The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1853-02-04
THE CRowBAR BILL.

vaults Of Banks and collect the tax wrongly
assessed upon them. On THE bill Mr.. Shell
lABAReER, said;
I should not have said any thing upon the
passage OF this bill but for the fact that have
been connected with a select committee TO u
which 1t had been referred, and having thought
Il not necessary TO trouble the House with
any minority report as to its merits, to now
sgan, upon lis passage, decline making any
expression upon IT, would admit of a mscon-
s,ructon Of my reasons for being silent.
hope, therefore, that the House will indulge !
me for few moments to state--not argue
the objections to the passage Of this bill. And
first, would state, negatively, that it was not
because that this bill sought to compel the /
banks 10 pay taxes, equal to that paid by 9TH
ere. Thut banks, in all cases, where we can
legisate at all, should be taxed like other tax
payers, who denies now! None! That they
were not so taxed in the past of Ohio, who is
to blamel All! That there are such char
tiers, exemptng, to greater or less extent,
these banks from taxation, is an error Of the
past, il error il be, as think it is. The ques-
ton is not involved in this bill, as to wheth.
er there should have been such legislation.
The only questions involved in which shall
notice are, "Is this law right and wise!" Or
il right and wise in the abstract, "Is it neces.
sary now, and will it Dc any good!"-"Is leg
islation needed!"
Nov, Sir, it is notorious that there is no
delinquent bank in Ohio, il they are right in
the legal question they present to the courts,
and have said that these banks, proposed to
be entered into, make simple and single ju-
dicial question in this whole case--"Are we
delinquent" "Haye we not paid all our tex
es" For the answer they have gone TO our
our courts. They are your friends who make
that court. Will you trust them with it! To
that answer these banks say they will, and
they must submit. assert, sir, and that no
gentleman will deny, that you cannot prevent
that appeal. BY the law paramount, which
is over you, and under you, and around you,
and which made you, the legislator, that right
TO 90 into the courts is theirs! "All courts
shall be open, and every person for an inj Try
done, 49, shall have remedy by due course
of law" Is il replied that you do not seek to
shut the couTts' Then why this bill! True,
you cannot. True, in spite of it, njunctions
of the courts will forbid what your law COM
mands until the question made is tried. But
let Us see whether il is not an attempt, Orue,
1t must be abortve,) to prevent trial Of the
question, and to collect these taxes, whilst
the question US to whether they ever shall be
collected, is in the courts for adjudication
Now, if this be not the object of the bill, let
US look for some other. That it will be its
effect, If its requirements are not defeated by
Ia Gent, Il =. -,
10 argue. II makes the trcasurers aud pros
ecutors, under the penalties of their bonds
and loss of office, break open all banks that
have not paid these disputed taxes, and take
the taxes. II makes no exception in fuvor
Of those who have the question of the leraIi-
ty OF this very tax in the courts being tried.
Then, If the law is executed, it will pay the
taxes, concerning which the courts are now
to say whether they are owed.
What other object can the law have! You
answer, the same that it has in seizing or dis
training any other property for taxes. To
that answer, that is not it's object, for that
right, the common right of distrant, nop exists
against these banks, in tho most complete
and ample form. II this bill was on1y meant
TO give against banks the right to dstrain,
then it is only and simply frivoluuus; for by
the act of 1852, in sections 81 and 70, that
right is fully recognized and wived, and that
against "any corporation" Then this law is
not to be passed to enable dstraint to be
made as against others, for that's the law
now for the collection of all legal taxes.
What other motive have you in viewl To
make the Trensurers do their duty or forfeit
their bond. But ii the terms of those bonds
as they are now given by those in office, and
rs they must be given by those coming in,
Cor the statue now fixes the conditions of
those bonds.) does not nOo cover what this
bill seeks to make n forfeiture of the bond
then you cannot make il forfeiture "by act
OF Assembly" DO you think, sir, that we
can enact that a note which reads for one
hundred dollars shall be "taken and held" In
be note for two hundred! Probably you
will not, though lam not sure. The bill does
not say that bonds shall hereafter be 80 con- |
ditloned as to make this delinquency of the I
Treasurer breach. Not at all. But this
nc; shall be held forfeiture Whatever mny be |
Its conditions, and whether now in existence !
or not IL that be the object of the bill, then
the bills form Is novel, considering its object.
Then tha! is not what the bill is for. Is the
object to dsbar prosecuting attornics for not
prosecuting these treasurersl The law now
provides for their removal and for dishar-
ring all attorneys for cause. That Is not the
object Of the bill. II is frivolous to extend
this search for Object farther. They are man.
ifestly not those have noticed. But. sir, is
the object of this law a general design, with
reference to these Banks, to provide a mode
OF collection Of taxes more efficient than the
law now furnishes! This is doubtless what
10 claimed. Let us see. II is seen that the
law now provides the general right of distress.
What more does the law provided IL its pro.
visions are now as thorough and ample for
these collections as the provision of this au
make them, or as they can be, consistenilv
~sh The idea that the banks hdve a right 10 trv
this question at all, then the object of the bill
cannot be to simply insure the collections of
legal taxes, leaving to all the right to try the
question oflegality in the courts. Is the law
now as ef1pcfiyn as IL ean ha c,,.;..a.. II, !