The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-09-09

| " hist the New York journal Oh COii--
merce was edited by David VI. Stone II
discussed financial ard economical ques-
lions with greater power, scope and intel
lieence than any other journal In the
civilized world That great writer unior-
ttrately for the people OF the United
States. has retired from all connection
with it. and, while it is still paper en-
titled to great respect and consideration
| it is far from what 1t was when he edited
and controlled It. In its issue Of Thurs
day, dicussing the proposition to repeal
the tax Of 10 per cent on the issues oil
| State banks It has the following judicious
| and most sensible remarks
Another obstruction TO harmonious ac-
| ton on this question is likely TO arise from
/ the demand for repeal Of the 80 per cent.
tax on the notes Of banks operating under
| State auspices. Unfortunately, poliu-
cal issue will arise here. The Democratic
platform declares emphatlcally for the
| abrogation Of the tax, whilst II was eX-
pressly excluded from the Republican
platform; and hence economic sUbordl-
| mated TO party policy. Upon It's merits
the question is a serious one, whether
viewed from the standpoint Of politics or
OF economies Setting aside all partisan
prejudices there are weighty political con-
siderations against the tax. As a means
Of revenue. il has no reason for It's ex-
| istence; for Il does not bring dollar
| into the Treasury. 1t was adopted as a
means OF forcing the State banks into
| the national system: but allowing that
such a purpose may have been justiflable
| under the imperative necessities OF war
! finance those necessities no longer re-
main TO Justify such a questionable eX-
| ercise Of the taxing power whether we
| may assign the protection OF the National
| banks against competition. or the eXclu-
| sion OF a form Of circulation deemed I'M
| sound and inconvenient as the motive Tor
| perpetuating the tax, IL must be conceded
| that the law really amounts TO nothing
| short Of n perveTsion Of the cor stituuonh
| power Of taxing, for purposes OF revenue
! to objects that have no connection what
! ever with revenue; and, I'm this light, the
unconstitutionality OF the law scarcely
! admits Of a question. Equally doubtful
| Is the constitutiOnality and equity OF the
! law when viewed as preventing the eXer-
else Of the privileges granted by the states
! In authorizing the creation OF banks or
] issue. II the powers reserved 10 the
| States can be thus defeated In their oper-
| alton by laws OF Congress, what protec-
| ton have we against the grossest In
! vasiCns OF federal power upon those
| rights over which the States are consti-
| tIted sole guardians? This case involves
n constitutional question so grave and
| fundamental that all considerations Of
mere eNpediency or convenience should
be regarded as unseemly intrusions upon
| its determination"
The case could not be stated more
/ temporarily but at the same time more
forcibly. The Journal is perfectly right
IN saving the case involves a consti-
| tutional question Of the first magnitude.
Il involves the question whether we are
to have State governments TO rule
US in our local affairs or
whether we are to be ruled I'm all things
by a centralized tyranny at Washington.
1t is strange that a paper 80 sound on
one view Of the subject should be so un-
sound on another view of It as the Jour
nal is. Continuing (. says:
And yet 1t is undeniable that such
| hank notes as were issued under state
| laws in ante-bellum times are not Of the
kind to satisfy the common public esu-
| mate Of what constitutes safe money.
| Nor does ii follow that because the fed
eral power has no right 10 prohibit State
issues through the 10 per cent. tax, tfat
therefore II has no concern whatever with
the Quality OF any and all money issued
for common circulation. II there Is one
function more impei ative upon goyein n
ment than another IT is to see TO 1t that
the instruments used for effecting the eX-
changes Of commerce are sound and trust
worthy. That is duty recognized, il not
| expressly yet by direct implication, In the
Constitution Of the United States; and IL
is inconceivable how any part or section
Of our people could object 10 its enforce
ment; especially as the powers OF the
States, being confined TO their own limits.
could not afford common protection.
The States can have no interest in sane
tioniug issues of unsound paper: their
interests wholly concide with the duty
Of the Federal Government I'm the prem
Uses, and 10 is therefore impossible TO
conceive what motive could arise for any
State or section ignoring conditions nee
essary for conserving the redeemability
of it's bank notes. Should State commit
such a folly il would soon be brought
TO reason by the violated interests OF its
own people. The question therefore is not
whether the 10 per cent tax should be
repealed that should be regarded as a
foregone conclusion in the interest OF
law and justice Nor whether the State
banks shall be permitted TO issue notes
for that is a right OF which they cannot
be constitutionally deprived The question
is-what conditions shall be devised by
! Congress which will insure the full re-
demptiOn of the notes OF National and
State banks equally IL may possibly be
found easiest TO adopt general and indie
pendent law declaring explicitly what
form OF guarantee shall be provided by
any and every incorporated bank of issue,
irrespective Of and unconnected with
other regulations governing banking oper-
atoms"
How is II possible that a MIND
sufficiently well informed in oul
constitutional law 10 know tina
| Congress has no riehtful aul
thority to prohibit the issues Of Stat,
banks. can think that Congress has con
stitutional authority to make any sort
Of regulations for such instruments as
State agencies may think It wise TO put
out?
The point In the case is this. State banks
receive all their power from the Lesis-
latures OF the States. They receive none
of them from the United States. AS L
them. the United States is as much 9
Il