The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1855-09-05


Mr.. EDIroE.-As you have published
some structures of correspondent, upon
my article relating to the subject of Ohio
taxation, published a short time since in the
Republican, perhaps you will not object to
a brief reply through the medium of your
paper.
do not much like TO engage in any con-
troversy with an anonymous writer. l love
to see any man endorse his sentiments with
his signature. But as your correspondent
"Publins' has advanced some things which
seem to require notice, shall, in few words,
sci forth my objections to his reasOnings.
l remark here that my article was not in
tended to include bank notes with promis-
sorry notes, as, in my view, there is an esen-
tial difference between them, from the sim
pie fact that bank notes are, 10 an extent.
made a circulating currency by law.
"Publius" lays down the following prem.
ises and conclusion, which, he ought to
have discovered, include nothing that in
strict accordance with my article, l do not
admit.
L. Government has right to tax every
thing to which its protection extends.
2. Its protection extend to bank notes,
bills of exchange, and promissory notes.
3. Therefore government has a right to
tax bank notes, bills Of exchange, and
promissory notes.
Now my objection to this syllogisn is,
that it does not reach the point at issues
When and where did ever deny the right
of government 10 tax bank notes, bill of ex-
change, and promissory notes?
The erroneousness of his reasoning prin.
cpally lies in the assumption that promis-
sorry notes. OF THEMSELVES, constitute wealth.
But, single consideration will show that
| this is not the case. Wealth consists only
of actual possession. Articles of wealth de-
rive their value solely and exclusively from
the consideration that they are the EVIDENCE
OF TITLE 10 property in the hands Of another,
That promissory note is not valuable OF
itself, is plain from the fact that if man
possess hundreds of such as are not eollecta,
Bile, he is no wealthier than if he had them
not. The notes are in his possession still,
and if they are wealth, in themselves con
sidered, of course he should be made richer
thereby.
j A note in itself is worth nothing; but on
ly as an evidence Of title. And il this be
true, thea NIL the arguments which "Pub
lus" has based upon the suppositon tha
they are'wealth, must be erroneous.
AS have stated before, bank notes, hay.
ins acquired BY law the characteristics of a
currency, must necessarily be regarded in a
I different light.
, Endorsements upon note against the
citizen of another state, by the original hold
er. would, to some extent, change the char
acter Of the note; as the indorser would hole
the indorser as debtor; and Of HIM it coult
be collected under the laws Of THIS state -
But it is plain that the original holder Of
note against citizen OF another state, car
never, under any circumstance, collect hi
claim under the laws of this state. There
fore, this state does not, under any circum
stances, protect him with regard to his claim
and hence it should not tax him upon it.
To say that protection to property ca
!. extend to more than the property Of tn
state, is absurd. It is the same as to sa,
that property may be protected, where ther
4 il no property to protect.
Respectfully,
u ]. c.. WELLS.