The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1860-11-12
From the State Sentinel.
Bank Taxation in Missouri.

In the Supreme Court of the State of
Missouri, an opinion was lately pronounced
on the power of a town or city to assess
bank stock and levy a local tax thereon,
which we regard rs of some Importance
The case was The Mayor, SC. Of Lexington
Cs Robert AuH, President of the Farmers
Bank of Missouri.
The Bank was chartered in the winter OF
1878, by the Legislature of Missouri and
the statute provided that in consideration of
the privileges granted by the act incorpor-
ating it, the corporation agreed to pay the
State, annually, one per cent on the amount
of the capital stock paid IN by the stock
holders, other than the State, which was to
be in full of all bonus and taxes to lie paid
to the State by the Bank.
By the act Of Incorporation of the city of
Lexington, it is provided that the Mayor
and Board of Couucilmen shall have power,
by ordinance, to levy and collect taxes upon
real and personal property within said city,
not exceeding Une-half Of one per cent upon
the assessed value thereof. By ordinance
of May 18th, 1889, the city imposed a tax
upon shares Of incorporated companies, ex-
cepting manufacturing companies, the prop
erty of rt;oh alone was TO be taxed. Mr..
AuIl the President of the bank, refused to
deliver TO tho city assessor a list of the
shares of the stock held in said bank, with
the names of the persons holding the same,
as provided by the ordinance; whereupon
the CITY commenced an action against him
to recover the penalty of 81 900, provide d
by the ordinance in such cases. The suit
was entered in the Mayors Court, and, on
hearing the city obtained judgment for
the amount of the penalty and the COSTS
The defendent appealed to the Circuit Court,
in which the Judgment of the Mayors Court
was reversed, and thereupon the plaintiff
took the case to the Supreme Court on a
writ of error.
On hearing Of the case in the Supreme
Court, the judgment of the Circuit Court
was reversed From the opinion of the
Court, which we find in the Missouri Expos
itor we extract the following:
The city of Lexington was incorporated
with power to levy and collect taxes on
real and personal estate within her limits at
the time Of the incorporation of the Farmers
Bank of Missouri There is no hardship in
making those who reside or do business in
| Incorporated towns or cities contribute to
/ defray the expenses incurred for their gov
! eminent, by which conveniences are afford
ed and a degree of protection furnished, not
| enjoyed by those who are not members of a
municipal body. These advantages are OBJ
1 tanned by means of taxes imposed on the
/ inhabitants of the town or city, and are
/ over and above those possessed by the PEG
/ pie OF the State at large. The citizens OF
| the State pay 4 tax for the support of the
! Government which protects them. The in
/ habitants of Il city, being also members OF
| the State, pay the same tax for the same
/ purpose, but being, too, members of a NUM-
J cipal body which affords them advantages
| in addition to those possessed by the people
\ at large, they, in order to enjoy those adj
| vantages, are compelled tOpay tax to which
! the State at large is not subject. Under
/ our system of government, there are what
are called State taxes paid by all the mem
bers of the community, and corporate taxes,
paid BY the inhabitants O. a municipal body.
| We can not suppose that hese considerations
were overlooked by the General Assembly
in chartering the bank. In providing that
| for a consideration, the tank should be ex-
| empt from taxes to be pad by the State, it
could not have been intended to interfere
! with a matter with which the State had
nothing to do. The payment of taxes to a
city is q matter between the city and her
inhabitants If a town wants advantages
not preiudicial to the res. of the State, and
is willing to pay for then, it is no concern
of the State. If we puts construction upon
the charter which will exempt the bank
from the city tax, we male the State guilty
of the injustice of taking away that tax
from those to whom it ightfuIIy belongs
If what the State receiye is in full of all
taxes, State and city, would she not have
made some provisions by which a proper
tional part of the bonus;Ee exacts would be
paid to the city Will what justice could
the State 20 into city and take a bonus
from a portion of the cizens to be paid in
to her own treasury, in consideration that
they should be exempt finn the city taxes
I How unjust would it be the city.