The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1856-03-19

contract" "a charter) an implied un-
derstanding that the corporators take
such charter, subject to the right and
power of the people, by the formation OF
new organic law, to get rid of every
obligation which is prejudicial to the
public good. For myself, 1 deny the
right of any Legislature to contract
away, or in any way impair the right Of
taxatiou-to tie up the hands of all sub
sequent Legislatures For some pur
poses, q State may contract through it.
agents, and such State be bound BY such
contracts. They may make contracts
for the construction of public works and
public buildings, penitentiary, an asy-
lum. Such contract has considera-
tion-it has q mutuality-it may be ex-
amiued by proper Judicial tribunal-it
may be impeached for fraud-it is sub
ject to any and every rule which governs
every contract. But an undertaking.
a promise [for it is a mere naked promise
without consideration that the people,
through their Legislature, shall not al
ter those laws, their system of taxation,
their means and mode of self preserva-
ton and defence, as the public good
may require. is an endeavor to barter
away vital right of the people, which
their agents, the Legislature, have no
power or authority to dispose of, or to
abridge. 1t can never be the subject
matter of a contract.
I read from the opinion of Mr.. Justice
CatroD of the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States, in the case of the Piqua
Branch Bank VS.. Knoop, l6 Howard,
page 3e5: ".The question was examined
by the Judge, who delivered the unani-
nous opinion of the court in the case of
Debolt VS.. The Ohio Life Insurance and
Trust Company, (lst Ohio State Re-
ports, 564,) with fairness, ability, and
learning, calculated to command the re-
spect of all those who have his opinion
to review, and which opinion has, as l
think, construed the 60th section truly.
The next question decided by the State
Court is of most grave Importance: l
give it in the language of tho State
Court: "Had the General Assembly
Po1ar- r-nndAr- r-the-esesti+uti0rz- Aes-
force, permanently to surrender by con-
tract within the meaning and under the
protection of the constitution of the Uni
ted States, the right of taxation over
any portion of the property of individ-
uals otherwise subject to it. Our OBJ
and conclusions upon this
question must be taken with reference
to the unquestionable fact that the act
of 1851 was bona fide attempt to raise
revenue by an equal and uniform tax
upon property, and contained no covert
attack upon the franchises of these insti-
tutions. That the surrender did not re-
late to the property granted by the
State, SO as to make it a part of the
grant for which consideration was paid,
,he State having granted nothing but
he franchise, and the tax being upon
,othing but the money of individuals in !
rested in The stock, and that no bonus
,r gross sum was paid in hand for the
SO as to leave it open to con-
roversy that reasonable taxes, to accrue
n future, were paid in advance of their
due What effect different
tate of facts have, we do not stop to en-
Iuire. Indeed, if the attempt has been
made, It is o naked abuse of sovereign
,ower, without any consideration or at
:endant circumstances to give it strength
Or color, and so far as We are advised is
he first instance where the rights and
interests of the public have been entire
y overlooked" On page 500, l find
he following language of Mr.. Justice
Catron: "The question whether the !
people have reserved this right SO as to
lold it in their own hands. and thereby
% enabled to regulate it, by instructions
o subsequent Legislature, or by
rev constitution, is question that has
,een directly raised only once in any
state of the Union so far as know. In
he case of Brewster vs. Hough, 10 New
Reports, l39, it was raised,
nd Chief Justice Parker, in delivering
he opinion of the court in a case in all
aspects like the one before US, says:
That it is essential that the public
aith should bo preserved Inriolate, as
t is that individual grants and contracts
hould be maintained and enforced.
SUIT there is a material difference be-
ween the right of the Legislature to
rant lands, or corporate powers, OF
money, and right to grant array the
ssenttaZ attributes Of sovereignty, or
igfts of eminent domain. These do not
eens to furnish the subject matter Of
Judge Catron goes on to say !; This
ourt sustained the principle announced
y the Supreme Court of New Hamp-1
hire in the West River Bridge case.
md this court held that the first char.
er was contract, securing franchises
nd property in the bridge to the COM
any /; but thar first legislation c0ula
,ot cede at0ay the sovereign right Of en-
ne,st domain, and that the franchises
nd property could be taken for the uses