Washington telegraph., 1855-01-31

the cause primarily arose, contained no such
provision as is found in sec. g art (under
the head Of revenue.) in our own. BY ref
erence TO this case, it is confidently stated,
it will be seen that this provision of cur
constitution could not have changed its re-
sesult In the Supreme Court of the T. s.
where it was determined fer it was made
to 60 OF upon provision contained in the
constitution of the L. S., similar in its effect
+ to the one contained In the 18th Sec of our
bill of rights, before herein referred to-
This case alone, in our humble Judgment,
should have warranted the MAJORITY in re-
jecting this bill but it was insisted that the
act Of the 9th Jan. 81. so far as the 18th
sec. is concerned, is of itself unconstitutional
and void. as being repugnaut TO sec. 2, art.
+ I, (under the head of revenue,) as interpret
. ed by ourSupreme Court, in the case of
( Pike V. The STATE, 5 DIRK; R. 204 but
we apprehend they are not sustained, in
this view, by the authority relied upon, for
the facts are totally different. In the case
in 9TH Ark. Rep. the exemption of i'm
/ prOvements in the county from taxation, was
gratnity on the part of the Legislature,
was not founded on a valuable consideration,
was passed after the ownership in such i'm
/ provements had attached to individuals, did
/ lot incorporate itself into the improvements
themselves as a chattel interest. flowing out
of and pertaining to them, such as might be
/ sold and transferred from man to man
Such an act as this could of right be repeal
ed by the Legislature, ddiibitun, without
! violating any vested right. The exemption
! was but i boon to the citizens residing in
! the country. conferred upon them by the
suferance of the State: It was, in its effect,
Ike a lease at will. of real estate, made BY
an individual, and possession given, which
authorizes the lessor to take possession again
at pleasure. by giving reasonable notice
But such are not the facts, in reference to
the exemption cf swamp lands, under the
18th sec. Of the ACT of 9Th Jan. 81. propos-
ed to be repealed by this bill. In this case
the exemption was not a gratuiiy on the part
CT the State-it was purchased from her at
a fair price. In this case the exemption
did not attach TO the individual who might
have become the owner of the swamp lands.
but was made by the terms of the acs, a
cliattel interest JolIo1ctng the land itself, in
whose hands it might chance to fall. and
| the exemption. too. was made and proposed
by the State, whilst the title was in her, and
when conferred granted by her. was confer
red and granted, with this right of exemp-
ton, following and belonging to it. as an IN
/ cideut to the title. and as privilege or he
reditament thereto belonging.
IF the majority had ceased with the re-
peal Of the l4th sec. of the act of 9th JAM
81, by the bill in question, the necessity of
this protest On our part would not be so nee
esSary or manifest, for in that event, no
wrong would have been inflicted upon the
vested ghts ola large and respectable portion
Of the people Of this State, whose rights it is
our duty, as it is our pleasure, to endearor
to protect. in common with the rest of cur
fellow-citizens But this bill further pro-
vides. that all lands heretofore entered un-
der the provision Of said act of 9Th JAN,
81, shall and may be forthwith assessed for
taxation, whether reclaimed or not 1t is
in this that we humbly conceive the act OF
the majority of the Senate is in utter viola
tion OF the 18th sec. of our bill of rights
and imposes upon us the necessity of present
ing our humble protest against their act. in
the hope that our positions may not be mis-
understood. or our motives improperly i'm
pugned. Il is possible that our views. here
in before expressed, may be erroneous, but
for this we cannot be held responsible. if
we have acted in good faith, in reference to
;hen.
Wherefore, in the name Of ourselves, and
all those who may have rights. vested under
the provisions Of the act of 9th Jan. 1851.
we do most solemnly protest against the ac-
tion of the Senate, in passing; on the 9th
inst. the bill to which we have referred,
having. for its object, the repeal of the 18th
sec Of said act of 9th Jan, 81, entitled, as
hereinbefore noticed, and imposing upon
lands, entered under the provisions of said
act, taxes and ameEcements as by said bill is
provided.
In testimony whereof, we have hereunto
set our names at Little Rock, on this 18th
day Of Jan, A. D., eighteen hundred and
fifty-five.
THOMAS B. HANLY.
Senator from lonroe and Philips counties.
G w. LEMOYNE.
Senator from Pope aud Yell.
WIN. S. KEITH
Senator from White Jackson and Con;cay.
w L. S. BARKMAN
Senator from Clark and Montgomery.
A. Ii. FERGUSON,
Senator from Jefferson, .4rsansas and Desha.
c
1t is well TO be prudent nowadays; and
even the extreme caution of witness in
Boston court IS not reprehensible.
''Are you Catholic %
mo, I'm not-Fm Nova Scotian.
said the witness.
"a new creed, quoth the lawyer; should
not the witness be sworn on a blue-nose po-
tato ?"