The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1847-03-19

Z. :
a part ofthe government. And yet he in.
fers that the legislature, which is only part
and not the entire government, either feder.
al or State, is competent to incorporate. This
is certainly an absurd conclusion, and
only worthy ofsuch premises. So much then
without amplifcaton on the light to charter
bank by implication. tits doctrine more
i destitute ofany foundation in the spirit, than
the grant by express words in the letter Of
the constitution. Upon first principles then,
and a priori reasoning, the whole fabric OF
constitutional opposition 10 taxing banks falls
unsuppoIted1o tho ground.
have had TO show thai erroneous views OF
these questions are not original with Mr..
Ford, the champion of the Bank party in the
Senate. That gentlciaad does not pretend
TO bo the author, he is only the advocate of
his doctrine. Yet he takes care 10 fortify
hinselE not by the repudated authority Of
Hamilton to whom its fame belongs; but BY
law reports, and text writer's. | admit that
opinions of the same sert, however they may
have originated, have beenat various times
expressed by the jurists and judges of this
country. These legal gentlemen are forev-
er on the side ofpower. Like their great
prototype, the Vicar Of Bray they sing hosan-
na or anaihema, according TO the emorgen-
cy; and the very same tribunal echoes with
mercenary shouts "Good God-good d--lnl
as the one or the other may seem TO them TO
be in the ascendant. Next to power, law
yers lean TO precedent. ! will briefly reply
to this part Of Mr.. Ford's argument. The
late Justice Story is first put forward as the
authority for holding bank charter 10 be an
inviolabe contract-3. Com. on Con. ,. 358
% Also Chancellor Kent TO the same si-
feet, /. Com. p. 3S0--92. 9 lb. Ell, 272,
275. These gentleman do hold the opinions
imputed TO them, but their speculaiions are
founded on the basis of cases which do not
support them. They themselves, are only
compilors Of American law which they give
on those subjects in their elementary works
as settled by the construction Of the Supreme
Court ofthe United States. If they rely
chiefly, as Mr.. Ford does, upon tho cases he
has quoted, 1t will be very easy to show that
they do not authorize the conclusion for
which they are introduced
The great case is that of the Dartmouth
College, A Wheat, sis, in which the DECISION
was undoubtedly correct; but which docs not
approach the present question cf legislative
power TO tax chartered bank capital in Ohio.
All the reasoning of that case is not more
than the conclusion itself That
was school case in which royal charter
had been granted 10 DR.. Wheelock in 1869,
under which the property of the school was
vested by his will in certain trustees; and in
1916, the New Hampshire Legislature pas
sed la,p TO take array this property from
these trustees aud give it to other persons
The Supreme Court decided the law 10 be
unconstitutional. Who does dot see, "with-
out the aid of exposition or detection," as
Webster. says the total want ofapplication Of
this precedent No court could have possibly
decided otherwise. There was sound Or
ieinal charter granted, and valid settlement
of an estate by u competent grantor. And
the court had to pronounce the spoliation Of
that property by the New Hampshire legis-
lature unconstitutional. It not only took
away DR.. Wheelock's license; but !! confsca-
ted his property. At least then, it doubly
violated one clause Of the State Constitution
and one clause Of the Federal Constitution,
for it deprived DR.. Wheelock's representa-
tves OF the properly for private use, and that
without compensation.
By lhese resolutions, we propose bringing
back bank capital to the common tax dupli-
cate, and in tina, respect TO alter its privilege,
but we do not claim any right to destroy or
ALLEVIATE the title of that species of property,
and our object is no! frustrated by any valid
charter. There is no resemblance in the ca
ses to even eyes puibnd,
The case Of the State Of Ohio v. the Gem
nercia Bank Of Cincinnati, 7 0. r., Stands
or falls by this precedent. 1t was indeed
decision upon this very controverted point;
bu, the Judge, like Kent and Story, mistook
Inc case in 4 Wheaton, and misaPplied it.
The case Of Terret v. Taylor, 8 Cranch,
D. 4S, has no application either, and should
not have been quoted at all 1t decides that
,he legislature could not repeal statutes Gre
,ting private corporations, or confirming their
property already acquired under the faith of
laws, and By such repeal, eest he
of such corporations erctHsioesy sa
,he State, or dispose of the same to such pur-
poses as they should please, without the con
sent or default ofthe corporation. This was
church case, as the other was school case;
and nobody questions the decision. The re-
pealing law violating the constitutions, state
and federal, in that other part (not here cal
led in auesiion,) which guards private prop
erty and secures it to the owner. have not
,;me 10 advert TO more than these two great
cases cited by Mr.. Ford; but venture to say
that no decision Of the supreme court of the
United States during the time of the late
venerable Chief Justice, nor since his day,