Case ID: us-ct-cl_44/html/0600-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF BALTIMORE v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [42 C. Cls. R., 6; 214 U. S. R., 33.]
    
      On the claimants Appeal.
    
    The claimant, a State bank, is converted into a National bank in June, 1865. At various times subsequent to July 1, 1887, its outstanding circulation is less than 5 per cent of its chartered capital, but it is required to pay the tax on such outstanding circulation. The suit is to recover back the duties so paid.
    The court below decides:
    I.The banking and'internal-revenue acts of 25th February, 1SC3; 3d March, 1863; 3d June, 1864; 30th June, 1S64; 3d March, 1865; 13th July, 1866; 14th March, 1900; and Revised Statutes,- sections 3408, 3410, 3411, 3416, 3417, and 5214 considered and interpreted.
    II.The statutory provisions embodied in the Revised Statutes (sections 3410, 3411, 3417), which declare that whenever the outstanding circulation of any bank does not exceed 5 per cent of its capital " said circulation shall he free from taxation,’'' does not extend to national banks. It was intended only as an inducement to state banks to be converted into national banks by exempting from taxation all their circulating medium below 5 per cent of their capital, issued and emitted under state organization.'
    III. The purpose of the semiannual tax of 2 per cent on the amount
    of the circulating notes of a national bank was not revenue, but to reimburse the Treasury for expenses incurred in printing the notes and all other expenses. The purpose of the tax on the state banks was revenue, coupled with the policy of ultimately compelling the retirement of state-bank notes.
    IV. AVlien the language of a statute is free from ambiguity its words
    shall be given their usually accepted meaning; but where a general word follows particular and specific words of the same nature its meaning shall be restricted to the same genus as the particular words.
    V.Sections 8410 and 3411 of the Revised Statutes, as printed, are misleading. They should be construed together as one sentence, connected by the conjunction “ and,” as in the original acts.
    VI."When in doubt as to the scope of an act, courts may go beyond it to ascertain the legislative intent. The object to be accomplished at the time of its enactment is of paramount importance in giving effect to an act.
    VII.In the construction of the Revised Statutes courts can not refer to the antecedent legislation embodied therein to create a doubt, but they can to solve -one.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 17, 1909.