The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1858-08-19
The Position OF the Question OF
Equal Taxation ON the Banks.

Equal Taxation ON the Banks.
The following article on the question Of
Equal Taxsliou, we take, from the Statss.
n,an, and commend it to the careful consi-
deration OF our readers 4
For many years the Democratic party
-s,sngelsdsle,- -subjeet-the property of
the Banks Of The State, TO an equal burden
oil taxation with The property Of the unin-
corporated mass Of the people. These ef.
forts have been resisted and evOded by the
combination of factions opposed to the De.
mocratic party. The difference in the re-
venues OF the State by an equal burden Of
taxation on the investments in banking opes
rations could not be less than from one hun.
dfed aud fifty 10 two hundred thousand dol
lars year. Our banking institutions are
endowed with important exclusive privi.
leges, and make largo profits, and there
can be reason or justice in e2empting them
from equal taxation.
In 1851, Democratic Legislature passed
a law to impose equal taxation on the
Banks. This law was resisted, and the op.
position TO the Democracy sustained the
Ranks in their rufusal TO pay their taxes.
The new Constitution provided by an &c.
press imperative Frocision, that the Legis.
lature should enact laws imposing equal
taxation on the property of all Banks new
eriSting, or hereafter created. In 1859 the
Legislature passed law imposing equal
taxation on the Banks in accordance with
The new Constitution. This law was also
resisted by the Banks, and the opposition
10 the Democracy sustained the Banks in
their resistance. In 1853 the Supreme
Court OF the State decided, on full consider.
alton, that the law imposing equal t4xation
on the Banks was constitutional and valid.
The question was carried 10 the Supre me
Court of the United States, where the
claim of the Banks to be exempt from
equal toxation was sustained by bare ma.
iurf;;::y of that Court delivering dissenting
opinions, containing the most clear and
unansxcrable arguments ugSlns; the deci.
son. This decision was unsatisfactory,
and at variance with all the former adjudi-
cations of that Court on the subject of the
effect Of the decisions of State Courts as to
the construction of the Constitution and
laws Of the 3 ate. &
In 1856, when the opposition to the De-
mocratc party obtained majority of their
party on the Bench OF the Supreme Court Of
the State, it was held by majority of the
State Court, that the bank tax law was un-
constitutional, Judge BARLEY dissenting. 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.
syvania, hIving by a unanimous decision
declared against the authority Of a LegiSla-
ture to surrender the taxing power in the
creation of corporations, Judge Grier Of the
Supreme Court OF the United States who
hud been hesitating on the question, was
understood to be disposed to conform his &C.
ton to the decision of the Supreme Court
of his State on this question. This made it
reasonably certain that IL majority Of the
Supreme Court of the U. s. would sustain
the bank tax law OF Ohio. Hence the ina.
iority of the Supreme Court OF Ohio last
winter decided to sustain the law, end give
| the Supreme Court of the United StGtes an
| opportunity to review and reverse its deci.
sion. Bot the Banks declined to carry the
question up to the Federal Court, and sub
mitted to the decision Of the State Court.
In this position OF the question, we insist,
that it is set led by the Supreme Court OF
Ohio, that the bank tax law is constitution.
al, and that there is 10 possibility OF any
reversal OF this decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States euen if that
Court led the p0,cer 10 do so so that by
the settled law tf Ohio the banks are
bound by law to pay equal taxes.
But it is well understood, and cannot be
fairly controveried, that Judge Peck : nomi-
nation on the Republican tisket was made
with a viw of giving the banking interest
q majority of the Supreme Court of the
States favorable to their interests. Judge
Peck, if elected, together with Judge Swan
and Scott, who dissented from the decision
last winter, would be a majority of the
Court. So that, ii Judge Peck be elected
this fall, the present bank tax law will un-
dcubtedly be declared void next winter, and
the banks ugain exempted from equal tax
alton. The question. therefore, is fairly
presented at this falls election, whether tht
banks shall te exempted from equal taxa
tion or MT. Let this matter be Neli consi
dered by the people. Judge Pcck's OPT
Mons on the question OF whether the banks
are entitled 10 exemption from equal taxa
ticD, on the ground that their charters ant
contracts are we'll known. He himsel
will not deny them. II the Republican
party pretend TO claim that Judge Peck has
altered his views on this question, let then
be published and put before the people,.
This is o great and vital question. Tht
people should be enabled to vote under
standingIy. We repeat, if Judge Peck hal
changed his position on this question, it il
right and but just to him, that his views b.
published over his name. Let us have IL
evasion, no dodging on this question.--
| Ohio Statesman.