proprietors, to all customary burdens and incidents. Mr. Justice Woodbury has declared, in a well-considered judgment, that—
"Where the United States own land situated within the limits of particular States, and over which they have no cession of jurisdiction, for objects either special or general, little doubt exists that the rights and remedies in relation to it are usually the same as apply to other landholders within the States."—United States v. 1 Woodbury and Minot, p. 76.
I assume, then, that without this prohibition these lands would be liable to taxation. Does any one question this? Nobody. The conclusion then follows, that by this prohibition you propose to deprive the present Territory, as you have deprived other Territories—aye, and States—of an essential portion of its sovereignty.
And these, Sir, are not vain words. The Supreme Court of the United States have given great prominence to the sovereign right of taxation in the States. In the case of Providence Bank v. Pittman, 4 Peters, 514, they declare—
"That the taxing power is of vital importance; that it is essential to the existence of Government; that the relinquishment of such power is never to be assumed."
And again, in the case of Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Peters, 447, they say:—
"Taxation is a sacred right, essential to the existence of Government—an incident of sovereignty. The right of legislation is coextensive with the incident, to attach it upon all persons and property within the jurisdiction of the State."
