Spirit of the times. [volume] (Ironton, Ohio) 1853-1858, 1854-05-30


for two third, or his goods,
md the lsborer for ono third ofhis honse.
But 10 the decision Of the Suprsme
Court: -t,, t.......,..' |
1T is said that mans real personal
prtpeny,iis properly in possession, that
his credits are only chooses 10 action
and that il the law tax him. on all that
he is entitled 10 receive on these chooses
in action, after the Payment OF his debts,
he is taxed upon all his credits. With
great respect for those who advance this
argument, must say that il seems 10 me
wholly untenable. find no warrant
for either, in the constitution or in rea.
son, There is not a word in the con.
that makes any difference in
regard to property in possession and
rights in action. except that certain lin.
tied exemptions Of The former are allow.
ed. while no exemption Of the latter is
permitted. Nor is il true that in legal
Specification. or in popular parlance,
the term "crediis," means what is due
to man after Jeduc,ing his liabilities.
His claim may be upon one man. his lia.'
bilities to another; and even in the case
ofmutual credits there may bc no right
Of set.oA, for one may be due at one
time, and the other at another. The
idea OF the constitution is not that each
man sholl bo taxed upon exactly what
he is worth. That is q favoritc idea
with some political economists, but it
finds no place in our constitution
The objects oftaxation, declared in that
instrument, are the real and personal
property and chooses in action in the
State. The latter are considered, foi pur.
poses of taxation, as much property as
the former. They are considered as much
in the pos session Of the x.payers as
the former. They are to be taxed by
the same Uniform rule; taxed by their
true value in money; taxed at the same
rate as other properly. ''s' F '- 'A'
Butithas been suggested that this con.
s.rucuon requires every chose in action
TO be listed OF the amount due upon it,,
although it may be worth but half that
sum, or may, indeed, be worthless
There is no foundation whatever for this
suggestion; but il there we're, the same
thing might, with equal truth, be said,
were section 10 sustained. For it is
not by deduction Of his Liabilities tia,
a person escapes taxation upon chose
in action that is worthless, or is taxed
upon the actual value alone OF his claim
He may owe nothing whatever and there
fore lave nothing 10 deduct; yet he is
not bound to list worthless note, fo1
being worthless /, is not really "a credit,
If indeed, it is so even in name. Be
sides. it would not be q strained con
siruction, but on the contrary would be
in exact conformity to the spiri, Of the
instrument 10 say that tho word "its, u
in the sentence. "according to its true
value in money in Sc. ton 2 ofthe Con
s,ilution, refers TO each Of the objects o
taxation previously enumerated, TO clio
ses in action as we'll as to real and per
sonal property; and that the sentence
should be construed as If it read, 'accor
ding TO their value in money" ID
But If the distinction sought to be es
tahlished could be drawn between prop
erty and credits, what ground is Their
for any distinction between money an,
other proper,y?-- Money is not a chos
in action. 1t is property in the pos
session Of its owner, as much SO as !
his realty. Why then, shall his debt
be deducted from his monies? Will i
be said that man has no money ex
cept what remains after the payment o
his liabilities?-The proposition Is {
contradiction in terms.-.And Their
would be just as much truth in sayinI
that he had no lands or goods excep
what would remain after their applica
ton 10 pay his debts. His lands an,
goods are as much bound for the pay
ment OF his obligations as is his m oney
Their application to that object can b
enforced as readily, nay, moro so, thai
can be the appropriation Of his money
His money is so securely his own, tina
no lien can be acquired on it in hi
hand, while his lands and chattels ma,
become bound for his debts in variou
ways. find it altogether im?ossibl
TO conceive any reason why there ma
be deduction from moneys that woul
not equally favor reduction from land
find no argoment that seems TO m
more than plausible 10 admit deduction
from either. Tho constitution declare
in express terms that laws shall be pas
sed taxing 'all moneys Instead (
this, we have law that taxes only $
much Of a mans money as remains q
ter deducting his liabilities His mon
ey is in his possession, his debts ma
not become due for years, yet they al
TO be deducted. He may never apply.
cent Of his money 10 discharge then
they may, in fact, never be discharged
yet by his process Of deduction his MOI
ey escapes all taxation. Ma .l;a,
American WOman's Educational Al
Il Cna3mtln~