472 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



The successful counsel in this case were Daniel Webster and 

 "William Pinkney, and in the course of his decision the Chief 

 Justice complimented the counsel on both sides as maintaining 

 the affirmative and negative with a splendor of eloquence and a 

 strength of argument seldom, if ever, surpassed. 



It may also be added that no decision of the United States Su- 

 preme Court, or of any other court in the United States, has since 

 impugned the correctness of the principle upon which the case 

 of McCulloch vs. Maryland was decided. A brief notice, how- 

 ever, of subsequent judicial proceedings is interesting and neces- 

 sary to complete the history of this celebrated case. 



Thus, the Legislature of Ohio having, as before stated, imposed 

 an annual tax of $50,000 upon the branch of the Bank of the 

 United States established in that State before the decision in the 

 McCulloch case, the State officers, even after the decision, pro- 

 ceeded to levy and collect the tax. Thereupon the case was again 

 brought before the United States Supreme Court on an applica- 

 tion for injunction, and was reargued, with reliance upon the 

 point that the bank was a mere private corporation, whose chief 

 object was individual trade or profit. The court, however, at 

 once reaffirmed its former judgment, and held that the bank was 

 a public corporation, created for national purposes, and an instru- 

 ment for carrying into effect the national powers. At the same 

 time the opinion of the court in the McCulloch case, that its 

 decision "did net deprive a State of any resources it originally 

 possessed," remained unaffected. 



Subsequently a case came before the United States Supreme 

 Court (Weston vs. the City of Charleston, S. C.) in which the 

 question involved was the right of a State to tax stock issued for 

 loans made to the United States, whether on the stock, eo nomine 

 or included in the aggregate of the tax-payers' property to be 

 valued at what it was worth. The court, by Chief-Justice Mar- 

 parts, is to be considered ; the conflicting powers of the Government of the Union and of 

 its members are to be discussed ; and an opinion given whicli may essentially influence the 

 great operations of the Government. No tribunal can approach such a question without a 

 deep sense of its importance and of the awful responsibility involved in its decision. But 

 it must be decided peacefully, or remain a source of hostile legislation ; perhaps of hostility 

 of a still more serious nature ; and if it is to be so decided, by this tribunal alone can the 

 decision be made. On the Supreme Court of the United States has the Constitution of our 

 country devolved this important duty. The sovereignty of a State extends to everything 

 which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission ; but it does not extend 

 to those means which are employed by Congress to carry into execution powers conferred 

 on that body by the people of the United States. We think it demonstrable that it does 

 not. These powers are not given by the people of a single State. They are given by the 

 people of the United States to a Government whose laws, made in pursuance of the Consti- 

 tution, are declared to be supreme. Consequently, the people of a single State can not con- 

 fer a sovereignty which will extend over them." 



