About this Item
Newspaper. Daily National Intelligencer, March 22, 1824. Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton. Opinion for the Supreme Court in Osborn et al. v. The Bank of the United States fills pages 3 and 4. 4 pp. "[T]he Eleventh Amendment, which restrains the jurisdiction granted by the Constitution over suits against States, is, of necessity, limited to those suits in which a State is a party on the record."Ohio levied taxes on each branch of the U.S. Bank in the state. The Court had already ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that such taxes were unconstitutional, but Ohio persisted in enforcing the tax. Ralph Osborn, the State Auditor, seized funds from the Bank. The circuit court ordered Osborn and his colleagues to repay the amount seized. The question is Osborn was, did the federal circuit court's assertion of jurisdiction violate the Eleventh Amendment? In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court upheld the circuit and ruled that the Ohio law was "repugnant to the Constitution." Osborn and his colleagues were thus "incontestably liable for the full amount of the money taken out of the bank."This issue includes a first printing of the landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Osborn et al. v. The Bank of the United States. The Court announced its decision on Friday, March 19, 1824, and this printing appeared on Monday, March 22. Excerpts:"At the close of the argument, a point was suggested, of such vital importance, as to induce the Court to request that it might be particularly spoken to. That point is, the right of the Bank to sue in the Courts of the United States. It has been argued, and ought to be disposed of, before we proceed to the actual exercise of jurisdiction, by deciding on the rights of the parties."The appellants contest the jurisdiction of the Court on two grounds:"1st. That the act of Congress has not given it."2d. That, under the constitution, Congress cannot give it." (p3/c1)"The act of incorporation, then, confers jurisdiction on the Circuit Courts of the United States, if Congress can confer it." (p3/c2)"We perceive, then, no ground on which the proposition can be maintained, that Congress is incapable of giving the Circuit Courts original jurisdiction, in any case to which the appellate jurisdiction extends." (p3/c2)"The eleventh amendment of the constitution has exempted a State from the suits of citizens of other States, or aliens; and the very difficult question is to be decided, whether, in such a case, the Court may act upon the agents employed by the State, and on the property in their hands." (p4/c1)"in all cases where jurisdiction depends on the party, it is the party named in the record."Consequently, the 11th amendment, which restrains the jurisdiction granted by the constitution over suits against states, is, of necessity, limited to those suits in which a State is a party on the record." (p4/c3)Historical BackgroundDuring the Banking Crisis of 1819, many banks, including the Second Bank of the United States, demanded repayment of loans, leading to a shortage of money. In February 1819, the Ohio state legislature passed a law to collect a tax on any banks operating within the state contrary to the laws of the state. It also authorized state Auditor Ralph Osborn (1780-1835) to charge $50,000 for each office of any such bank after September 15, 1819, and to seize assets to pay such taxes.On September 14, 1819, the Bank obtained an injunction in the U.S. Circuit Court of Ohio to prohibit Osborn from seizing funds from a branch of the Bank in Ohio. Despite the injunction, Osborn's agents seized $100,000 from the Bank at Chillicothe on September 17 and placed $98,000 in the state treasury. Osborn used the remaining $2,000 to pay his agents. The Bank sued Osborn and the state treasurer for the return of the money, and the U.S. Circuit Court ruled against Osborn and the treasurer and ordered them to restore the $100,000 to the bank, with interest of $19,830. The circuit court ruled tha. (See website for full description). Seller Inventory # 24689
Contact seller
Report this item
