Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-01-23
TaxatiOn Of United state. 1,oud,.

/ ~~~-S~s
Taxation of United states Bonds.
Republication OF the national debt is a
cardinal principle with the Democracy"
Depreciation of the public credit is the
most efficient meane Of bringing about
repudiation. Violation of contract is the
best way to cause depreciation. With
these facts constantly in view, the "Demo-
"cratic" party have made frantic efforts to
secure the taxation, by the Federal Gov
ernment, of the bonds of the United
States, notwithstanding taxation is
forbidden by the following clause of the
act of Congress stipulating the terms of
the loan then sought by the Government:
All stocks, bonds and other securities of
the United States, held by individuals, cor
porations or associations within the United
States, shall be exempt from taxation by or
under State authority"
Failing in their efforts to induce the
Government to violate its contract with
the people-those who aided it with their
treasure in the hour of need-these imita-
tors of JEFF. DaVis's financial policy have
Turned their attention to the State Gov
ernmeDts, hoping to secure reasonable |
legislation by the State Legislatures. Mr..
Critchheld, on Friday, introduced into the
Ohio Senate resolutions designed to ac-
complish this purpose, These resolutions
are interspersed with arguments in their
support, of which the main points are
The Constitution of Ohio contemplates the
taxation of "every description of bonds;"
that the right of a State to tax the prop
"erty of its people is indispensable to its
sef-preservation )" that d" the judicial de-
Examinations of the Supreme Court of
" the United States, upon this question,
" are conflicting, and have been unsatis-
factory" and that said decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States
"were made prior to the adoption of the
CONSTITUTION of this State, and were re-
"garded as Of uncertain meaning by the
trainers of the State Constitution"
For these reasons, Mr.. CritchReld pro-
poses that the act of the Ohio Legis-
lature exempting Federal bonds from a.
taxation be considered unconstitu-
tiOnal, and that previous law, pro-
vidfng for their taxation, be considered as
still in force and binding upon State and
county officials. Mr.. Critchfeld seems to n
have forgotten that clause in the latter o
enactment repealed all laws and parts of :
laws of an opposite tendency, and that, h
therefore, the old law is dead, whether the C
new one be constitutional in all its re-
quirements or not.
We dc not doubt that such taxation was
by the rramoro of the Con-
stitution of Ohio; but the main question q
is, is this provision of the Constitution of {,
Ohio in accordance with the provisions of h
the Constitution of the United States ?
The Federal Constitution confers upon
Congress the power to declare war, the
power to raise revenues, and all the gen.
eral powers necessary to sustain and carry a
On the Government. In the exercise of =
his power, and for the defence of the al
nation in time of war, Congress issued 3
bonds, stipulating with the people Y
who purchased them that they should be
exempt from taxation. This contract the n
Government cannot lawfully repudiate,
nor do we believe such reputation q
would be any more lawful on the part of q CT
State. Judge Tsney, Democratic poll
,icisn, appointed to the Chief Justiceship
BY President Jackson, and whose decisions
we're always as favorable to the interests n
If the Democratic party as the facts and IL
would justify, decided that al
State did not possess the power to tax the =
ponds of the United States, as the excess
We exercise Of such power by State :,
would tend to destroy the credit Of the Il
General Government. Mr.. Critchfelds Of
argument that this decision is "unsatisfac- Al
6 tory" does not affect the question. n n
Judicial decisions are never satisfactory to
III parties. The fact that the Supreme
Court had decided adversely to the right G
# such taxation prior to the formation of al
,ur State Constitution should have been
accepted by the members of the Ohio Con- A
Convention as valid reason for D
uniting or correcting their uncertain" "
,lause on this subject; but is certainly =. a
10 reason why the decision of the court a
hould be set aside for the benefit of dis til
oyal faction. of