Page
126
|
Up to the year 1817, Ohio had no banking system,
and on the 28th of January of that year, the United States Bank opened
a branch at Cincinnati, and yet another during the following October at
Chillicothe. These branches found a large amount of business to transact,
and while being of assistance in various ways to the State, also received
a fine revenue themselves. The State therefore resolved upon a tax levy,
and, in 1819, the branches were to pay $50,000 each, and the State Auditor
was authorized to issue his warrant for the collection of the same.
The bank branches demurred, but the State was decided, and the banks
accordingly filed a bill in chancery, in the United States Circuit Court,
setting forth reasons whereby their prayer that Ralph Osborn,
State Auditor, should be restrained from making such collection, should
be seriously considered.
Osborn being counseled not to appear on the day designated in the writ,
an injunction was obtained, with the security given in the shape of bonds
from the bank, to the amount of $100,000. On the 14th of September, the
bank sent a commissioner to Columbus, who served upon the Auditor a copy
of the petition
|
Page
127 |
for the injunction, and a subpoena to make an appearance
before the court on the first Monday in the following January. Osborn submitted
both the petition and the injunction to the Secretary of State, with his
warrant for collecting the tax. Legally, the matter was somewhat complicated.
The Auditor desired the Secretary of State to take legal advice, and
if the papers did not actually amount to an injunction, to give orders
for the execution of the warrant.
The decision was that the papers did not equal a valid injunction. The
State writ for collection was therefore given over to John L.
Harper, with directions to enter the banking-house and demand
the payment of the tax. In case of a refusal, the vault was to be entered
and a levy made upon the amount required. No violence was to be used,
and if force was used to deter the act, the same was to be reported to
a proper magistrate and an affidavit made to that fact.
On September 17, Mr. Harper went about his errand, taking
with him T. Orr and J. MacCollister.
After securing access to the vault, a demand was made for the payment
of the tax. This was promptly refused, and a notice given of the granting
of the injunction. This was disregarded, and the officer seized $98,000
in gold, silver and notes. This was placed in charge of the State Treasurer,
Mr. H. M. Curry.
The officers were arrested and imprisoned by the United States Circuit
Court, and the money returned to the bank. The case was reviewed by the
Supreme Court, and the measures of the Circuit Court were sustained. The
State, therefore, submitted. In the mean time, the Legislature had prepared
and passed a resolution, as follows:
Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of
Ohio, That in respect to the powers of the Governments of the several
States that compose the American Union, and the powers of the Federal
Government, this General Assembly do recognize and approve the doctrines
asserted by the Legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia in their resolutions
of November and December, 1798, and January, 1800, and do consider their
principles have been recognized and adopted by a majority of the American
people.
Resolved further, That this General Assembly
do assert and will maintain by all legal and constitutional means, the
rights of States to tax the business and property of any private corporation
of trade, incorporated by the Congress of the United States, and located
to transact its corporate business within any State.
Resolved further, That the bank of the United
States is a private corporation of trade, the capital and business of
which may be legally taxed in any State where they may be found.
Resolved further. That the General Assembly
do protest against the doctrines that the political rights of the separate
States that compose the American Union and their powers as sovereign States,
may be settled and determined in the Supreme Court of the United States,
so as to conclude and bind them in cases contrived between individuals,
and where they are, no one of them, parties direct.
The bank was thus debarred from the aid of State laws in the collection
of its dues and in the protection of its rights. An attempt was made to
effect a change in the Federal constitution, which would take the case
out of the United States Courts. This, however, proved ineffectual. |