The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1858-08-11
The Position of the Question Of E.
quail Taxation on the Banks.

quail Taxation on the Banks.
For many years the Democratic party have
struggled to subject the property of the Banks
Of the State, to an equal burden of taxation with
the property Of the unincorporated mass Of the
people. These efforts have been resisted and
evaded by the combination of factions opposed
to the Democratic party. The difference in the
revenues Of the State by an equal burden oftax.
alton on the investments in banking operations
could not be less than from one hundred and
City to two hundred thousand dollars year.
Our banking institutions are endowed with i'm
por,ant exclusive privileges, and mako large
profits, and there can bc no reason or justice in
cxempting them from equal taxation.
In 1851, Democratic Legislature passed
law to impose equal taxation on the Banks
This law was resisted, and the opposition to
the Democracy sustained the Banks in their re-
fusal to pay their taxes. The new Constitution
provided by an cypress in,aerDtive position, that
the Legislature should enact laws imposing e.
quail taxation on the property of all Banks n"t0
eristing, or hereafter created. In 1852 the Leg
islature passed a law imposing equal taxation
on the Banks in accordance with the new Con-
stitution. This law was also resisted by the
Banks, and the opposition to the Democracy
sustained the Banks in their resistance In
1858 the Supreme Court of the State decided,
on full consideration, that the law i'm posing
equal taxation ON the Banks was constitutional
and valid. The question was carried to the
Supreme Court ofthe United States, where the
claim Of the Banks to be exempt from equal
taxation was sustained by bare majority Of
that Count, several members Of this Court de-
liyered dissenting opinions, containing the most
clear and unanswerabe arguments against the
decisi)n. This decision was unsatisfactory, and
at variance with all the former adjudications of
that court on the subject of the effect
of the decision Of State Courts as to the
construction OF the Constitution and laws of the
State
In 1856, when the opposition to the Demo.
cratic party obtained majority of their party
on the Bench Of the Supreme Court Of the State
it was held by minority Of the State Court,
that the bank tax law was unconstitutional,
Judge hartley dissenting. Iu March 1858,
however, tie question was again brough before
the Snprem, Court OF the State, when the con-
stitutionality OF the law was sustained by ma
jorlty ofthe Court Judge SWAN and ScoTr dis
sentinS. In the meantime, change occurred
in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Judge CURTIS resigned and Judge CLIFFORD
took his place And the Supreme Court OF Penn
sylvania, having by a unanimous decision deca-
red against the authority ola Legislature TO
surrender the taxing power in The creation Of
corporations, Judge GREER Of the Supreme
Court Of the Untel States, wh) had been hes.
tating on the question, was understood to be
disposed to conform his action to the decision
OF the Supreme Court Of his State on this ques.
ton. This made it reasonably ce rtain that a
majority o. the Sapreme Court Of the U. S.
would sustain the bank tax law OF OHIO. Hence
the majority Of the Saprems Court Of OHIO last
winter decided to sustain the law, and give the
Supreme Court ofthc United States an opportu-
uty to review and reverse its decision But
the Bink> declined TO carry the question up to
the Federal Court, AMI submit to the decision
oCthe State Coart.-In thi, position OF the ques
tion, We insist, that it is settled by the Supreme
Court Of Oa0, That the bank tax is constitu
tiontl, and that thsrc is no possibility of any
reversal oi this decision by the Slprcmc Court
f,F hn n.t ind ~ J. n
polysr 50 20 ID; so that by tht settled law Of Ohio
the bank, are bound by law to pay equal taxes
But ii is well understood, and cannot be
fairly controvlrted, that Judge PEcK's nominaA
ton on the Rcubllcan ticket was made with
view of giving the banking interests majority
ofthe Supreme Court OF tie State favorable to
their interests. Judge PECK, ifelected, toSeth.
er with Judge SWAN and ScorT, who assented
from the decision last winter, would be ma
jority ofthe Court. So that, if Judge PECK be
elected this fall, the present bank tax law will
undoubtedly be declared void next winter and
the banks again exempted from equal taxation.
The question, therefore, is fairly presented at
this al'S election, whether the banks shall be
exempted from equal taxition or not. Let this
matter be well considered by the people. Judge
PEcK's opinions on the question Of whether the
banks are entitled to exemption from equal tax.
alton, on the ground that their characters are
contracted, are well known, He himself will
not deny them. II the Republican party pre-
tend to claim that Ju lse PECK has altered his
views on this question: let them be published
and put before the people. This is great and
vital question. The people should be enable to
vote unde"standingly. We repeat, if Judge
PECK has changed his opinion on this question,
it is right and but just to him, that his views be
published over his name. Let US have no eva
sion no dodging on this question, - Statesman.
-------zzos-e-$-Ssz-
Well said.
The Chambersburgh Valley Spirit is famed
or its good things, but if never said better
than this:-"'There is said to be man cut west