The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1878-10-25
WHY U. S. BONDS ARE NOT TAXED.


A vast amount of indignation has been
expended by unthinking persons and
demagogues on the fact that the bonds of
the United States government are not
subject to taxation by the states, in the
same manner and on the same basis as
other property. "Why are the bonds ex-
empt from taxation ?" is a question that
every inflated "reformer'' asks with ap
parent triumph as a clincher that the
policy of the country has been to favor
the rich bondholder at the expense of
the poor and laboring classes. But such
men, instead of establishing this latter
fact, only prove their own ignorance or
knavery. The bonds are not taxed as
other property because they cannot be.
10 admit of such power on the part of
the states would be to destroy the nation.
This question was settled by chief JUS
tice Marshall in his exhaustive decision
in the case of McCulloch VS.. the state of
Maryland, " Wheaton, p. p. 466-492.
We cannot give the decision entire be.
cause of its length, though every citizen
should read it, for its comprehensive
completeness. The case grew out of an
attempt on the part of the state of Mary
land to tax branch of the bank of the
United States by virtue OF state authori-
ty. The chief justice argues the ques.
ton of sovereignty, and shows that the
government of the United States is the
supreme power of the country, and con.
trolls the states. He then deduces these
plain propositions:
81. The power to create implies pow.
er TO preserve. 2. That a power to de
stroy, If welded by different hand, is
hostile to, and incompatible with, these
powers to create and preserve 3. That
where this supremacy exists, that author
| ity which is supreme must control, not
yield to that over which it is supreme. y
Having thus concisely stated these
plain propositions, and that congress
had the power to create the bank, and
that taxation is an act of sovereignty and
cOincident Herewith, he proceeds:
THE sovereignty of a state extends to
everything which exists by its own au
thority, or is introduced by it's permits
sion; but does it extend to those means
which are employed by congress to car
ry into execution powers conferred on
that body by the people of the United
States? We think 1t demonstrable that
it does not. Those powers are not given
by the people of single state. They
are given by the people of the United
States to a government whose laws, made
in pursuance of the constitution, are de
clared to be supreme. Consequently the
people of a single state cannot confer .
sovereignty which will extend over them
If we measure the power of taxation
residing in state by the extent of SOW
ereignty which the people of a single
state possess, and can confer on its gov
eminent we have an Ineligible stand
ard, applicable to every case 20 which the
power may be applied. We have prin
ciple which leaves the power of taxing
the people and property Of state unim
paired; which leaves TO a state the com
mand of all its resources, and which
places beyond its reach all those powers
which are conferred by the people of the
United States upon the government OF
the union, and all those means which
are given for the purpose of carving
those powers into execution. We have
a principle which is safe for the states
and safe for the union We are relieved
AS we ought to be, from clashina sover
eighty; from interfering, powers; from
a repugnancy between a right IN, one