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

S0ANA'S' ~ 10 HSFeSo tuaI no nOIueI U
, any of these bonds can identify his bono
= as being one of those Issued under thi
pledge, and our public officers, as ap
, pears by the report of the Auditor o
State to the Constitutional Convention
: are unable to distinguish them. NJ
, present holder, therefore ofany of ihes
} bonds can affirm, that his bond is exemp
from taxation; for though there MAJ
have been ten millions issued under thii
pledge, no man can tell whether it is hil
bond, or that of his neighbor, which i.
exempt.
1t is proposed to exempt the whole
twenty millions, and this bill provides
for it. To this provision the Senator
from Cuyahoga, (Mr Griswold) moved
an amendment; to limit the exemption:
to such bonds as we're issued under
these pledges, and no more. This prop
osition, first adopted By the Senate,
was afterwards, upon reconsideration,
stricken out, and the whole twenty mil
lions are now to be exempted. I do
not stop to argue the principle of ex-
emptions, now SO justly odious in Ohio
nor to support proposition SO mani
festly self-eYident that there is no rea-
son why the wealthy holder of State
stocks should not contribute his proper
tion towards the public revenue. Rea-
son-thc principles of natural justice,
and the Constitution equally demand it.
Out of abundant caution to preserve the
public faith from the slightest suspicion,
I, on yesterday, voted for the amend
ment of the Senator from Cuyahoga,
(Mr. Griswold.) It was all that the
most exacting bond-holder could re-
quire. It is true that it would throw
the burden of proof upon the holder, to
show that his bond was one of the ex-
empted bonds; but this is right, both
upon the principles of law and equity.
hold, therefore, Mr. President, that
we have gone to the utmost verge of our
Constitutional duty, when we have as
serted that the exemption should be ex-
tended TO those bonds, oei ,, to which
the pledge was made.
But in voting fyr this amendment, l
do, in no sense, admit the power of the
General Assembly, under the Constitu-
tion of 1902, to contract away the great
right of taxation, or eminent domain. 1
only, in the present case, choose between
two evils.
propose, however, to give my views,
and the authorities in support of them,
in my concluding remarks.
proceed, therefore, to state my fur
ther objection to this bill, which is, that
it exempts from taxation the State Bank
of Ohio and its branches. The reason
assigned for this exemption is that the
Supreme Court of the United States, in
the Piqua Branch Bank as. Knoop, 16
Howard u. 81 Reports, have decided
that by the charter of that Bank she is
exempt from taxation except to tho ex
tent of 6 per cent, upon her profits; that
this charter is q contract, and that the
law of the General Assembly, passed
2lst. March, 1851, which establishes
another rule of taxation for that Bank,
is unconstitutional and void. Mr.. Pre-
sident, whatever may be my own oPin-
ion as to the soundness of any decision.
however much it may in my judgment
evade the natural and Constitutional
rights of my people as I understand
them, and the principles of justice, yet
when authoritatively made by the Con-
stitutional tribunals, will abide it, un-
til it is reversed or over-ruled, for l
abide all the compromises of the Consti-
tuition, whether Federal or State. But
I proceed to inquire whether the law,
which is now sought to be repealed, has
ever been decided by that Court, or any
other Court, to be unconstitutional.
This law now sought to be repealed, was
passed on the 18th April, 1852, since
the adoption of, and in conformity with,
the requirements of the new Constitu-
tion. The law which was passed upon
by tho Supreme Court of the United
States, was passed under the old Con-
stitution. No judicial decision has ever
determined that tho present law is un-
constitutional. By the letter addressed
to the Ohio State Journal, by Judge
Spaulding, published one or two dsys
ago, it clearly appears that the constitu-
tionaliry of the present law is now under
consideration in the United States Court,
in the case of George c. Dodge, apel-
liant, against John N. Woolsey. appel |
lee, which went up from the decision of
the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Northern District of Ohio. The
determination of that Court is not yet
known. This case involves a totally
different question from the case in 10
Howard, and this difference consists in |
this, whether the people, in their sovc.
reign capacity, may not; by the adopt
tion of new Constitution, reassert their
sovereignty and reclaim that right of
eminent domain and taxation which the
want of sagacity, or the corruption of
their agents, the Legislature, have bar
tered away Or, as the lawyers say,
whether there does net enter into such