Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1853-09-29

hs aiit1d "a 4 sss,ue !, l.a 1Hs V,i.AN a.
Othvf pIop, rty. and 10 avOid 81 Couss u-sVisi
otjec-.oB. had required 'hs ssstul " tLe
osuk but teW eOsapiIei vain Tue ltw. lne
Wh1g parry wvrv continually suulec. ~ thS
attacks Oi dishonest snd ignor,sn. men. b, cause
they had passed the bahkHg Law oi 1874 snd
No baak comes to our rvsrue. Nos, SAT,
l rrsaid ths an act OF "a Hlus,lcr 10 Tue OanAs,
and one that releases 1he WsIs party irOu aii
obligations hereafter to d. ht ,hvir battles, or
deleud their eonluet. aud Tor one, | VIII 20 ~
the very verge Ul the Constitution " compel
thcm TO change the manner IN which they psy
tAI. cannot vioalale either my oath ,i office
or lhe provisions Of the constitution but Sili
vote for law prOhibi ali receiving and
I dlsbursing officers for receiving or paying cut
THEN paper, unless they comply with The pro-
visions Oi the law Of last winter. But that Is
not the question nov under discussion. The
question is, has the Legislature power 70 re-
woke grant made by previous Legislata. c?
When this question was first under discussion,
1 was brayed b. the Senator IRON Cuyahoga
to meet him in discussion upon this question:;
'lhn he was going to explode this doctrine OIL
vested rights. and il 1 was its advocate, To come
o its rescue, did So sir, not ouG OF any
particular regard for this bill, OF It's effect, ba.
because felt my pride excited to prhduee
sDme argument, and some authority Ia favor
OF the position occupy. The discussion ha,
produced one good effect, aud that is. As nm
derStsud IL agyiuy sway OF the whole ques
uon, as q has been understood aud advocated
by the Democratic party.
/ That party had advocated the doc.rine o;
unconditional repeal, or that one Legislatur,
does not possess the power to bind a suisse
quent one. TO this question | directed my
ntlenlon, and read the authorities did on the
other day, The Senator IRON Cuyahoga de-
clines 10 juin issue With me; but SAYS Ior the
purposes ol this case he will not Controvert a
single authority that | read: and | insist thai
= the legitimate Inference, from his very ingeui
GUS argument is, that the position assumed b,
me- was souud, and that the very numerous au
u thoutles which | read were uncuutruverLibl,
and conclusive upon The question.
The very ingenious argument of the gentle
man TO make question different from The on
= involved, deserves my attention. He tells u
that the power to grant away the right Of tax
mg. IN any form, does not belong to the Legis
b''uFe; and lhat The constitution, giving n,
such power IN cypress terms, It IS not TO b
presumed. u....
In The hrsl place, the qnstion is not involves
y whether the Legislature has the power, unde
:, the constitution, to exempt property from Ia.
= AT all But the question Is, whether gran
= made tO u company TO bank, IN which the
nave provided that the company shall pay
adm OF money 10 lieu OF all taxes, whtlher
Subsequent Legislature can change thu grant
~ltb"ut the consent OF the bank? insist the,
cannot. The authnOues cited by the genlema
= do not sustain his position. The vase in Cone
) Was the Cast OF n manufacturing company. IN
y gagged IN business under an act vi the Ne,
YORK Legislature; in whluh was a right reserv
= ed 10 the Legislature " alter Or repeal the
10 charter. ...... -.- '.....-..
!" " Inc case in New Hampshire, at first bIusl
: was ready 10 conclude was in point, and
thought 10 my sell the gentleman had fouu
onc case But upon examination, | lncin
. strongly W The opnaOn thtL the case is sOuu
:, one, ANA gocs TO sustain my position. /, was
~ grant by "a resolution that pa>-,.d the L. girl.
VI cure ot New Hampshire IA l780 exgmp;lr
" certain lands from uE tlon. Alter l.is the re-
~ nlutlon took place, new form OF governed
~ " was adopted by the propl", and by th,t rev
y utIon every vcStlgc vi the old government WI
" abolished. In forming the new mode OF g0'
- ornment was abolished, In roImng The ne
mode OF government, the people vi New Ii ,mI
shire had rIght 10 provide, not only the loIi
OF government, but also how " should be su
~ tan"d. fhe Court huld, and | think properly
w. that the grant exrmpting The land u 1880 d
:! not exempt II iron taxes imposed Oy the nc
government -t.sar ..l .a.rI
o. The case cited in Pensy lvania, lately decidr,
:! ought not to effect the Cast elihtr way. "
~ ~ have aot the reported case; ali We know ol l..
~ " mwSPaPer swyufS'S (vrry uncertain mder,
w. OF c'''e decldua by dslnglu Judge, who h
~ only been Que year Of tile bench; whether m u
~ eordance with or IN violation OF l0rner prec
y" dsIts We do nut know. 10 YtIr-
y rhi' di,pu,es On all the authorities I'D luce
- by the gentleman, aud Il only proves what "
> 50 often ste IN court, that when ". have
vs. y hard case aud can tind no aupn0rity ia pOlu
: We VIII come as near II aS We can Aud sunl,
y, ~ times young men in their great anxlely will iu
w auvhorl.rS on the o.her slde--boIng unable
~ and themselves in tIlrir great ze,. aid their a,
+" versarles, .H ...g ..l. ,t....,..
~ COME now to consider the question male
"' The gendemh, ys: aad atiirm ,haL The Legl
w '"ture does possess The power 10 grant away
- corporation thn they should bs taxed in
w particular way; anl % lur,her nd oyr lh
~ the Legislature Ia The poWer 70 cx.mp. pr,
"A perry from taxation altogether, ana ,ha, Il
% %r' doos' IN either OF the above cases, by way
~, grant, " oAnno. reyokc,lt without Tho cunscl
NJ oi The grant"e, Tue gratcman ielL the tor,
In ol 'ne case IN the cast In OaIo, IRON which
nod re"u Tue other day, as thai case ws again
ar. tue very p'slton whlih he assam ID til, N a
:, mel OF dNpINns vi " Was mo, novel, and IL
ee,"""ly avery et'y way Al norltleS 10 a
.br 'e"5e NAT 'h' Upur wa hrank lac opiul
.s. ~ VI" t"'e 80 '"'nrrd by ,ar ycnvran
lu ia - h's@hch.A aal c1Ntulrd IN by Jul,
'H Ia .u,, an ,VnaI ,h.sl,l.. -, ~