Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1854-09-08
ConstilutiOualityofth theSmalI Bill Law.

The CtncinHdtt GGzette contains long
and ably written article, from the pen Of II.
NJ. Corwine. Esq, that city, on the subject
OF the constitutiouality of the law Of the
last session Of the Legislature, which makes
il illegal TO pass bills issued by The banks
of other States, in Ohio, after the LIST OF Oc-
tober next. AS he makes strong case.
and as the subject Is one of general inter-
est, we select so much Of the article as will
give our readers his points, and the reasons
in their favor.
This law contains six sections; the last,
however, being merely the repeating cause.
Sec LIST prohibits the circulation and re-
ceipt,of bank paper Of another State, Of less
denomination than ten dollars after the lst
Of October, 1854, by any person, firm, or
body corporate; unless transferred and re-
ceived bona fde for the purpose of sending
the same directly out Of the State for re-
dempiion.
Sec. I'd provides that such papers shall
not be paid out or received in payment Of
any tax, debt, judgement, decree, 6ne or
amercement, or other demand whatever; /;
that such papers shall be held worthless,
and all contracts for it null and void, &c.
Sec. Sd. That, for a violation of it, any
bank, banker, broker, body corporate, or
public officer, shall pay one hundred dollars,
and other persons ten dollars; one half to
go TO the ipformer, and the other half to
the treasurer OF the township. And the
person complaining (the informer,) shall
not, after the filing Of such complaint. be
liable to forfeiture in the same case, al
thought party to The same offence
Sec. 4th. Tral the form Of the complaint.
Sec 9th. In addition to the forfeiture
above specified, makes every member Of
the firm, bank, DC, individually liable for
the redemption of such paper in gold and
silver; every Incorporated bank shall forfeit
lis charter r, and all notes and other securi-
ties or obligation, discounted in whole or in
part by any bank, banker or broker, with
or by paying the unlawful paper, the cir
'cuation Of which is by this act prohibited,
shall be void, and no action shall be main
tained to enforce tie collection thereof
We now proceed to the consideration OF
the legal propositions involved in this act
We maintain first. that the Jaw is violation
of the constitution Of this State
End. That it is violation Of one OF the
cardinal principles of the "conity of the
States" if il is no, at war with well known
provision Of the Constitution of the United
States.
Sd. Its provisions ate SO inc onsls,ent and
witha so antagonistic. that they cannot be
enforced in any court of justice.
4th. Its provisions are oppressive and ty-
Vanical-the manifestation of the will OF the
strong against the weak-the oppression oI
the minority by the majority.
In the third place, the meaning of this
term uniform, as IL occurs in this oonstitu
tion, came up and received su interpretation
by the Supreme Court of Ohio, in the recent
case of the Exchange Bank Of Columbus
against 0. p. Haynes. Treasurer, decided
last winter The tax law Of 1852, pre-
scrbed different rule for the appraisemen
ofthe property banks, bankers. brokers, &c.
than for other tax payers, and the question
presented in that case was, whether tina
distinction could be constitutionally made
The I'd Section Of the 18th article Of thu
Constitution, which declares that "Law'
shall be passed, taxing b5 uniform rA'
oil monies, Credits investments in bonds
stocks, joint Stock Companies, or otherwise
and all real and personal property" &c,
was claimed was violated by the law in th
particular named. The Court held tha
che law was unconstitutional, in so far tha
j. made the distinction in the rule betweel
Banker, &c. and individuals; because it wa
not uniform. This is the ordinary meanin,
given to the word. Certainly that inter
pertaton should be no less strict, when il
meaning is to be ascertained with the viey
to constituting a penal statute. So far a
this term is concerned, the two provision
of the Constitution must be construed b.
the same rule ofinterpretation. The reason
ing which sustans this opinion of the Su
preme Court, must apply with far NOR
force 10 the 20 Section Of the ID articl,
because the one relates to property, an
should be construed literally. whilst tn
other relates to matters penal, and shoul
be subjected to rigid test.
Now, the law under consideration is
general law, and yet operates partially a
to individuals, and to some extent as to tel
ritory.
In the first place it distinguishes in th
degree Of punishment for the same ofenc
The banker, broker, &c, by the third sec
tion is fined one hundred dollars. for viola
ting the laws, whilst all others are fine
but ten dollars. for the same offence.
This is without doIbt partial and nc
uniform law. 1t operates partially an
oppressively upon one class Of offenders
and is thus brought within the class oflaw
intended to be provided against by the pro
visions OF the constitution. 1t is speci'
and not general legislation.
In the second place. the provisions OF tn
fifth section of this law, bear the impress {
partial or individuai legislation, if possibl
more glaringly than the third section.
lst. For violation itJorteits the charte
OF the corporation.
I'd 1t declares all notes. &c, discounte
by any bank, banker, or broker, void whetl
er discounted in whole, or 10 parts. by sue
bank paper.
Sd. No action shall be maintained on an
paper so discounted, nor shall its colectic
be enforced in day nay
Now, il is to be observed that these e.
trordinary penalties are not made to app