The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1865-09-22

ana Jhose VINO have loaned their
money to it, as e6empts their bonds
from State taxation. Is not this n
proposed direct violation OF n written
contracty Is it any thing but an at
tempt to withhold, by force of cxpost
iacto laws,a part of the interest prom
isedI
Judge T.--No; not exactly. We
say it is q fraud of the General Gov
ernment towards the States, to at.
tempt to do this. 1t exempts the
rich mans thousands from taxation,
while it taxes you and me to make up
the deficiency.
Mr.. B.-But stop little, Judge.
Did not our Government need mon
ey, and mad they not right to say
how much compensation or interest
they would pay, and how it should
be paid?
Judge T.--Certain1y.
Mr.. B.--Well, they said, we will
give you six per cent. in gold. and
this shall be clear income to you.-
No State shall tax the bond we give
you, SO you know just how much your
money will bring you in Had the
United States not clear right to
contract thus, instead of saving wd
will give ten or fifteen per cent. in.
terest for money?
Judge T.--Yes, they had the right:
but the States have the right to say
that we will tax your bonds, at our
pleasure, Notwithstanding, for we
never gave up that right
Mr.. BLOW is this? Two rights
directly opposite? Is this law, Judge?
| don't understand how that can be
reconciled with loyalty or Justice
Let me ask how you would enforce
the right of the State to levy and col
lect this tax?
Judge T.--By State laws and
Courts, to be sure.
nj. B.-But, Judge, suppose the
aggrieved party appeal to United
States Court, and they should say,
you shall not trample on law of the
United States, constitutionally enact
ed; what then?
Judge T.-Why, then, we would
call on the posse, to enforce the de
cree of our own Courts. We believe
in State Rights.
Mr.. B.--So, then, you are in favor
Of notification, after all, are you?-
(See 4th resolution of this platform)
Judge T.-No. Don't we say in
the 4th resolution, we are not?
Mr.. B.-Yes; / know YOU say so.
but l can not see how it is possible
for State to oppose the execution
Of the United States laws, except by
force, when the two Courts disagIee.
Modification is the only resort. For
my part, l think that Rump Dem
ocracy which met here the other day,
is far more consistent; for they, with
you, declared for the Resolutions of
'9S, and honestly said that they
meant secession and notification,
while you say you don't mean either,
by adopting these resolutions. Is
this honest, Judge?
Judge T.--Yes; for we will resist
constitutionally, and abide by the
decision OF the Courts of last resort.
Mr.. BLOW is this, Judge. This
don't agree with what you have Just
said about enforcing State laws with
a posse. Besides, they tell me that
the United States Court has long ago,
and several times, decided that n
State can not tax q United States
contract for the borrowing of money
FORTS own support. Now, l ask you,
if this true:
Judge I. (much embarrassed. )-I
Yes, it is true, but the same Court
may reverse its former decision.
Mr.. B.--I suppose it may do so,
and so the sky may fall. But you
admit that as the laws and decisions
of the Courts now stand there is no
power can tax these bonds. Why
then do you go before the people |
with falsehood, intending to make |
them believe lie and act upon it?
Judge I've mean to agitate the
question until the Government and
is revoiutionized, and all
men are taxed equally under the law.
Mr., B.--That is, you mean to hold
mp to the people, that it is the Gov
right and duty to repudi
ate part of their contract, while it
would be infamous for an individual
to do so. You mean to make the
people believe that the State can
lnnul so much of the contract, when
you know that it has neither the right
lor power to do so. You talk about
loing this in constitutional and le
gal manner, when you know there is
no such possible remedy. You know
hat constitution, laws, morality, and
Justice, are all against the act you
propose. You know that, if your
remedy was applied, it would compel
he United States to pay twice as
much interest 70, the use of money as
hey now do, and that it would com:
pei the United States to levy just so
much more tax on the people to pay
,he debt. In other words, if you
could tax the bonds of the United
States, the Government would be
obliged to pay higher price for
money, and this would all come out
IF the people in the shape of taxes.
on talk about equalizing taxation,
when you know that substantially
here is no inequality now, and that