The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-01-17
ROME MORE OF THE DIsPATCH's DE-
LUsIONs.

patch TO perceive just what IL means
And Il has The same thing to FAY regard
Ing the views Il has expressed cohcerhins
the inability OF the national banks 10
supply the currency that the farmers
Justly call for.
Tho Times does not object TO national
bank notes. because they find their way
TO the commercial centres, ana leave 'he
country districts without currency Inc
yimes saws this is the nature OF the
national bank note. When II does TINS.
& obeys the law OF its nature ana Inc
Times auarrels with no person or tnihg
for doing that. All that The Times does
60 "a noint out and emphasize the fact
that 4his e its nature, and II argues from
that fact that the national banks VIII
never and can never supply the great
rural public with the proper currency
that its needs imperatively demand. The
national banks are suited TO supplying
commercial centres with currency, put
they can never supply country districts
with II, their disability proceeding from
their nature. They start with national
charter, based on national bonds ana
their homes are in the marts OF commerce.
Their charters forbid them to lend money
On land. and, II their charters permitted
them to do so, they would not Ihe
managers of banks lend on their Judg-
ment OF the character of the borrowers.
Countrymen who want TO borrow money
are unknown to the city managers OF
national banks, and. whatever their farm
property may be, they lack credit with
them for that reason. What these want
Is a local bank, to whose managers their
personal character is known. Money
when not lent on collateral securities, is
lent on the character Of the borrower
far more than on his supposed wealth.
The Dispatch must, therefore. perceive
that The Times does not "object to ma
tional bank notes, because they find their
way to the money centres" We empha-
size that fact as proving concluslvely'
that, for that very reason, they can
never fulnn the needs of the country
people.
The DISPATCH Is also wholly in error
in supposing that we think Congress
ought by law to prevent currency from
gravitating to the commercial centres.
We think nothing of the kind. We think
Congress has nothing whatever to do
with the subject. We think that all
currency, OF which the nature is TO gray
itate to the centre" should be allowed
TO obey its nature, free from, and unre-
strIcted by, any act Of Congress. And as
no act Of Congress should restrain
currency from "gravitating towards the
centre" IL its nature calls upon II to
"gravitate" thitherwards, SO no act Of
Congress should restrain a dozen gentle
men at Farmville, who had charter
from the State of Virginia, from issuing
their promissory notes. il they find that
TO do so will help them and their neigh
bors in their business enterprises.
The Dispatch says the Supreme Court
of the United States has decided that the
Cohgressi onal tax on State bank Issues
lis not unconstitutional" 1t refers, Of
course, to the case of Veazie Bank v
Fenno. Wallace, 533. the only case upon
the subject. But we submit that the at
tack here made upon the constitutionality
of the act was not presented to the cOur:
in that case and was Lot passed on by 1t,
and II cannot, therefore, be said 10 nave
overruled the grounds upon which the act
is now attacked. The Chief Justice, in
delivering the opinion of the court. states
the question that was before it thus, p.
6S9-'4O:
1.-The general question now before us Is
whether or not the tax of ten per cent.
Imposed on State banks is repugnant TO
the Constitution of the United states.
In support of the position that the act Of
Congress, so far as il provides for the
levy and collection of this tax, Is repug-
nant TO the Constitution, two PROPOSE
lions have been argued before us with
much force and earnestness. The first Is
that the tax is a direct tax, and has not
been apportioned among the States agree
ably to The Constitution. The second is
that the act imposing the tax inIpairs a
franchise granted by a State, and that con-
gress has no power TO pass any law with
that intent or effect
The court then examines these two ques-
lions and decides that neither presents a
valid objection to the constitutionalty Of
the act.
Now the case decides these two points
and is authority on each, but it does not
decide any others. No other was argued
before it. no other was intended 20 be
passed upon. The objection now made to
the act was not then presented to the
court, and the decision cannot. therefore
be fairly said TO be a decision against II.
The objection now made is this: Congress
is given authority 10 lay and collect taxes
to raise revenue. But 1t is not given au
thority to lay and collect taxes for any
other purpose. The tax on the issues of
State banks is not laid to collect revenue,
but to suppress State bank notes. There
fore Congress is using a power given it
for a distinct purpose TO accomplish
what Congress is forbidden to do. 1t is
not using the power Of taxation, but abus-
ing il. II is seeking to do thing that 1t
is forbidden TO do. under the false pre-
tense of doing another thing that IL is
authorized to do. The whole business is
nothing but a Yankee trick and a disgrace
to the American people.
----~---------
A REVOLUTION IN KANSAS.
Poor Karsas Is bleeding as usual. In