Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1854-11-23

Of the bank charter Of 1916. and that he Law
was passed in violation Of the Constitution Of
The United States, and is consequently void.
II has been suggested, rather than argued,
by the counsel in this case. that the adoption Of
the new constitution, which took effect the first
day of September. 1851, contained provisions,
in regard to taxation, inconsistent with the
Goth section Of the Act Of l845, and that con.
sequently. that act was modified BY the Consti.
tuition. say this was rather suggested than
argued, as l would not do SO great an injustice
to the counsel, as 10 suppose that any one Of
his learning and ability could bring himself to
the conclusion that the Constitution Of the State
is not law OF the State. 1t is indeed the fun
damentsl and paramount law of the State; but
it is only law of the State. and the Constitu.
lion Of the United States declares that "no State
shall pass any bill Of attainder, ex post facto
law, or law impairing the obligation of con.
tracts" de-, and the Supreme Court Of the
lated States at its las! term, having before it,
by writ of error, The Judgment Of the Supreme
Court Of Ohio, enforcing the tax law against
banks, reversed the judgment, on the ground
that the tax law which imposed higher tax on
the banks incorporated under the Act Of l845,
than six per cent. on their dividends impaired
the obligation Of the contract in regard to taxa.
lion, contained in the Goth section of that Law.
That the Supreme Court of the Union had
jurisdiction in the case when the above judge.
ment was pronounced is not controverted, and
it is equally clear that the decision is final aud
conclusive.
If indeed State, by calling a convention,
could modify or abrogate any part of the feder
al Constitution, that great palladium of oul
rights would be Of no value. The founders o
this Government were too wise and patriotic to
countenance such principle in the fundamen-
tai law of the Union, Such power, it is be-
lieved, has never been asserted by any author
ity entitled to respect.
In the case of Osborne vs. The Bank OF tn,
United States, IL Wheat ,774. which was a cas-,
in several of its aspects similar to the one be-
fore us, the Supreme Court say, the Act Of OhiC
"is repugnant TO a law Of the United States
made in pursuance Of the Constitution, anC
therefore void. The counsel for the appellant
are too intelligent, and have too much self res
pect, to pretend, that void Act can afford an
protection to the officers who execute it.
There is no axiom of the law better estab
lished than this. A void law can afford n,
justification to any one who acts under it; anC
he who shall attempt to collect the illegal tax
under the law referred 10, will be trespasser
He will proceed, it is true under Ae color o
law, an act standing on the statute book, but
void act If he open the vaults Of the bank b!
force; and abstract portion of its specie, undc
pretense of collecting the tax, he, Though tn
Treasurer Of the cOuntywlll stand without jus
ti6cation or excuse. He has no more rig Il
do this than any other person, who can set u
; no pretense Of authority.
And this trespass is to be repeated annually
What spectacle What spectacle to La
1, abiding people Is there no pre- ventive RENE
dy? What stronger ground than this can b
imagined for an injunction? The action Of tre'
pass comes too late. The State cannot be 81
ed, lis officer may be insolvent AT best sue
q remedy is wholly inadequate. The money
the bank is annually abstracted, its credit shi
KEN and for years the money may not be reeov
:. cred. 1t would be mcCkery of justice as we
: as of law, to say TO the bank, your only rcmed
J is by an action of trespass.
o 1t is settled principle in cEancery, that an il
2 junction will be granted against single tre
pass, if in its nature it would be lrremediab
; at law. But The case before us is trespa
'f to be repeated SC long as the act laying the to
L shall remain unrepealed. And there can be l
30 question, that collection of the tax after Il
Sc decision of the Supreme Court, declaring Il
le tax law void, will be continued until the ia
le shall be repealed. This will in effect not on
es disregard the highest judicial authority, on {
oil question involved. in the Union, butt will nj
at ify the constitution OF the United States, Whl
he is declared to be the Supreme Law of
Union
lis This remark is not only justified, but cal
he for, as two applications for injunctions h'
been made against the collection of the iej
i'll, tex made at the present term. In the bills il
al. stated that orders have been given to the tire
~. u1ers Of the counties in which these bal
ral are situated to proceed, under the law, to
,er lect the tax. And this is 10 be done, if the
ian be not paid on demand, BY what in conn
Of parlance, is called the crow bar operation.
ise all the bills praying for injuncticns in these
ter ses, the compainants state that the banks hi
the offered to pay the legal tax under their char
ner and are ready, at any time, to pay it.
IL