeYeral States, it
follows that the power to tax without
apportionment tends to all objects.
Taxes on others are included under
the heads of taxes not direct. Duties
on imports and exports must be col
lected by a rule of uniformity. The
tax under consideration is tax on
bank circulation, and may be class
ed under the head of duties, and
certainly is not in the sense of
the Constitution a direct tax. 1t
may be said to come within the same
category as that on the incomes of
Insurance companies, which this
Court has held not to be direct tax.
In the previous decision of the ques-
ton OF taxation of franchise gran
ted by State do not enter into this
case, as the object of taxation is not
the franchise, but the property erea-
ted or contracts made and issued Un-
der the franchise or power to issue
bank bills. Railroad freight receipts,
bills of lading, passenger tickets.
are not exempt from taxation by any
relation to the State granting the
charter Of the railway, and it seems
difficult to distinguish the taxation
of notes issued for circulation from
the taxation of railroad contracts.
Both descriptions of contracts are
means of profit to the corporations
issuing them, and both may be made
contributory to the public revenue.
The plea that in this case the tax is
so excessive as to indicate a purpose
on the part Of Congress to destroy
the franchise of the banks, and is
therefore beyond the constitutional
powers Of Congress. This question
can not be determined by the Court.
The judicial can not prescribe to the
legislative department of the Gov
ernment limitations on the exercise of
its acknowledged power. The re-
sponsibility of the legislative is not
to the Courts, but to the people.
Having in the exercise Of undisput-
ed constitutional power undertaken
to provide a currency for the whole
country, it can not be questioned
that Congress may eonstitutionally
secure the benefit Of it TO the public
by appropriate legislation to this
end. Congress hiss denied the quail
ty oflegal tender to foreign coins,
and has provided by law against the
imposition of counterfeit and base
coin upon the community. To the
same end Congress may discourage
by suitable enactments the circula-
tion, as money, ofany notes not is
sued underits own authority. With
out this power indeed its attempt to
secure sound and uniform curren-
cy for the country must be futile.
Viewed in this light, as well as in the
other, as duty on contracts or prop
erty, we can not doubt the constitu-
tionality of the tax under consider
alton. The three questions certified
from the Circuit Court of the Dis
trict of Maine must, therefore be an
swered afirmatively.