Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1857-07-18

The following objections to contracts Of
exemption may be mentioned
l.. They oblige to inequality of taxation,
in contempt of clear and just rule for the
exercise of the power.
PuAepdorf Law of Nations, B vii, chap.
tx, sec. X.
I Since the subjects are obliged to the
bearing of taxes aud the like burthens, OH
no other account but as they are necessary
to dcfray the public expenses in war or
pence, it is the duty of sovercigns in this
respect to draw no further supplies than
either the mere necessity or the single bcnc.
fit and interest of the State may require. -
And then they arc to SEQ that these impo-
silions be levied according to the justest
proportion, and thai no imnUjiitieS or tU.
enptionS be granted TO certain 2,taSons to
| the attfouat0g og expressing of the rest"
| RutherIord's institutes of Natural Law,
b. H., %.
Smiths Wealth of Nations, B. ", chap.
ii, part 2.
2. Such contracts IRE unjust and oppres-
sive upon posterity. By them, the sources
of public supply are dried up, or decreased,
and the government in future left to rely
upon portion instead of the whole commu.
nifty, while its protection mus. continue to
be extended to all.
! 3. They derogate from the equal pow ers
Of a future legislature.
d. They tend to the dissolution of gov
erument, and therefore 10 defeat all the
purposes for which it is instituted. Carried
to its results, it isplain a system of contract
exemptions would impovorish the govern
ment and destroy it, for if the means of
compulsory support were taken away, it
could not rely upon voluntary contributions.
Nor is the force of these considerations
disturbed by the fact that such exemptions
may be purchased. In that case, they
encourage present waste and proAgacy,
with consequent corruption of the govern.
ment. But beyond this, it is evident that
20 consideration received can be adequate.
I he right of calling for contributions for
government purposes, from time to time,
for au indefinite period, as sue h contributions
are required by the exigencies of public
affairs Is of greater value than any sum
presently paid. The element oftime enters
into the question and is controlling.
Besides, it is scarcely possible to fix the
value OF an exemption extending over some
years, and it is certainly impossible if it
extend over an indefinite period. How
shall the future necessities of the State be
measured? Who will fix the exact time
when she will be precipitated into war, or
be obliged to grapple with domestic insur
rection! Who will inform us when her
creditors will again stand, obligation in
hand, before an empty treasury The
power of the Stae, at all times, to fully
command the legitimate sources of public
supply is vital to her safety, interests, and
honor; and being thus, is incapable of
valuation, and no more to be surrendered
upon contract of purchase than in any
ther manner.
The power of taxation is not the subject
of contract, Of barter or sale by the legisla
ture, and such attempted contract would be
void.
Debolt Us. Ohio Life insurance odd
Trust ,sCompany, Ohio State Reports,
563, 578, 5o2: Mechanics and Traders
Bank Us. Debolt, d., sol; Kuoup rs. piqua
Bank, 7b., GOA Toled, Bank rs. Bond, ib.
$50, sos; Plank Road Companies IIusted,
3 Ohio State r., 579; Norwa,k Plank
Road G mpany vs, Same, d., $50.
Brewster Us. Hough, 10 N. II. 1873.
But there is material difference
, between the right Of the legislature to grart
lands, or eorpor"te powers, or money, and
Alright to graft away the essential at Yibu c.
OF sovereignty, Or rights of eminent domain
These do not seem to furnish the subject
, matter of contract"
Presbyterian Church VS.. City of New
York, s Cowan, 53s.
ga corporation by contract caDno
abridgo their legislative power. The de
fendauts had no power to limit their legis
lative discretion by covenantn
+ = = 4 II y
Here followes some decisions of the u
S. courts which the complainants shows t.
r be entirely irrelevant and then proceed-
, This Court expressed itself plainly aut
, strongly upon the vital character and
inalienability of the tax power in the
BGak Of Pa. vs., Tile Commonwealth q
Harris, 1872, and although the point was
not distinctly argued or decided, and al.
} though reference is incidentally made to
the supposed authority of Gordon vs.. TIL,
Appeal 1ar Court, the expressed views
, upon the nature ofthe tax power are believed
to sustain this bill, and to be in themseiyc:
} solid and unapswerable
The taxing power is an incident of the
highest sovereignty. 1t is an essential
part of every Independent government
; BY the constitution, and by the principles
l which lie at the foundation of every organ.
lied society, the state may tax all the
persons, natural and artificial, within her
, boarders, and compel them to contribute
such part of their property and income as
the Legislature may think right, to defray
the expenses and meet the engagements o.
. the government. The wealth of men who
a are associated together is not less subject
s to taxation than if it were owned by indi
5 viduals The riuht is as clear To toy an