The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1858-08-18
THE POSITION OF THE QUESTION
OF EQUAL TAXATION ON
THE RANKS

have struggled to subject the property of
the Banks of the State to an equal bur-
den OF taxation with the property of the
unlncorporated mass of the people. These
EFFORTS have been resisted and evaded by
the combination of factions opposed to
the Democratic party. The difference in
.ne revenues OF the State by an equal
puraen OF taxation on the investments in
banking operations could not be less than
rom one hundred and fifty to two hun.
dred thousand dollars year Our bank
ing institutions are endowed with i'm
portant exclusive privileges, and make
large profits, and there can be no reason
or justice in exempting them from equal
taxation
In 1851, a, 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 refusal to pay their
taxes The new Constitution provided
by an erpress Imperative provision, that
the Legislature should enact laws impos-
ing equal taxation on the property of uH
B~nks ''oao ecssting, or hereafter created.
In 1852 the Legislature passed law i'm
posing equal taxation on the Banks in
accordance with the new Constitution.
This law was also resisted by the Banks
and the opposition to the Democracy sus- ,
tanned the Banks in their resistance. In
1858 the Supreme Court OF the State de.
cided, on full consideration, that the law
imposing equal taxation on the Banks
was constitutional and valid. The aues-
tion was carried to the Supreme Court of
the United States, where the claim of the
Banks to be exempt from equal taxation
was sustained by o bare majority of that
Court, several members of this Court de-
livering dissenting opinions, containing ,
the most clear and unanswerable argu-
ments against the decision. This decision
was unsatisfactory, and at variance with,
all the former adjudications of that Court
on the subject Of the effect of the deci-
sions Of State Courts as to tie construc-
tion of the Constitution and laws of the
State. .-- s--
In 1856. when the opposition to the
Democratic party obtained a majority of
their party on the Bench of the Supreme
Court of the State. it was held by ma
jority of the State Court, that the bank
| tax law was unconstitutional, Judge Bart
ley dissenting. In March 1853, however,
the question was again brought before the
Supreme Court of the State, when the
constitutionality of the law was sustained
by majority Of the Court, Judge Swan
and Scott dissenting. In the meantime,
change occurred in the Supreme Court
of the United States. Judge Curtis re-
signed and Judge Clifford took his place.
And the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
having by unanimous decision declared
against the authority of a Legislature to
surrender the taxing power in the creation
of corporate ns Judge Greer of the Su-
preme Court of the Uuited States, who
had been hesitating on the question, was
understood to be disposed to conform his
action to the decision of the Supreme
Court of his State on this question. This
made it reasonably certain that majority
of the Supreme Court of the U. S. would
sustain the bank tax law of Ohio. Hence
the majority of the Supreme Court OF
Ohio last winter decided to sustaia the
; law, and give the Supreme Court of the
United States an opportunity to review
and reverse its decision. But the Banks
declined to carry the question up to the
Federal Court, and submitted to the deci-
sion of the State Court. In disposition
Of the question, we insist, that it is settled
; by the Supreme Court of Ohio, that the
the bank tax law is constitutional, and
that there is no possibility Of any reser,
sal of this decision by the Supreme Cour,
of the United States cven II that Count has
the poaoer so to do; so that by the settled
law of Ohio the banks are bound by law
to pay equal taxes. a5 Gril
But it is well understood, and canno,
be fairly controverted, that Judge Peck's
nomination on the Republican ticket was
made with view of giving the banking
}. interest majority of the Supreme Courl
of the State favorable to their interests
n Judge Peck, if elected, together with
Judges Swan and Scott, who dissented
from the decision last winter, would be q
majority Of the Court. So that, if Judge
Peck be elected this fall, the present bsnI
q tax law viii undoubtedly be declared void
\ next winter, and the banks again exempt
!. ed from equal taxation. The question
!. therefore, is fairly presented at this faip,
. election, whether the banks shall be ex
3 empted from equal taxation or not. Le
q this matter be well considered by the peo
Il pie. Judge Peck's opinions on the ques
q tion of whether the banks are entitled x
: exemption from equal taxation, on th'
q ground that their charters are contracts
= are well known. He himself will not de
+ ny them. If the Republican party pre-
: tend to claim that Judge Peck has altered
his views on this question, let them b
published and put before the people. Thi
'f is great aud vital question. The pee
7. pie should be enabled to vote understand
g ly. We repeat, if Judge Peck has chang
ut ed his opinion on this question, it is righ
q. and but just to him, that his views
>. published over his name. Let us have b
- evasion, no lodging on this question. :