The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1858-09-09
DoIaitat,
Bank Taxation i'm ohio.

The Democracy Of this State having again
made the question Of equal taxation an is
sue against the Republicans, the following
extracts from the opinion of Justice Catron,
Of the U. s. Supreme Court in the case Of the
State Bank of Ohio, vs. Knoop, will be read
with interest. The views herein expressed
are very appropriate to the present canvass:
There is contest between the State OF
Ohio and portion Of her banking institu-
tions, organized under the general banking
law, passed in 1874. She was then q wealthy
and prosperous community, a2d had nu-
merous banks which employed large cupi.
tai, and were taxed by the general laws five
per cent. on their dividends, being equal to
thirty cents on each hundred dollars worth
of stock, supposing it to be at par value
But this was merely State tax, payable in. !,
to the State Treasury. The old banks were
liable to taxes for county purposes, besides;
and when located in cities or towns, for cor.
poration taxes also. These two items us.
ually amounted to much more than the State
tex.
Such was the condition of Ohio when the
general banking law was passed in lS45.-
By this act any number of persons not less
than FIVE might associate together by articles,
to carry on banking.
The State was laid off into districts. and
the law prescribes the amount of stock that
may be employed in each. Every county
was entitled to one bank, and some to more.
Commissioners were appointed to carry the
law into effect. 1t was the duty of this
Board Of Control to judge of the articles Of
association, and othet matters necessary to
put the banks in operation. Any company
might elect to become branch of the State
Bank, or to be a separate bank, disconnect.
ed with any other, Fifty thousand dollars
was the minimum; and FIVE hundred thou.
sand the maximum, that could be employed
in any one proposed institution.
BY the fifty first section, each of the bank.
ing companies authorized to carry on the
business was declared to be body corporate
with succession to the first day of May, 1866.
with general banking powers with the priv.
lege to issue notes of one dollar and up.
wards, to one hundred dollars; and each
bank was required to have con hand in gold
and silver coinA or their equivalent, one. hall
at least of which shall be in gold and silver
: coin in its vault, an amount equal to thirt,
. per cent. of its outstanding notes of circula
tion," and whenever the specie on hand, OF
: its equivalent, shall fall below twenty PEI
cent. of the outstanding notes, then no NOR,
u notes shall be circulated" The equivalent o
specie, meant deposits that might be drawn
against it in the hands of eastern banks, o
bankers Of good credit. In this provision
!. consisted the greet value of the franchise.
+ The 59th section declares that the semi
!. annual dividends shall be made by each bank
/ Of Its profits, after deducting expenses; ant
= the Goth section provides, that six per cent
:, per annum Of these profits shall be set off t.
g the State, which sum or amount so set ot
q shall be In lieu OF all taxes to which sucl
d company, or the stockholders thereof on dc
e count stock owned therein, would otherwis
= be subject" This was equal to thirty.
a cents per annum on each hundred dollars O
= stock subscribed, surprising it to yield si1
q per cent. interest.
h By an act OF 1851, it was declared tha
bank stock should be assessed at its tru
value, and that it should be taxed for State
county and city purposes to the same exten
j. that personal property was required to b
e taxed at the place where the bank was 10
Gated. As this rate was much more thai
that prescribed by the Goth section of the &C
id of lS45, the bank before us refused to pa
!. The excess, and suffered herself to be sue
by the tax collectors, relying on the 6Otl
section, above recited, as an irrepealabl
), contract, which stood protected by the Con
i stitution of the United States. ..-
10 1t is proper to say that the trifiing sum il
- dispute in this cause is the mere ground o
n raising the question between the State 0
!, Ohio and some fifty of her banks, claiming
). exemption under the act of 1916.
The taxable property of these banks j
about eighteen millions Of dollars, accordn
4 to the auditors report of last year, and whic
ts was used on the argument of this cause, b
both sides. OF course, the State officers an
ID other tax payers, assailed the corporation
ID claiming the exemption, and various case
70 were brought before the Supreme Court {
Ohio, drawing in question the validity {
7 the act of 1851 90 far as it increased th
taxes of the banks beyond the amount i'm
posed by the Goth section OF the act of 184t
nd The State court sustained the act OF 1856
- from which decision writ of error was pre-
ia secuted, and the cause brought to th
, court.
" The opinions of the State court have bee
n. laid before us, for our consideration; and, O
our assent or dissent to them the case d
pends.
If The first question made and decided
the Supreme. Court Of Ohio was, wheth,
I'd the Goth section of the act of 1S45, purporte
to be in it's terms, contract not further t
10 tax the banks organized under it during Il
entiya term Of their exiatance1 The no,,