Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1854-05-19
The Tax Law again--A New sys-
fem of LeUisIati0n,

excitement throughout the State. All parties are
dissatisfied, and the murmurngs Of the people
a re heard throughout the land like the ''voice Of
many waters" and none are "louder" in their
murmurings than the democratic party, and the
democratic press. Every man with whom we
have couverscd, and we have conversed with
Of the Fathers Of Democracy, condemn the
law as it now stands, IN umeosured terms as ty-
ranical ard oppressive.
The decision of the Supreme Court, and the
course taken by the State Auditor, has started a
new question in legislation Does the power to
legislate belong, according TO the new Coustitu-
ton to the judicial, financial, or mhat is called the
legislative departments of government
Judging from recent deveoments, we should
be led TO the opinion that all these departments
claim the right and power 10 enact laws for the
govern mcnt of the dear people.
The Supreme Court BY its late decison has
egisaed into the Tax Law new feature or
ra ther new principle OF taxation. By what au-
thority was this done7 Has the Supreme Court
in deciding upon the constituonat ty, or the un
constitutionality Of law, power 10 enact new
law, or in any way 10 supply the place of law,
or part Of law which II may declare unconsh
tutiona7 II is admitted by all that a law, or a
part of law declared unconstitutional by the
Su preme Court is null and void, and as the State
Auditor says, ''is no longer portion OF the law"
The tenth section of the Tax Law which al
lowed the deduction of debts, is therefore by vir
tue of this decision null aud void. Now il there
/ is portion Of the law prohibiting the deducti or
Of debts it regards the pcple, how does it come
that such law, appears from the instructions
OF the State Auditor, is in force. Will il be said
that the section taxing Banks forbids the deduc
| ton of del ts7 We admit it; but was this section
intended TO apply 10 The people, or only 10 the
banks7 If 10 the banks only, which is evident
! from these two facts:
/ LIST. The tenth section refers to the people, and
is the only section in the law which defines how
ness. This section has been declared unconsti
,uiional, and therefore, bloted out of existence.
ID. The section referring 10 banks allows no
deduction. They are distinct and separate parts
of the law, and refer 10 distinct aud separate in
interests.
Now the question naturally arises: from what
source do we derive this new principle of taxa
ton as il regards the people? Is it claimed that it
is derived from that part Of the law regulating the
taxing of Banks1 Then we ask by what authori.
ty has this section been applied to the peopie?-
Can the Court apply law TO portion of the
citizens for whom it was intended by the
only acknowledged law making power in the
State2 And that too, when il formed part OF
the question submitted to the Court. The Court
was called upon 10 decide upon the constitution
ay of the law, and not upon the practicablity Of
the application Of that part fthe law taxing Banks
TO the citizens. The Court declared that the law
taxing banks without deduction was constitution.
al, and that, that portion Of the law allowing the
people TO deduct their indebtedness was unconsti-
tutional. That is, If the Legislature should pass
a law taxing the people as the present law does
the banks, it would be constitutional But the
Legislature have passed no such law, and ms the
one now upon the Statute book is null and void
by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court
how in the name Of common sense have
law in which is incorporated principle of taxa
lion entirely new7 The tenth section sis ne
longer a portion OF the law" Bat have,
Notwithstanding, this declaration of the Auditor
J a law which allows no deduction for Indebtedness
pealed section word Of the law.
Blu, again, we have in addition TO the above, q
new oath or affirmation. By what authority e
the people required 10 sware that they have made
no deduction on account of any indebtedness, OF
suffer penalty of fifty per cent? Is this from
the authority of the Supreme Court, or has tbs
Auditor, Mr.. Morgan, assumed the power to legis
late for the good people Of Ohio? Is this ailirma
lion fOund,in the law? 1t is true that person
were required 10 affirm that they had listed thel
property according to the requirements Of th'
law, but the tenth section is no longer a law, ant
the Legislature have not made any other.
But some how without the will, or act of ih'
Representatives Of the people, both new princ
pie 1--WE mi ght say a new law, for It amounts Il
this If il has any force, which according 10 th
r Auditors statement is TO bring one hundred m,l
hons of moneys and credits upon the grand dupli
: cate Of the State) and new oath or affirmation
has been manufactured by the Auditor to cores
9 pond, not with the law for there is such law
but with what the Supreme Court said would b.
constitutional if the Legislature should pass sucl
law but the Legislature failed to do this, an
consequently there is such law, as the Audito
= refers TO in his newly manufactured affirmation
e Now we ask, where does this nci0 Tar Lar com
g from? Certainly not from the Legislature, bu
q from the Supreme Court and Mr. Morgan.
We clip ,heIollOwng very appropriate remark
from the sanduaky Register:
+ MIR. Morgan has taken upon himself the tas
n Of doing up little chore Of Legislation whcl
The General Assembly, in its haste, neglected Il
I do. lie has PASSED LAW, prescribing that ever
man in The State must swear alhrm, that il
listing his property for taxation he has not deduct
ed his debts from his moneys and credits! II thi
! he not gross assumption Of power, il would b
It difficult 90 fix limits TO the State Auditors lega
prerogalives. Nowhere can any warrant be ronn
u for such an oath in the laws OF the General As
C sembly. The Tax Law requires persons to max
out and hold in readiness for the Assessor, ''
y statement OF their personal property, moneys an
v Credits &c. which by the provisions Of this ac
he is required TO list for taxation" This slate
'e ment the law requires TO be "verifed by oath o
le a1ifnat ion" The form Of The "verifealion"
not prescribed aud each one may choose such
p form he pleases, provided that it amounts TO
4 -. d.