Mr. ROGERS. Most certainly; everybody will understand that the last resolution has application to all classes of people. It declares that there should be no distinction of classes in this country, whether they own their property in Government securities or anything else. The resolution lies at the very foundation of the principle which I have just been advocating in the remaks which I have made, namely, that equal taxation is just and right, and that every person in this country should bear his equal share of the Federal and State taxes. I am surprised that the gentleman should ask me whether that last resolution applies to the taxing of Federal bonds, when the very languane, “there being no privileged class, ” precludes the idea that there was any intent to exempt from taxation any class without regard to the investments which they hold. I take it for granted, and if there is any Gentleman on the other side of the House who will deny the proposition I now make I am ready to hear him, that the Federal Government has the constitutional right to tax these Government securities which are now exempt from taxation by a law of Congress just as much as it has the constitutional right to tax the farm or the loom. Because there is no limit in the Federal constitution preventing the Federal Government whenever in its judgment it sees fit in its sovereign power to lay its hands on every kind of groperty and tax it ti) such an extent as is eemed necessary for the protection and welfare of society. But, it is said by those who are opposed to laying any tax upon these Federal securities that to tax them would be a breach of plighted faith, a violation of a sacred contract which they claim has been entered into by the federal Government and the holders of those secu rities. Sir, the Government never entered into any contract with any holder of these securities that it would not tax them whenever it found it necessary or for its interest to do so. There is no contract between the bond holders and the Government in the bonds, or in any writing or law thatthey shall not be taxed in future. Read them carefully over and you will find there no obligation or agreement on the part of the federal Government with the bond holder that the Federal Government will not tax them when ever in its wise judgment it may see fit. To be sure, laws may be passed by a State exempting certain property from taxation in any State or by Congress, and by virtue of that power these bonds were exempted at the time they were issued; but any subsequent Congress has undoubtedly the right to repeal that act, because thereis no better settled principle oft he common law than that a Legislature has no right to pass a law which shall tie up and control the action of future Legislatures 0n the same subject. Suppose a Legislature should declare that real estate in a State shonldnot be taxed, and persons should purchase that estate after such exemption, will any man doubt that the Legislature may afterward tax it? This was a mere law declaring that these Government securities should be exempt from taxation, and there was no contract, express or implied, either in the bond or in the words of the law, which gave out to the bondholder the idea that he should hold them for all time to come exempt from State or Federal taxes. I am in favor of taxing these bonds by the Federal Government and of taxing them by the States, and I offered a JtResolution early in the session in the form of a law for the purpose of having them taxed, both by the Federal Government and by the States. I do not pretend that a State government has a right to tax Federal securities without the consent and authority of the Federal Government, which consent may be given by act of Congress. The Federal Government has the right to borrow money on the credit of the U.S., and the bonds and securities which it issues are the evidences of its debt. States cannot tax these securities without the consent of congress, because they are one of the means used fit the Government to carry on its operations. he Federal bonds cannot be taxe by the States, because that might interfere with the operations of the General government and in order that the States may tax them, it is necessary that the Federal government should give its assent. It has been settled and I an pose no lawyer on either side of the house will deny it, in the Maryland Bank case, in the Charleston case, and in a case tried before the court of a penis of the State of NewYork now before the SCOTUS, that a State as no right to tax a Federal bank or a Federal bond, co nomine, directly by that name, for the simple reason that the bond and bank are one of theinstrumentalities used by the federal Government to carry its power into effect and although there is no prohibiting or restraining clause in the Constitution of the U.S.to preventthe States from taxingtbese bonds; yet from the imple fact that it was against the spirit and intent of the Constitution, and won d clog the natural operations of the Government and prevent it carrying its functions into effect, the courts have decided that the State has no right or authority to tax these bgnds, without the consent of Congress. The court of appeals of the State of NewYork. being composed nearly altogether of Republican judges, and some of the most emi nent and talented jurists that ever sat upon a law bench, at its late session decided, without one dissenting voice, that Congress had a right, if it saw fit, to authorize these States to tax these Federal bonds and although the State had no authorit to do it of its own volition, yet, whenever the federal Government shall see fit to delegate this right to the States, they can carry that taxing power into effect. The bill offered at the commencement of this session simply proposed that the Federal government shall tax the bonds one 4th of 1%; and that Congress shall give power to the States to lay such a tax upon these federal bonds in the States as the States is on other kinds of property. Is there a man ere if so, I would like to see him who will have the audacity to rise here and say to me that equal taxation in the abstract is not right?