The Ohio star. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1830-1854, 1853-09-21

Total for both years S35 623 Sc Z
In 1851 the Countys proportion was Se7 .732 90, o
And in 1852 26. .6S3 ISL
Total for both years s5i.4l5, 600
Being Sls792. .23.3 in favor Of the first above
named TWO years; OF 50 366, IL for each. Now,
how is this excess to be accounted for! There
may be good reasons for part of this increase. We
know of none however. Bot this we do know
that in 1647 the Prosecuting Attorney received
SPAS. 90; in 1913 S266; in 1850, 1912 25; in 1852,
$500, and $50 for assistauca. The Auditor
ceived in l647, 1887 80; in l848, S1,373, being
more than before since the division of the
county; in 1850. 1893 II; in 1851, I.431 IA. The
Treasurer received in 1s47, S90O,O54; in 1e43,
1882; in 1851, 81. .223 SO; in 1852, 81, 10
We shall have more 10 say on this subject hereaf-
ter.
We do not nor does any Wing, take issue with
the Sentinel on the question whether Banks should
pay taxes equally with individuals; neither do we
say that the tax law of 552 is unequal and orpres
sive on the banks. We believe that it is however;
and we give the following as the reason for our be-
lief .-.-..
In 1851 Democratic legislature passed a law
entitled an act ITO tax Banks. aud Bank and other
stocks, the same other property is now taxable
by the laws of this State.'' by which the Bank in
this village was taxed $500, when by the law of
1852. the same bank is taxed the same proper
ty and business, more than three times as much,
or nearly $500.
We don't propose to discuss the justness or ine-
quality of the law now. The case is precisely this:
The Banks think they injured by the law of
1852 and resort legally and quietly TO the judicial
tribunals of the country prepared, if the decision
be adverse. to submit; and while the question is
pending the Legislature passes the crow-bar law
law directed against class, the aim and object OF
which is to prevent the banks from having access
to the courts for redress of grievances. 1t goes
further and provides that on five days notice, even
when court is not in session, the Atty General
may select his Judge, and make his motion to dis
miss any Injunction that may have been granted
before since the passage of the law; and in case
the Judge of his choosing shonll, by possbili-
ty refuse hearing to dissolve the Injunction the
! Atty Genl may appeal; but not so the Bank, il
the holding be adverse to it. The Sentinel says
| s'the law to appeal does not hold where the in
Junction is obtained prior to the giving of the five
| days notice by the Treasurer This is q mis-
statement, but have no hopes of its correction
| for there is a studied determination on part o.
| the Sentinel to not let its readers know the rea
provisions ofthis unequal and infamous enactment
The Sentinel further says, that q 10 this respect
are the Banks placed on the same footing with the
Individual Not 80, neighbor. Every individua
has right TO epjoin the tax collectors from viola.
ting the Constitution under color of law, on show
ing good legal cause and in such case, the righ
of appeal is not confined 10 side; and if it fioa
Iy results unfavorably to the plaintiff, he pays hi:
taxes, interest and penalty; but if he in the right
his rights maintained, and who is injuredl Sc
the Banks if their pfaint is unfounded and the
law just and constitutional. they must pay theil
taxes, interest and penalties and submit to the Law
like good citizens. Is there anything wrong ir
that?"