The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1875-12-17

Dal, 175, who said, "but If the United
States Supreme Court have such power
to declare an act of Congress void, on
the ground of its being made contrary to
and in violation OF the Constitution, l
am free to declare that will never ex-
ercise it but in very clear case."
This ruling Of Mr.. Justice Chase has
been pretty generally followed since his
time down to the case of Hepburn vs..
Griswold, s Wallace, 61I12, where Mr..
Chief Justice Chase puts the duty
of the Court In all such cases thus
wise: "When, therefore, a case arises
Tor judicial determination, and the de-.
cision depends on the alleged inconsist-
ency Of legislative provision with
fundamental law, it is the plain duty of
the Court to compare the act with the
Constitution, and ii the former can not,
upon fair construction, be reconciled
with the latter, 10 give effect to the Con.
stitution rather than to the statute.
This seems so plain that it is impossible
to make it palmer by argument"
Now, Mr.. Mayor, l do not propose to
analyze and criticise the Walker case
too closely, and point out its intirmities.
1t is enough for you to know the case is
of no value when it is based upon mere
suggestion, the want of knowledge upon
the part of the Court, and the upholding
upon the plea Of ignorance, If Mr.. Chief
Justice Chase gives you the rule cor
rectly in the case of Hepburn VS.. Girls
void.
The Court, you will observe, refers to
many causes to sustain their ruling upon
Article s, Section 6, of the Constitution
of 1851, which, in tact, had but little to
do with the case, yet they overlooked
very important and well considered case
oil their predecessors that should not
have been overlooked, neither by the
Court nor by counsel. refer to the
case of Debolt VS.. the 0. l.. l. and Il.
| Company, / Ohio ST. 563. The opinion is
by Judge Ranney. Judge Thurman did
not sit in the case. Judges Caldwell,
| Corwln and Bartley concurred with
Judge Ranney. l quote from the sylla-
BUS: "This right (tne right of taxation },
vital to the existence OF every Govern
ment, and one OF the most important in
cidents to sovereignty, has been dele
gated to the G 4ral Asse mbly, to be
used for the purpose of accomplishing
the lawful objects with Which it is
charged" "Now, had the Court looked into
Bank vs. Bond, l o. S., 622, they might
have found u guide to lead them out of
the quagmire they got Into in the Walker
case. Taxes can be levied and the tax
power "used" for the purpose or accom-
plishing the lawful objects with which
it { the Government) is charged. Had
they taken this rule as their guide, and
it is the true rule, then they would have
looked to the Constitutions OF 1892 and
1851 to see if by either the General AS
sembly was charged with the duty OF
leyying taxes 10 build railroads or other
roads in the States OF Kentucky and
Tennessee, and, il they could have found
no slIcn duty to be charged by these
Constitutions upon the General Assem-
bly,, then they could levy no taxes for
such purpose, and should have held the
act of May A, 1863, unconstitutional and
void.
Now, Mr.. Mayor, what is your duty
W ill you stand by the Constitution, OF
will you say you don't know, you are not
wiser than the Supreme Courtp Butyou
have two decisions OF that Court-the
one founded upon knowledge, and the
other upon ignorance; whicn will you
follow? Put on your specks, read the
Constitution carefully, it will do you
good. Then read those cases and think
and think again. Ii muddIed, go tu sleep
and let your honest, thoughtful b.ain
work out the problem for you. 1t will
bring you right and tell you the Walker
) case is all bosh. The State of Ohio has
no government south OF the OHIO river,
and her Legislature is charged with no
duty to build railroads, canals, turn
pixies, or common dirt roads, except
within the territory of Ohio, and can not
levy taxes for any such purposes.
Ii the General Assembly can not bu Id
sucl railroads or common roads in otheI
States, III can not authorize cities tC
build them, nor levy q its ior any such
: purposes. Cities in Ono get their pow
ers, rights and duties from the Govern
ment of the State, and can be authorized
to levy taxes for all lawfsl purposes TIE
Government is authorized to protect anC
foster.
. You see, Mr.. Mayor, the Trustees O
the Southern Railway have been selling
bonds in the name of the city very liber
ally since July, 1874, up to which time
, they had expended $685., 7O6 81, and paid
the proceeds out proiusely ($7, 063,0S1 q
to December /, 1876, to construct Il rail
way for Kentucky and Tennessee, under
their laws, but under the control of said
Trustees, andit becomes us to examine
: our position. If they are our Trustee.
and acting for us, then we have to pay
the piper. But ii they are not our Trus-
tees, and acting under Kentucky anG
Tennessee laws tor the benefit Of those
States and themselves, then it is theil
business and not ours. Let those States
the Trustees and the purchasers OF these
bonds look out and take care of them.
selves.
, Mr.. Mayor, the tax levy ordinance fol
1870, so say the papers, is before you
and you must approve or disapprove it,
under your oath to support the CoRsti
tuition. Act intelligently, will you? BE
{ sure you are right, and then go ahead
If you follow the kEow-nothing Court
then you approve; but if you follow the
Court that knows and speaks from
knowledge, you will disapprove, and pui
your Common Council to a two-thirds
vote. Be right, Mr.. Mayor, and let the
Il Common Council 20 wrong if they dare
+ If you or they say this act of May A, 1869
is o. K, then you say we can be taxed
to improve all the navigable rivers il
: which Cincinnati is interested, or upoI
whose waters her commerce foats--th,
Allegheny, Monongahela, Kanawha
Licking, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missis
sippi Upper and Lower), Missouri, Wa
bash, &C., for such is the power the Gen
eral Assembly has, If the act OF May
{ 1859, be constitutional. MIR. Mayor, be
you to think " the responsibility you as
sumo, and fol .nce in your life shoy