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

respect OF all those who have his opinion to
review; and which opinion has, as thinks
constructed the Goth section truly. But, as
as my brother Campbell has rested his opin.
ion on this section without going beyond it,
and as concur in his views, will not fur.
ther examine that Question, but adopt his
opinion in regard to it.
The next question, decided by the State
court is Of most grave importance; give it
in the language OF the State court: "Had
the general assembly power, under the con-
stitutiOn then in force, permanently to sur.
render, by contract, within the meaning and
under the protection of the Constitution of
the United States, the right of taxation over
any portion of the property of individuals,
otherwise subject to it!
In my judgement the construction of the
court of Ohio is proper; but if believed
otherwise should at once acquiesce. Let
US look at the matter fairly and truly as it is,
apd see what different course on the part
Of this court would lead to; nay, what Ohio
is bound to do in self-defenCe and for self
preservation under the circumstances.
In lS45 general banking law is sought
al the hands of the legislature, where five
dollars in paper can be circulated for every
dollar in specie in the bank or on deposit,
in eastern banks or with brokers. One
dollar notes are authorized every county
in the State is entitled to bank, and the
large ones to several the tempting lure
is held out at six per cent. interest on five
hundred dollars for every hundred dollars
paid in as stock thus obtaining profit Of
tweaty-four dollars on each hundred dollars
actually paid in. That such a bill would
have advocates enough to pass it through
the legislature, all experience attests and
that the seight tax of thirty.six cents on
each hundred dollars worth of stock, sub
scribed and paid, was deemed privilege ;
when the existing banks and other proper
ty were taxed much higher, is plainly mani
fest. Aswas obvious, when the law passed.,
banks sprung up at once--some fifty in uum.
Der, having taxable basis last year oi
, about eighteen millions. The elder and
. safer banks were of course, driven out, and
, new organizations sought under the general
law, by the stockholders. From having
: constructed large public works, and made
! great expenditures, Ohio has become in
debted SO as to require very burdensome tai
I on every species OF property this was i'm
r posed by the act Of 1861, and on demand
y ing from these institutions their equal share
i the State is told that they were. protected b,
# contract made with the legislature of 1874
r to be exempt from further taxation and wer
e not bound by the late law, and of course
If they were sued in their own courts. Th
n Supreme Court holds that by the expires
IF terms OF the State constitution no such con
n tract could be made by the legislature c
l845, to tie up the hands of the legislator
!. of 1851. And then the banks come her
and ask our protection against this decision
d which declares the true meaning Of tn
!. State constitution. 1t expressly guarantee
o to the people of Ohio the right to assemble
Fl consult, Sand instruct their representative
h for their common good T. and then "to az
= ply to the legislature for redress of grie,
e ance." 1t further debates, that all power
x not conferred by that constitution on tn
y Legislature are reserved to the people. Nov
x of what consequence or practical value wi
these attempted securities be if one legi'
1t lature can restrain all subsequent ones b
10 contracting away the sovereign power t
}, which these instructions could apply
1t The question, whether the people hav
'e reserved this right SO as to hold it in the
}. own hands, and thereby be enabled to regu
n late it by instructions to subsequent legit
1t lature, Tor by new constitutional is
y question that has been directly raised onl
ID once, in any State. OF the Union, SO far as
h know. In the case of Brewster S. Hougf
10 10 New Hampshire Reports, 1879, it wa
l. raised, and Chief Justice Parker, in deliver
ing the opinion of the court in case in a
n respects like the one before US says "That
II is as essential that the public faith should b
II preserved inviolate as it is that individu,
g grants and contracts should be maintane
and enforced. But there is material di
is ference between the right of a legislature
g grant lands, or corporate powers, or none.
ii and right to grant away the essential a
y tributes of sovereignty or right of eminel
ID domain. These do not seem to furnish tt
Is subject matter of contract"
ss This court sustained the principle al
Of nounced by the Supreme Court of Ne
Of Hampshire, in the West River Bridge cas-
a. 1t is next insisted that the State legisl
D. lures have in many instances, and constan
l. ly, Disseminated among the objects of to!
O. alton; and have taxed and exempted a
lis cording to their discretion. This is mo
true. But the matter under discussion
IN aside from the exercise of this undeniab
IN power in tho legislature. The question
e. whether one legislature can, by contra,
vest the sovereign power Of right to ia
in in corporation as franchise, and wit
\ = -