The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1855-01-17
[Frohl ulie Hsralal

cd, expressive silence would muse his
praise"
What was the purpose of the meeting at
the Court House! Was it for the purpose
Of getting a case in court, or OF ascertain
the cause of our heavy taxes! q &
Now, let me say to your "+' writer, and
to all concerned, that the illegal question
involved in the (tax) controversy" has been
IsettIed by the highest judicial tribunal in
our State; and although in the communica-
ton referred to, expressed no opinion as
to the propriety of the instructions of Audi
tor MORGAN to county Auditors, yet, having
since read the decision of the Supreme Court
by Chief Justice BARLEY, in the case o.
"'The Exchange Bank of Columbus, VS.. Oil
yer p. Hines, Treasurer Of franklin coun-
ty,n have no hesitation in saying, that af-
ter the decision of the Supreme Court had
been certified to Auditor MORGAN, declaring
"the 10th sec. Of the Act of April 18th, 1862,
unconstitutional and void" il he had refused
to give the instructions be issued to the sew
eral county Auditors, he would have been
recreant to his trust, false in the discharge
of his duty to the people of the State, and
unworthy of the office he holds. If a de-
cision OF the Supreme Court Of Ohio upon
question of Constitutional Law bas any
binding effect upon the officers and people
of the State, then Auditor MORGAN was right
in issuing his Instructions, saying that "cred-
! it's" must be listed without deducting debts.
1t seems to me ifthe opinion of the court
( had been generally published last January,
ot the time the important decision was made,
so that the people could have read it, that
/ the whole current of public opinion on the
/ matter of "debts'' and 'credits' would have
I been changed had the decision OF the Court
before the Tribunal of the People would
have been declared in accordance with the
very letter and spirit of the constitution, un-
less the word "credits" shall have an arbi-
trdry Interpretation. Gf
The legality of the mode by which "cred.
! it's have been assessed for taxation, has
been settled, and there is not lawyer in
this city, whose opinion would weigh feath
er in the case of "horse warranty before 1
Justice of the Peace who will decide after
careful reading of the constitution, tha
'sdebts" can be deducted from "credits" ir
listing for taxation. HIRAM GRIswoLD
ESQ.,. who spoke at the meeting, and tt
whom your so" alludes, will not risk hi,
reputation as lawyer, by giving an opinion
declaring that under the uniform rule" o
taxation in the constitution, "debts' can bt
deducted from "credits."
Will your '*' correspondent show tht
justice OF allowing one man, whose entir
property may be in money and mortgages
to deduct his "debts from his "credits!"
ga. B." has $4,000 in money and cred
its. He has no other property. He owe
$4,000. lfallowed to deduct his debts from
his e4edits he would return $4,000, and hi
tax would be SlO2. &C. D." borrows $40,
600, goes East, invests this sum, and buyi
OH his credit $4,000 more in goods an
acknowledgements store in Cleveland
and has on hand an average stock of $40,
900. His tax is $40, besides paying inter
est on the $4,000 and on the $4,000 fO
goods purchased. Now, why is it not u:
Just to allow &C. D." 10 deduct his "debt'
from his personal property, Us for "a. B.
to deduct his "debts" from his moneys anc
credits!''
Take another case. A farmer buys ;
piece of land at cost of $4,000. He pays
cash in hand So 600, and gives a mortgage
for So 5000. Why should not this farmer
who has to pay tax on the land sat its cast
vaue," be allowed to deduct the $4,000 he
owes, and on which he pays $3.50 a year in
terest, from the $4,000 purchase money foI
the farm, and pay tax on only $4,000!
But let me most respectfully call the at
tention of our tax prayers to the follOwn.
extracts from Memorial of LEONARD CAsI
Esq, to the Legislature of Ohio" datet
January 6, 1852, and read in the Senate Jan
uary 10, 1852.
Your memo:alist is advised by council,
that the act of the Legislature passed on
the 18th day of April last. entitled can ac
for the assessment and taxation of all prop
erty in this State, and for levying taxes
thereon according to its true value in mon
ey," is unconstitutional and void-bccaust
the said act is not such an act as the Legis
lature is authorized to pass by the Constitu
ton. The Constitution, article II, section
2, provides that Laws shall be passed tax
ing by uniform rule, al moneys, credits
investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock
companies or otherwise; and also all rea
and personal property, according to its true
value in money" and then specifics wha
property may be exempt from taxation, ant
in section Sd of said article IL it is provid
ed, "that the General Assembly shall pro
vide, by law, taxing the notes, &C., of every
description, (without deductioD of all banks
&C., so that all property employed in bank
ing shall always bear burden of taxation
equal to thst imposed on the property OF in
dividuals." In tho 10th section ofthe above
reeited tax law it is provided, that in making
up the amount Of moneys and credits which
any person is required to list for himself o.
any other person, &C., he shall be entitled
to deduct from the gross amount OF money
and credits the amount Of all bona tlde debt
owing by such persons, &c, for consider
alton received The consultation provide
that laws shall be passed taxing all money
and credits by uniform rule, and is sub
, mltted that the circumstances Of the person
giving the list being indebted is wholly i'm
material, that the indebted individual has
f property and interests in the debts which ar
owing MIN, if he is indebted as full and per
feet as if he were not indebted, and that tn
Legislature has no more power TO eXemI
from taxation, the credits Of an indebted in
divdual, than it has to exempt the lands Q
personal property of an indebted individu
al, and every other taxable person has
e right to require that all credits of others shu
=. bear the proper proportion of the burdens c
taxation. The constitution having spec
= fed what property may be exempt; no othc
y property can be constitutionally exempt; an
moreover, as it is provided in the Consttr
IF ton, that the burden of taxation upon tn
: property of bankers, and upon the propert
IS of individuals shall be equal, and as it is pr'
=