The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1858-09-09

question in the affirmative that the cover.
eign political power is not the subject Of an
irrepeable contracts then few will be SO bold
as to deny that 1t is our duty to conform to
the construction they have settled and the |
only objection to conformity that ! suppose |
could exist with any one is, that the con
stituton is not settled. How is the fact I!
The refusal of some fifty banks to pay
their assessed portion of the revenue for the
year 1851, raised the Question for the first
time in the State of Ohio since then the
doctrine has been maintained in various
cases, supported unanimously by all the
judges of the Supreme Court of the State,
in opinions deeply considered. and manifest
ing a high degree of ability in the judges,
as the extract from one OF them, above set
forth, abundantly shows. If the construc-
tion of the State constitution is not settled,
it must be owing to the recent date of the
decisions. An opinion proceeding on this
hypothesis will, as I think, involve our
judgment now given in great peril hereaf-
ter for if the courts of Ohio do not recede,
but firmly adhere to their construction until
the decisions, now existing, gain maturity
and strength by time, and the support of
other adjudicatiuns conforming to them,
, then it must of necessity occur that this
court will be eventually compelled to hold
that the constitutions is settled in Ohio /;
, when it must be followed to avoid conflict
: between the judicial powers of that State
e and the Union, an evil that prudence for
e bids.
l. The result of the foregoing opinions is,
that the sxtieth section of the general bank
:, ing law of l845 is, in its terms, no contract
. protesting to bind the Legislature of Ohio
\ not to change the mode and amount of tax
; alton of the banks organized under this
;, law and for this conclusion rely on the
: reasons stated by my brother Campbell, ir
his opinion, with which concur.
2. That, according to the constitution o
> all the States of this Union, and even of the
. British Parliament, the sovereign political
power is not the subject of contract so al
. to be vested in an irrepealable charter of in
:. corporation, and taken away from, and plac
:, ed beyond the reach of future legislatures
~ that the taxing power is political power Q
~ the highest class, and each successive legis
~ lature having vested in it, unimpnired, al
e the political powers previous Legislature
~ had been authorized TO impose taxes of al
Il" property in the State that its constitutio
does not exempt.
;, 1t is undeniably true that one legislator
may by charter of incorporation exeml
- from taxation the property of the corPorl
:, ~ ton in part; or in whole, and with or will
~ out consideration but this exemption wi
80 only last until the necessities of the Stat
~ require its modification or repeal
"' 5. But if / am mistaken in both the:
100 conclusions, then, am of opinion that,
~" the express provisions of the constitution
" Ohio, of 1902, the legislature Of that Sta
1o had withheld from its powers the authori
~ to tie up the hands Of subsequent Legislature
~ in the exercise of the powers of taxation
no and this opinion rests on judicial authori'
'e' that this court is bound to follow The S,
ie' preme Court of Ohio having held vario
'' solemn aud unanimous decisions, that Il
r. political power of taxation was one Of tho
w. reserved rights intended to be delegated
''' the people to each successive legislator
"' and to be exercised alike by every legisl
WV WV ture, according to the instructions of Il
:" people. This being the true meaning
10 the nineteenth and twenty eight sections
" the bill of rights, forming part OF the CO
~ stitution of 1902; one section securing tt
right of instructing representatives, and Il
'o other protecting reserved rights held by Il
{" people.
~ Whether this construction given to ii
is- State constitution is the proper one, is n
o q subject of inquiry in this court; it b
lly longs exclusively to the State courts, al
can no more be questioned by us than Sta
'h' courts and judges can question our constru
'as ton of the Constitution of the Unit
er' States. For these reasons l am of opini
all that the judgement of the Supreme Court
II Ohio should be affirmed.