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

J OF law, mere naked legal rights to sue
in a court of Justice. And my friend
the Senator from Hamilton, (Mr. Mat
thews, has said that if some dirty edit
or, out in the North west, should cane
me, for which should have right Of
action, would that right of action be
taxable Icoufess my surprise that SO
good a lawyer should have used SO lame
an illustration. A chose in action has a
money valase. 1t is assignable. It can,
by sale, be converted into money. 1t
will buy lands, or merchandise, or hor.
ses, or cattle. It constitutes wealth.
It may command every luxury and en-.
joyment which money can procure. A
man may be worth fifty or one hundred
thousand dollars, and hold it all in
these evidences of dues. Yea, more
They may have cost him but IS per
cent of their real value, and may yield
an interest of 10 per cent upon that val
ue. Not so the right of action which l
may have against the trespasscr. That
right to prosecute him for such an ipju-
ry sounds (as the lawyers say) in tort.
1t is not ussignable. It will purchase
nothing. The proper judicial tribunal
may award me damages, or they may
not. The damages are uncertain and
unliquidated. But when these damages
have been ascertained by jury, and
have judgment for them, then, if the
defendant is responsible, these damages
have assumed money value. That
judgment is nssignable. It is produc-
tive-it bears interest. Ityields rev.
enue far beyond large amount of both
real and personal estate, which is con.
stantly taxed.
Says Judge Thurman: "The OBJ
jects of taxation, declared in that in
strument, are the real and personal prop
erty and chooses in action, in the State.
The latter (choses in action) are consid-
cred for the purposes of taxation as
much property as the former They
are considered as much in the posses
sion of the tax payer as the former.
They arc to be taxed by the same uni
form rule-taxed at their true value in
money-taxed at the same rate as other
property"
Judge BARLEY says: " The actual
value in money of credits. thus ascertain
cd, constitutes as proper basis of taxa
tion as that of any other kind of prop
erty. To say, that if person be thus
taxed upon his credits, that is, upon his
claims, which he holds against other
persons, without deduction, he is not
taxed upon his property but upon his in
debtedncss, is, to say the least of it, n
most glaring absurdity."
The question at once recurs, why
should any difference be made between
those whose wealth is in this species of
property, and those whose property is in
houses, and lands, and horses, and cattle,
and goods, and raw material for manu-
factures
The great principle upon which all
our taxation is founded, is, that 2rotec-
tion end taxation are recipro. al. The
protection which government affords to
every species ofproperty, alone gives to
such property value. For what would
a farm be worth if the laws did not guar
anty to the owner, his title, and the |
quiet enjoyment of it; or what value
would bond, mortgage debt, or
a monied security of any kind have,
if government provided no means to
enforce the observance of such con-
tracts, or the sale of such mortgaged |
premises. To the extent, ten, that
any man enjoys this protection, to that
same extent should he contribute to the |
support of that Government to whose |
power and ability, and faithfulness to
enforce his rights, he is indebted for ev-
cry money value which he holds.
1t is true that the most perfect sys-
tenn of taxation would be, to require
every man to pay exactly according to
what he is worth, but our system, as
long practiced and as fixed, by our con-
stitution, forbids that system. We are
therefore, in order to do justice to all,
and to avoid unjust and oppressive dis
ordinations, to tax every money value
every thing which government secures
and protects. Since we cannot exempt |
all, we must exempt none. The rule |
must be uniform. For whatever sum |
you take from the shoulders of one man |
or class of men, so much more you trans
fer to the shoulders of other classes and |
other men. Nor is it any valid objec- !
tion to this principle that by this means
You sometimes tag twice, values growing |
out of one transaction. As for instance,
you tax the farm, and you tax the pur.
chase money remaining unpaid for that
farm. And why not? Tho farm is
worth $1,000, and the State looks to
that value for its proportionate part of
the expense of government. The pur.
chase money is worth 5000, and the
State looks to that sum for. its proper
tionate part ef the public expense. The
State does not look to the man, who may |
happen to be in the possession of the
farm, nor does it inquire whether it is
paid for or not. Yet if it demands !