The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1854-05-17

at MONDAY. Yet this section was reject.
ed, and rejected because it was rule of
equality. and for no other cause or consid.
Grafton whatsoever. If any man says tina,
he had other reasons, let him bring those
reasons forward and make them manifest.
tits true that Mr.. Reemelin contended that
under this provision the Banks would pay
no taxes at all; that the Banks do not own
anything, their exhibits are only a sheet
with debts on one side and credits on the
other. "Take up any bank report and
wha, do you see? You will find several
different items making up an aggregate Of
debts on the one side and several other
items making up an aggregate Of credits
OH the other, and this is ALL" And hence
he concluded that by this easy little trick
of addition and subtraction the Banks
would escape all taxation whatever. II
this argument, tor will not dignity il will,
the name OF reasoning. deserves any an.
swer it is sufficient to say that il the prop.
erty and effects do no, belong to the Banks
they belong to the bankers; il they do no, be-
long to the legal. artificial person. they be-
long to the natural persons who subscribe
the stock. But if this logic deceived Mr..
Reemelin, it never produced the same ef.
feet upon any other human being.
The Hon. Rufus P. Ranney also oppos.
ed the report OF the msjority. but he had
too much respect for the credit of his own
understanding. to express any assent to
the logic of Mr.. Reemelin., On the con-
trary, when earnestly questioned by Mr..
Barbee. whether the majority report did
not place the property of Backs and tha,
Of individuals under the same regimen.
he maintained guarded and determined
silence. See same volume of Debates.
page 829.
The subscriber does not intend to GEN.
sure or condemn the action of the MAORI
ty Of the Constitutional Convention; that
action may have been right or it may have
been wrong. But the actors were guil,less
Of the intention to equalizs individual
and Bank taxation. The Supreme Court
Judges are now engaged in determined
struggle TO effsc,uate that object. But
while feeling great respect for the purity OF
their motives, candor compels me to say,
that, in my very humble judgment, the
means which they adopt are unfortuna ale
and ill-advised. Their rule Of taxation
tavors the wealthy and the unindeb,ed.
and casts an intolerabe bur,hen on the
active, the enterprizing, and the industri-
Gus portion of community. If equality of
taxation is to be brought about, that OBJ
ject ought to be accomplished by means
less unequal and less unjust.
This decision of the Supreme Court
operated as surprize upon the members
of the Constitutional Convention. If thai
convention made so great change in our
system of taxation. it must have been done
by design. How very strange that no
member was conscious OF such a designH
If any member entertained such design
who was he. what was his name. wha
county sent him TO the convention? And
if. since the kindling Of the new lights
any member processes to have been CON
scious al the time. that we were making
this most important change in our finan
cal system, say. Sir. why did you no
speak out. why did you not give US warn
ing! And as you did not see fit 10 speak
then. you ought now forever to hold YOU
peace.
In the midst Of pressing and urgent pri
vate affairs, it is impossible to write lons
articles. By your polite indulgence will
continue the subject in future numbers.
Most Respectfully. &c.
EDWARD ARCHBOLD.
| WoonSFIEID Nav l0 1854