The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-08-20
The Greenback Not Taxable.


The Argus yesterday contained letter
from somebody, who did not dare to put his
name to it, loudly berating the Hon. John p.
Swasey of Canton, for saying that the green
back was not taxable. Now everybody who
knows anything about law knows that Mr..
Swasey stated what is the fact. That any
and every obligation, "every pledge OF the
national credit" is not taxable and never
has been since the foundation OF the govern
ment, ought to be well known. Chief JUS
tce Marshall as long ago as 1919, sixty
years ago, in McCulloch VS.. Maryland, 4
Wheaton 1876, declared even branch OF the
United States Bank non-taxable because it
was ''an instrument employed by the Gov
ernment of the Union to carry its powers
into execution.
.'Tbe court has bestowed on this subject
its most deliberate consideration. The result
is conviction that the States have no pow
er. by tdrdti0n or otherwise, to retard, i'm
pede, burden, or in any manner control, the
operations of constitutional laws enacted by
Congress to carry into execution the powers
vested in the general Government"
Ten years afterwards, in 1929, in Weston
V. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449, the Chief Jus
tice reiterated with emphasis the same opin-
ions:
''The tax on Government stock" said he,
's thought by this court to be tax on the
contract, tax on the polcer to bOrror
money on the credit of the United States,
and consequently to be repugnant to the
Constitution"
Aud hence the court held that the tax inn
posed on Weston's bonds was void.
Treasury notes whether legal-tender or not
come under precisely the same rule. What
is greenback? Let the Supreme Court Of
the United States answer opinion OF JUS
tice Bradley
'It is pledge of the National credi. 1t
is promise by the Government to pay dol
lars not an attempt to make dollars" Le-
gal-Tender Cases, II Wallace, p. $50.
On this point there is no dissent by the
Judges who differed with the majority OF the
Court on the main question. Says Mr.. JUS
tice Clifford, same case, p 613:-"Govern-
ment notes, it is conceded may be issued as
a means of borrowing money"
Says Mr. Justice Field, p 64S:-"I have
thus dwelt at length upon the clause
of the Constitution investing Congress
with the power to borrow money ON
the credit of the United States because it
is under that pouer that the notes Of the
United States acere issued"
Why, even certificates of Indebtedness have
been declared by the Supreme Court not to
be taxable. In that case (The Banks VS.. The
Mayor; Wallace 16) Chief Justice Chase
says:
''The principle of exemption is that States
cannot control the National Government
within the sphere of its constitutional
powers-for there it is suprcme-and cannot
tax its obligations for the payment of money
issued for purposes within the range of its
powers" p. %.
Now why is it in a matter SO clear as this
that the argus is anxious to disseminate
an opinion so erroneous as that OF its CORE
spondent, and even goes to the length Of
abusing lawyer of such high standing as
Mr. Swasey? Simply because if the people
once get hold of the truth, they will see that
in substituting 32O,0O0,000 of greenbacks for
the National bank-notes, they are adding
1920, ,OOO, 600 to the non-taxable property of
the country! This in addition to the loss OF
taxation on the banks shows but toowell the
absurdity of the Democratic-Greenback at
tempt to deprive the people of sure, GER
tain and taxable circulation.