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

This section i've of the bill, now unde
consideration, undertakes to evade tha
decision by attempting to define tn
word credits I" It is an attempt t
give that word forced and upnatura
meaning; to do, by an indirection, wha
the court has said the Legislature cal
not do. It provides that the credit
shall be taken to mean, the balance lef
after man has deducted his debts from
his credits. What an Inconsistency II
terms. What absurdityl Such q mean
ing is false, both by common usage ant
by legal Interpretation. The words
credits and debts are in their very nm
ture antagonistic to each other, and ar
attempt to say that the balance and the
credits are the same thing, is as If you
should undertake to teach boy who i.
working in the rule of subtraction
that the miauend and the remainder
were the same. Common usage and
common sense teach US that a mans
credits are the mounts due to him
his assets-thc means with which to pay
his debts, and they are in no wise di.
minished by an indebtedness which may
or may not be, to be paid out of them.
Webster, in his dictionary, defines that
word as follows:
9Th. In book keeping, the side of an
account in which payment is entered /;
opposed to debit. This article is car
ried to ones credit, aud that to his de-
Bit" @
"12th. A sum of money due to any
person, any thing valuable, standing on
the creditors side of an account A. has
credit on the books of B.. The cred
its are morethan balanced by the debts.
So too, the Courts, in this same case,
have given the word credits its legal ac-
ceptation, as used in the constitution,
and certainly no lawyer will deny that
such words were used in their common
and well received acceptatien. Says
Judge Thurman, % Ohio p. 40: Z" Nor
is it true, that in legal Specification, or
in popular parlance, the term credits
means what is due to man after de-
ducting his liabilities. His claim may
be upon one man, his liabilities to an
other"
Judge BARLEY, in the same case, page
25, says: And with Difference to the
opinions of others, I. must confess my
self holly unable to comprehend the
ground on which it has been claimed
that the taxable credits of person con-
sist simply of the excess Gf any) of the
aggregate amount of his chooses in ac-
tion over and above the gross amount of
his liabilities"
/ submit to the Senate, sir, whether,
if tho trainers of the constitution had in
tended to tax only balances, they would
not have said SO expressly. do not
believc-no affirmation or argument win
make me believe-that the Convention
or the people intended to make any such
unjust and unequal distinctions between
different persons, or different kinds of
property.
From this construction of the consti-
tuition we cannot escape, and whatever
may have been our private opinions up
on that -questiot we are bound and con-
cluded by the ju icial construction Civ
en- to that clause of the constitution by
that tribunal to whom is committed the
determination of such questions Will
the Senate disregard it? Will Sena-
tors who have sworn to support this con-
stitutiOn, and every provision of it, de-
liberately set at defiance so solemn de.
eisioD, by constitutional tribunal to
whom the power to make such construc-
tions belongs We shall see.
1t is no answer to say that the Su-
preme Court has now determined that
this definition of the word " credits" a"
is unconstitutional They have decided
that debts cannot be deducted from cred
its. Itfollows irresistibly as sequence
of such decision, that no law attempt
ing such deduction can be valid. No
adjudication can be necessary upon
proposition which commends itself to
the comprehension of every mind.
Equally obvious is it, to every mind
that no evasion, no indication, no forced
obstruction of language, can accomplish
what the Constitution forbids. I chal-
lepge the supporters of the Bill to pro-
duce an instance, in the State of Ohio,
or any where else, where Legislature
has ever before attempted to give to
word a meaning against all common in
of the Constitution.
But if the constitutional objection to
this Bill vas out of ,he way, I would
never assent to its passage, because it is
unequal and unjust in its operations.
II is full of deductions: and exemp-
tions, and special legislation. It's prac.
teal operation is, that every person who
shall convert his real and personal prop.
erty into State bonds of the State of
Ohio, or into notes and mortgages, and
money atinterest, may deduct the last
farthiDg of his indebtedness, while no
farmer, no tradesman, no merchant, no
manufacturer may deduct from his prop
erty dollar of his Indebtedness And
how do the advocates of this Bill avoid