The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1856-03-27
".. rrp.u Sue Oai0 etGtesman.l
"Vcstcd Rights" brought TO "a Sud-
6Hnnn .
den Stand,


JUDGE SpAuLDrNG. by the following letter
in the Journal, has brought our neghbors
and the "vested rights" gentlemen-the leg
islature-to "dead halt"
II appears from this, that after all that we
have heard about the decision of the Supreme
Court OF the United States on the vested
rights Of Banks and Railroad Corporations,
no decision has yet eusr been made Well, this
is getting along finely, is it not!
T. The decision of our own Supreme Court
on the 10th section, is daily being trea ted
in the Senate ith contempt and indfer-
cnce, while decision Of the United States
Court. necer get made, is referred to with
gusto, by the hour, as the lao ofthe land.
We shall contain our gravity the best we
can, but really we feel like splitting orr
sides over the whole affair." as serious as is
the aspect in which the bundering presents
itself to us all.
CLEyELAED, o., Feb. 25th, 1856.
To the Editors of the Ohio State Journal:
have read with much surprise, and no
little regret; leading editorial in the State
Journal of the 18th inst, on the euject Of
"tGTang the DdnKs.
At this particular juncturc of political af.
fairs, il would seem to be wise for our Re.
publican Legislature to abslun from the en-
actment of any law that may tend TO revive
old partizan Jealousy.
In regard to the justice and propriety of
the Constitutional provisi N that the proper.
ty Of all banks now existing shall be SUBJ
jected to a rate Of taxation equal to that i'm
posed upon the property of individuals,
think no two disiDterested minds can dif-'
er. But an honest difference in opinion
may exist as to the exemption of the State
Bank of Ohio and the other banking COM
panies formed under the law of iS45. from
the operation of this Constitutional rule.
That question is now before the Supreme
Court of the United Stntes, for the first time,
in the case Of George E. Dodge, Treasurer
of Cuyahoga county, plaintiff in error v".
John M. Woolsey, defendant in error.
1t was argued three weeks since by Mr..
Pugh and myself for the plaintiff in error,
and by Messrs. Stanbery and Vnton for the
defendant in error. II the decison has been
pronounced, have not been informed oft.
Wha.ever that decision may be, however,
there can be no doubt that your paper was
in advance fit when il said that the Su-
preme Court Of the United States had deci-
ded that "the Constitution Of Ohio and the
laws enacted under il, upon the subject,
were in violation of the Constitution of the
United States, and were therefore null, void,
and Of no effect
Whether am entitled to the compliment
or not, | suppose that -'disttnguished lawyer
from Northern Ohio, who charged and was
paid eleUen handred dollars for his services
in certain bank taxation cases, was none
other than the very humble individual who
now addresses you. %
do not so much object to your making a
parade Of my tariff of charges for the benefit
OF the public, as / do to the unnecessary
heart burnings that are about to be again
between the banking and anti
bank men Of the State.
The late Republican victory in Ohio IVES
not achieved by banks and banking alone,
but by an honest yeomanry, very many OF
whom have heretofore been enrolled in the
ranks Of those who profess to believe mi
equal rights.
hope nothing may be said in our newsz
trust nuthing will be done by the
General Assembly to, drive such auxliaries
from US at so momentous crisis as the
present.
Whether may. have charges for a Ger
thin amount Of professional services s 100 ;:
when the Bank attorneys were paid as tnGnv
is OF no particular consequence
to any member of the community: Sure j
am, II concernes no one more thaa Il
Your very humble servant.