Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1854-02-02
THr TAx Law DEcIs1oN.-The Su-

TIE TAX Law DEcIs1oN.-The Su-
preme Court of Ohio, have pronounced
their decision on the validity of the tax
law, commonly called the "crow-bar"
law, as regards Bank taxation. 1t ap-
pears from their decision that hereafter
the citizens of Ohio is to be taxed not
only upon the property they possess,
but also upon the debts that are due to
them without any deduction therefrom
of the debts which they owe-the
court say that it is unconstitutional to
make such deduction-to such aconclu-
sion was the court driven in order to sup
port the crowbar law, and strike blow
at the Banks. Most convenient is it
for the progressive Democracy of Ohio
that they have Supreme Court that is
willing to legislats whenever the legisla-
ture has failed to toe the mark. If the
Constitution is what is here decided, it
cannot be changed too soon. But here
is the decision:
BARLEY, @. J. and Thurman J. (Cor-
win, J. and Caldwell, ]. concurring, J
delivered opinions holding,
1. The tax law of April IS, 1859, is
valid and constitutional in the basis it
provides for the taxation of banks,
bankers and brokers.
2. The tenth section of the law,
which allows individuals and certain
corporations in giving their tax lists, to
deduct their liabilities from the amount
of their moneys and credits, is repug-
nant to the Constitution of Ohio and
void. The Constitution permits no de-
duction of liabilities from moneys and
credits.
8. But that section may be treated as
void without affecting the validity of
the remainder of the act. The re-
mainder of the act permits no such de
ductions.
4. Chooses in action are to be listed at
their true value. If a note, for in
stance, is wholly worthless, it is not to
be listed at all: if it is of some value,
but less than its face, it is to be listed at
what it is worth.
s. The fact that property subject to
taxation has not been listed, although it
improperly increases the burden of
taxation upon the property that is listed,
does not render the tax wholly void or
authorize the interference of court of
equity.
6. Neither, in such a case, is the
Treasurer, who has distrained, liable to
an action; for it is not his fault that the
property isnot listed. Loona;s VS.. Spen-
Ger ct ais. Ohio State Rep. affirmed.
z. The tax law of 1852, although it
describes different mode and greater
rste of taxation than is provided for in
the 60th section of the banking law of
1845, is not repugnant to the Constitu-
ton of the United States.
8. But if it were, court of equity
has no Jurisdiction to restrain the col
lecting of the tax by injunction, even
though the County Treasurer may, in
dividually, be insolvent For an action
of trespass affords complete remedy
at law to recover a Judgment, and the
act of March IA, 1853, ''to enforce the
collection of taxes" &C., provides the
means for the payment of such judg
ment.
Ranney, j., concurred in the judg-
ment, but dissented from the decision of
the second point, so far as it holds that
liabilities due from individuals or cor
porations, other than bankers, may not
be deducted from chooses in action; and
also dissented from the decision of the
last point.