Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1853-08-31
Rank Taxes.

In discussing the tax law of 1852, the Ohio
State Democrat speaks as follows of that portion
of it which relates to banks, which we commend
to our readers, and all others who are disposed to
side with bankers.
.ssButsit is claimed that bankers are not taxed
like other indiyiduals-that they are not permit
ted to sdeduct their Indebtedness Let see for
moment What is it that the law proposes to
tax in the hands of individuaisa Manifestly,
property. What does the constitution-What
does right and justice say shall be taxed in the
hands Of bank! Property? "AH property
atoued IN bonki,g shaH bear burden Of taratiom
equal 10 that imposed property Of tsdiUidtats,'
is the language of the constitution. Now.
what is the property of a bank? Are not 80
notes and bills discounted, and which are d.,i..
ing interest property! Are not the State stocks
belonging to it, andupon which it draws interest
propertyl Are not all of the moneys, effects or
dues, loaned, invested, or otherwise used or en-
Dloyed with aview to profit, or upon which such
bank or banking company receives, or is entitled
to receives, or is entitled to rece ,e Interest,
ssproperty?'' All of these would be property in
the hands of an individual; and he would be COM
uelled to list them for taxation.
But we are met with the argument that from
his amoneys and credits an individual may
dact his Indebtedness, and it is claimed that IT,
same privileges should be extended to bans.
This is true and we free to admit that it is an
anomaly in the law. It's existence, may, however,
Indebtedness is permitted only to be deducted by
individuals from the single item of moneys and
credits upon the suppositon of its being limited
to the necessities OF the owner, and that the
eys on hand are intended exclusively for the pur-
s nose of spGs5latfon or profit. But when they be-
come the stock Sa trade of the individual or Cor
noration and upon which the predicate business,
$ az in Che case Of a banker broker, then they
stand precisely upon a footing with the nseachGn-
dize of the merchant, and should be taxed sswith-
ont deduction Any other rule would be to per-
NIT them to evade taxation entirely, for it is well
known to all who have been far initiated in
: the mysteries of banking as to be permitted to
inspect bank balance sheet, that the Liabilities
a1,covs foot up eqaol to the resources. There is
another reason why there is no analogy between
the case of an individual and bank. The indi-
,,;dal who contracts indebtedness is compelled to
nav interest or it's equivalent, in enhanced price
{ mon that Indebtedness whereas, the banker is
privileged by law to draw interest upon has oaOn
aebfedpess. So, in any light in which we view il
the cases are not analogous. But, above all this
the constitution says: "The General Assembly
shall provide, by law, for taxing the notes an.
bills discounted or purchased, moneys loaned, ans
all other property, effects or dues, of every de
scription, (sosthom dedUctson) of all banks nov
existing, or hereafter created, &C." In like man
ner individuals are not, except in the single in
gtance mentioned, permitted to deduct their in
debtedness from their property. Through tn,
entire law the idea of taxation upon capital is Ok
clnded--it is no where made the basis, withou
reference to the amount of capital employed.
The farmer who purchases piece Of land up
on credit is not permitted to deduct any portion
of his Indebtedness from it's value-he is taxes
upon the full amount. Neither can he deduc
from the value Of his stock, his horses cattle, O
other personal property, any portion of his in
s. debtedness.. Neither can, the merchant from hi
stock of goods, nor the manufacturer from tn