Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1856-02-14

Inc provision oi the Constitution applicable
to the subject. sec. 2. Of art I2, provides
that Laws shall be passed. tsxing BY a uni.
form rule. all moneys. credits, investments in
bonds. stocks. joint stock companies, or other
wise; and also all real and personal properly
according To ITS true value in money &c.-I
What is meant by the term credits as here
used? Does it mean notes, accounts, bin.
&c, the evidences Of credits specifcalIy. and
that which they only represent and evidence?
Does i mean all nominal credits or actual bal.
ances and dues. strictly so, and independent
of the instruments which represent himY A.
credit is properly defined to be a sum of mon
ey due 20 any person. Herce infer that the
term credit. as used in this clause of the Con.
slitutOn, may, and should be, construed to
mean, the sum due an individual after deduct
ing what he owes. II not and the word ALI
is to be taken in its broadest, most literal sense
lean see no reason why in every case of mu-
tual accounts, where n lIyidvals have standing
upon their books debit and credit items which
are unadjusted. they should not be required TO
lis: the debit side. or what is nominally and
not really due them for taxation, withou. strik.
ing the balance and deducting what stands up.
on the other side, Such a construction would
be alike unreasonable and absurd, and would
violate the well known rule. that such construc
ton shall be given to laws and constitutions,
as shall render them both just and reasonable
in their operation, On the other hand. if sny
class Of debts may be deducted, why not al (?
If person can deduct what he owes to one
who in turn owes him, why may he not, up-
on the same principle, the debts he owes those
who do not happen to owe him? 1t seems to
me it will be evident, from these considera.
tons, that 10 hold that the term all credits. ,
as used in the Constitution means every thing
evincing debt, apparently and nomina!ly due
an individual without deduction, is d perversion
of the we'll known and generally received COM
mercial meaning Of the term, which is, that
the credit one owes, in the general sense, are
the balances due lin after deducling what be
owes.
In case of this kind, where there is doubt
as to the true construction, the rule is undoubt.
edly thai that construction ought to prevail
which will work the least injustice and public
inconvenience.
Chief Justice Marshall, in one case says
1T is true that when great inconvenience will
result from particular construction, that con-
struction ought to be avoided, unless the mean
ing of the Legislature be plain, in which case
it is to be obeyed.'-Q Cranch 3S6.
In the case of the People v. Canal Commits
sioners. 8 Scammon r60, it was held, That, il
it were apparent that By particular construc-
tion Of law, in doubtful case, such con-
structiOn would be likely to endanger or to ac'
tually sacrifice great public interests, il would
not and ought not to be intended, that such
a construction was contemplated by the Leg
slature in disregard Of such interests o.
course this rule ouly oppies in cases where
there is doubt as to the intention of the law
making power, but in all such cases it applies,
and should govern and control the construc-
ton. That there is doubt 10 this case, is a.
bundantly evidenced, by the diverse opin ions
of the able judges who have passed upon it,
and that such construction works great iu-
justice, is equally evident. and it seems to me
that the contrary one is both just, reasonable,
and fairly deducible from the language used.
An additional reason why this conclusion is
correct, is found in the terms used in section
3, Of the same article. in regard to the taxa
ton of banks which provides, That the Gen.
eral Assembly shall provide. by law, for tax.
ing the notes and bills, discounted or purchas.
ed, moneys loaned, and other property, effect.
or dues of every description (without deduc.
t:on) of all banks now existing, or hereafter
created, and of all bankers, so that all proper
ty employed in banking shall always bear a
burden of taxation equal to that imposed On
the property Of individuals Here instead o.
using the term credits. the evidences Of deb
are enumerated specifically, and the tern
dues" &C., asynonymous one, is employed
aud then. as if fully aware without restriction
deductions could be made from some or all q
them, it was deemed necessary to add an ex
press prohibition Of such deductions, and it i
pertinent TO inquire why, il the same resul
was intended in forming section 2, the sam
prohibition was not inserted? If it is objecte,
that this destroys the equality Of taxation
seemingly required by the last clause of sec
ton ., il may be replied that the history OF tn
Constitution, Ito which we may properly re
fer in case of doubt or ambiguity, shows tha
} it was there held and coutended, that taxinI
J banks without deductions, was placing then
t upon'an exact equality with individuals, wheI
{ they made deductions of their debts, and