The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-20

Co"stituti"nnIifS Of the Act Tnxing the Cir
cnintion of State Banks.

tomsututionnlift of the Act Tn king the Cir
cnintion of State Banks.
WASHINGTON Oct. 10, 1862
No. i3s.-T,e President. Directors ana Company
or ne peisfe bank rs. Jeremiah Fea,o Collector ar
Internal Repenue.-rhis cause comes here on GER
thcate Of division OF opinion between the Judges or
the Circuit Court for the district of Maine Under
the second clause. ninth section OF the act of July
l3, 1866, entitled sAn act to reduce internal taxa
tiOn.D tax or ten per cent was assessed against
the Veazle Bank, incorporated under the laws OF
Maine, upon State bank bills issued for circulation
and paid out since August 1868. The tax. with PEN
atles and COSTS were paid by the bank under protest
and TO avoid a distraint To recover back the sum
20 paid TINS action was brought ana, upon divi-
sion OF opinion below the following questions were
certified up:F1rst whether the second clause OF the
ninth section q the act OF Congress Of the 18Th OF
July, 1867 under which the tax IN this case was
assessed and collected, Is valid and constitutional
lawy Second, whether that clause conferred the
under his warrant from the assessor to collect the
tax In this case OF the plaintlIs THIRD, whether
Congress possessed the power under the con-
statute. and to authorize the assessment
and collection OF the tax in this case
On the part OF the bank 1t Is insisted that the tax In
question - UNCONSTITUTIONAL because 1t Is a direct
tax without apportionment among the States;
because II not direct tax, then It violates the rule
OF uniformity required by the constitutions; because
1t is not tax imposed for revenue, bus imposed IN
order TO tax out OF existence the banks OF the States
"
croachment upon and usurpation OF the municipal
power OF the separate States. 1t is unconstitutional
because the effect OF the tax Is to take, without
compensation, private property namely, the fran
chise OF the banks OF the States The Attorney
General argues that the tax Ii not a direct tax
within the meaning oi the constitution, and
is not tax capable OF being apportloned
among the states, according to numbers. 1t is
an excise or duty, upon a branch of business
or the mode OF carrying on business OF the same
description by oil corporations OF a certain charac
ter Congress would have the constitutional right
to prohibit what they thus undertake TO tax; and
whatever they may prohibit mot UtdiuD SCI they
may regulate or permit upon condition. Ii Con-
gress have the power to tax the degree OF taxation
not to be regarded by TINS Court but Is within
discretion or Congress, whose motives cannot be
inquired into within the scope Of their constltu-
tional functions. The power to tax includes the
power to make taxation burdensome, or even
destructive 10 particular branches OF business. The
uniformity required In taxation Is not violated By
an exemption made on puolic grounds, the excep-
t0n being In ITSELF Uniform In Oil The states
Argued Tor the plaintT below by General Cushing
ana Reverdy Johnson, and for government by Att0r
ney General Hoar.
The Attorney General moved that No. IT, Far
rngtOn vs.. Sanders. involving the consttutbnality
OF the cotton tax be continued TO next term and be
set down for the first day OF the term The motion
is under Amusement.
Argument was heard ID the case OF I. Harris,
suit against the Baltimore and OHIO Railroad Com
paEy to recover damages for injuries resulting from
q collision between two trains near Warrington.
West Virginia, in october, 1854; and also In the
OF William Aldrich. et a., VS.. tie Etna
Insurance Company, in error to the New York Court
OF Appeals.
Mr. u. +. Southmayd, or the firm OF Evarts, South
mayd Il Ch0ate, OF New York. was admitted 10 the
bar.