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


turn one amount Of taxable value:
: which the constitution requires, and ar
Ito be taxed upon altogether another
3 This is intended to allow them to escap
taxation upon their bills discounted ant
, purchased It is in truth cunning!
. concealed contrivance to allow them t.
deduct their circulation from their bill
: discounted and purchased; and to ta'
them only upon their capital, their un
divided profits, and their loans and de
, posits. No language can be more eleal
and explicit than the language of th'
Constitution which is in these words
"The General Assembly shall provide
by law for taxing The notes, and bill
discounted or purchased, moneys loaned
and all other property, or effects or dues
of every description, without deduction
of all banks now existing, or hereafter
created, and of all bankers.
How can we escape this imperative
requirement of the Constitution. 1t il
said, however. that this arrangement is
made to carry out these words con-
taincd in the latter clause of the Sd
section of the article IL of the Consti
tuition, which is as follows:
$50 that all property employed in
banking shall always bear burden Of
taxation equal to that imposed on the
property of individuals"
And, 1 inquire, how can banks benr
a burden of taxation equal to that i'm
posed upon the property of individuals,
unless they pay the same per centum
upon their valuation, as private individ-
uals do? The taxes are, in the language
of the constitution, to be levied by a
uniform rule" and what rule can be uni
form except that which levies an equal
per centum upon all taxable values, of
eyery corporation, bank and individual
alike But it is said, in argument, that
persons having credits are allowed de-
ductions, and this mode of taxing banks
is introduced to make them equal. The
Constitution is first violated tot allow de-
ductions of debts from credits, ard then
it is declared necessary to violate the
Constitution again, to put the banks on
an equal footing with those of credit
taxpayers. No argument can make
this proposition plainer-no denuncia-
ton can make its iniquity more deeply
felt.
I object to the bill, in the third place,
because the eleventh section exempts
all State bonds from taxation. This is
also in direct violation of the constitu-
ton. The I'd section of article l2 reaes
as follows: Laws shall be passed, tax
ing, by uniform rule, all moneys, cred
its, investments in bonds, stocks, joint
fstock companies, or otherwise. That
part of the llth section of this bill
which refers to these bonds is as follows:
g No person shall be required to list for
taration, any inUestnae'at made IN Ger
tvfcateS ofthe pu6lic debt Of this State. "
It is very difficult for common mind
to see how any Senator, who regards his
obligations, can deliberately vote to
exempt these stocks No doubt can
possibly exist, that it was the intention
of the Constitutional Convention, to tax
these securities, and that provision of
the Constitution was most thoroughly
and, may say, powerfully discussed by
that body. Perhaps no debate on any
question equals it. This clause was in
serted after that great debate, and no
man can, it seems to me, doubt its mean
ing. The only ground upon which so
bold measure is attempted, is that the
Constitutional Convention and the peo-
pie of Ohio, who adopted the Constitu-
ton, have repudiuted the contract of
their former agents, and have violated
the public faith. To understand this
question, we must look into the history
of these bonds, now sought to be exempt
cd from taxation. 1t had its origin in
the following pledge, which was contain
ed in the first act of the General Assem-
bly,, which authorized the issue of these
bonds, passed in 1925.
It is in those words: "The faith of the
State is hereby pledged, that no tax
shall ever be levied by the Legislature,
or under the authority of this State, on
the stock to be created by virtue of this
act; nor on the interest which may be
payable thereon; and further, that the
value of said stock shall in no wise be
impaired by any legislative act OF this
State.
Under this pledge three millions of
bonds were issued, and it is claimed that
under subsequent laws, which referred
to this pledge, and incorporated its pro-
visions into those laws, seven millions
more of bonds were issued. 1t Is ad-
mitted that the remaining ten millions
were issued and sold without any such
pledge. It is also conceded that the
first ten millions issued, as it is claimed,
under the pledge the reason of their
surrender, and the re-issuing and renew
al of them, at the instance of the holders
themselves, have become SO mIzed-up
with the bonds of later issue, which
were not exempt, that no man now
knows what bonds were of the issue un-