Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-06-07
A Case i'm Point.

n NtsSC
The fusion organ has discovered case, which,
in the mind of its sage editors, prove concusively
that the rule of taxation established by the decls
ion of the Supreme Court is oppressive. 1t does
not and dares not attempt to prove that that decis-
ion is not in perfect accordance with the consttu-
ton, which the head editor of that concern aided
in adopting as the supreme law fthe State,t gov
ern the Courts and all other departments Of the
government.
But to the case, which that sheet claims is one
"now actually existing in this county" 1t is thus
stated in that paper: ." ''.1-.
ga, sold piece Of land to B, for S4O0, and took
BIS note. B, sold the same land to G, for $400
and took C's note. G, sold the same land to d.,
for $400, and took DIS note--and d, sold the
same land to E, for $4oO and took E's note.
"Now, A, B, C, and D, each hold note for
$400, and each has a note outstanding against
him for the same $400, yet each, under the edict
of the State Auditor must list the note which he
holds and cannot deduct the note that he owes,
while E, pays the taxes on the land! Thus by
these various transactions, capital in land, of
$4OO is taxed at s., 900, A. B, c, and d, are made
to pay in the aggregate $1,000 on what they owe;
as that amount though it should be, is not permit
ted to be deducted"
IT, as is claimed, this is an actual occurrence and
each of the several note holders is indebted for
the full face of the note as the purchase price Of
this same land the question very naturally arises,
why do not B, C, and D, cancel their several OBJ
legations with each other, and give A, his security
directly upon the land, leaving him to pay the
,rhiob ba holds ,yhiIa r. IL
taxed upon the land which would have been the
case under any rule heretofore in existence! But
it, as is more probably the case, this land has been
the subject ofspeculaton, each successive seller
realizing an advance upon its price. and the notes
are thus held with a view to the profit thus deriv-
ed, what reason can be offered why they should
not be taxed, without deduction, the same as any
other kind of property! Do not these several
notes enjoy as much the protection Of the gov
ernment as any other kinds of property!
Again; a moments reflection will suggest the
following inquiry in reference to the case cited:
Who ought to pay the tax! The fusion organ
says should pay it because he holds the land.
But the land is worth only $400, and each of the
several HOLcS 10 WUIh do hhuOil 10 IhC louu' ShS
but the holders of the notes are indebted to the
amount of their several notes! And pray is not E,
also indebted for the full value of his land! What
justice is there in allowing A, B, c, ard D, to
make the deductions from their notes while no de-
ductions are allowed to for what he owes on
his land.
| The fusion organ says, "A, B, c, and d, are
made to pay $1,000 on what they owe.' This is
simply untrue. The law as it now stands applies
the same rule in the taxation Of moneys and cred
its that it does and ever has to all other kinds o
property. 1t asks no man what he 0,oes, but what
he owns; and justly considers note worth $loC
as valuable as 800 horse. They both demand
and receive the same protection whether Their
possessors owe for them or not, and they are both
required to contribute alike for the protection they
receive.
The people can now see,as they have long telt,the
heavy burdens which these sticklers for special
privileges would continue to impose on the farm.
ers and producers of the State, by allowing spec.
ulators and money mongers to make deductions
from their moneys and credits, which are not al.
lowed to be made from any other kinds Of property
| ..... -.,. .