Court Opinion

ID: 9417504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:20:22.195494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:44.404503
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice'Beadley:
I dissent from the judgment. Ido not defend Mr. Shotwell; but it is a question, of law, and the law of'■Ohio seems to me repugnant to the act of Congress Which exempts the securities of the United States from taxation.
The law is this: The property that a man has on the second Monday in April is the amount of property which he is to return for taxation that year. Now, if a man chooses to buy United States securities one month or one • day before that time, he has a perfect right to do it, and as the act of Con*601gress declares that United States securities shall not be taxed, the State has no right to tax him for them. But the legislature of the State of Ohio undertook to get around, that law in this-way; they say that a man shall be exempted from' taxation for United States securities owned by him on the second Monday in April, only in proportion to the time that he has held them, so that if he has held them only one day he would be exempted, only one 36oth part of the amount; whilst, if the man of whom the taxpayer bought them, held them 364 days, he would get no exemption at all; he-would be taxable' for the consideration which he received for the securities and-which he held on the second Monday in April. Therefore, in-Ohio United' States securities are only exempted.from taxation in a limited manner, that is, in proportion to the time they have been held. All other property is treated differently. • If anything is unconstitutional; it seems to me that this is.