Reply To: Did Marshel contradict himself in United States v. the Planters' Bank of Georgia


Yes he did.The real question in this (McCulloch v. Maryland) case wasn’t so much whether the federal government could open a bank but wether this bank was really federal. The government only had 20% of stock in the Maryland bank. The question was, is this really a federal bank for it didn’t really operate like one. Should a private bank be allowed to escape state taxes simply because it claimed to be federal? Marshel didn’t even address those arguments in his opinion. he appears to have changed his mind from McCulloch v. Maryland…

page 11

Stanford Law Review
Vol. 9, No. 4 (Jul., 1957)
contains: McCulloch v. Maryland Right Principle, Wrong Case
Harold J. Plous and Gordon E. Baker
pp. 710-730 (21 pages)