New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-01-29
SUPREME CoURT-Cr,asERs-JAs 2a---Befors Justic
SUTHERLAND
lsIOSs.
George d. Jarvis CT al. agt, Frederick Gerardlne
COURT or APPEALS-AIBAsr, JAN. q.
ARE UNITED STATES SECURITIES TAXABLE BY STAT
AUrUnUITY

Tn. Peop, on III, relation of the Bank Of Commerce. appel
nts ar, he Comni'sioues OF Taxes aid Assessments
OF The City OF New York, respondents.
BY THE COUrT: DEMO, Oh. J.-Tbe ctTtiOTGr'
which awarded this BY The Supreme Cont was
Igs 10y y yss Of The Act Congress Of The U.d
States passed the 2sth day Of February, iss WI en- 10
under the authority Of tho several States Tho language Of
the provision 10 foows SECTION Az ttoCAs bones'
other securities Of tho United States he'd ny
ssoc!aion' within thr United s;sts' h4 Dc
exempt ON ta1slion BY or under state 1Ib0y the'' o.
/, .ppsss fon ID. return to the writ aid from statement.
furp by the REALTORS that the BsDk Of Commerce pos
.os.d tho Investment Of !" capital at tbe lime taed oy
law for r,csrpng tho property OF the cLen' and corpof
atoms liable fer the year TO- 10. amount o.
2eS o. the ,toeh Of the public debt 81 The on'sa
the proper Of the Government prior TO the pa.ese Of
ne .ooye s &c: o. cSss r.. .sS s
The defendants had sssess.d toe whole o. ,hs stock a.
g, Of hs PSpe coS me . ssI have DOR.
the agueB, Of this ,PPe, that tue whole o. hA STOCK Sss
sIsmr from 'si.on by force o. .ss o. ne
sdvss them on that Proposition thee tsry in..ed re
certainly exempt by the terms sns effect OF the aiofe
The sopems Court following The judsmtn, Of this Court
pronounced In ths case OF The People on we sson OF .Ls
In the aod volume Of the New York Reports t Pse 1917
dom. pov,on slous bat they held that the act Of Congress
constitutional exercise Of the authority OF the federe
IA . 70 the i hoo IN, :. to
issued and which tho hands o. Individuals when
,b.. och stocks w.re a.e.sso
holders and owners thereof wsie ,aI.ols .nere1n
much Of judgment was adverse 10 'seir claim eu.
does sppe. that tho comi'souer sIes and Asses
ments hsv, appealed from any part OF tbe Judgment
The sppes does net ihersfoe present f'
question respecting the stocks isaed ef hs act OF Con-
bad tai on eject and that portion OF the Judgment
Supreme Court sdhoe 10 the course adopted npoo
the fornsr occasion referred TO- Of IesnrY RON any .1
preston Of opinion upon any point which Is not our duty
Upon he question actually befOr. Vi, IN ,h.
Aat I'm fhs
stated In the opinion Of tbs majority Of Judges
q: rgs.. e d: I'd 70, H.: -
e". credit that The money which should be lent BY ind
vdu. osortGs should % 70. &c. .. ,1dns DC ses
that the power such provision can eny re-
from tn. .rPre" power conferred upon the "shsf Gov
states That authority. equally with the ether exPIe.
power. conferred upon Congress carrie, wh hs r.h' 70
Carrying authority into execution exemption OF
thu 'ep evidence Of iodeLt.d'e. 9. inc money iop,s
,snsed by from state ,s1aiioa DC neees.ay OF proper
obtaining funds for public OBJECT. by way Of Loan
.a ,nS .pssr more eectvs and ava able ID. sIpss.
power 20 borrow money the credit OF the United States
bnt ,ne osn' md m. money borrowed was pasted
by ho lenders received y the federal ooyernIa.nt
bo,Sov ina, money hsd been fully executed and the
bower ef 10 those losDs had been enuey exhausted
he lenders has required the advantage which 10. aG'
hold. out to csphshn M " ~. = III =,
rd. ba. bd eesp 20 ys' ,es ~ .Ir S,sS Sac
/ Ia,
upop .uch lenders after the oans had teen consni'
etsJ .,rn. to y. be advantage conferred einousy
nm th.m moi deed ths az the tedeia Govern
.nt hut a h- .1pense ald Ia de sssn Of the author
| Ity of the government Of the Ststes 49,
IL 4, ,cscsly necessary to ssy because the proposohs
i,ehy p.n the genrts ~ state taAal0p, unu
the a,.buon of it, burdens the property OF the cut
IN. Ar. matters wholly OF state with which the
g,neul has ordinarily authority to tn-rned
c p,As IL shall be and proper TO do, ~ otde'
"a ,,tv into Aecuton substauus conferred by
a.. onsniion upon the National Government. We con-
there cannot Ia Bny necessity roPety or even
I ia. In liz tnhtl la
Tm atstion III holder 81 the evidence Of indebtedness Ia
r..ct 70 Unou leans gotiat,d aud eonsumscd when
NO such exemption existed.
We are therefore. Of opinion that the judgment OF the
euueue Court the respect In which appealed from 10
s aud o. .ht to be sfucd and II Is dinghy affirmed
Copy T.. f.sIiiNE- SAi III otato hepeltc'.
d. Lord FOR spPesn. Henry H. Anderson Tor respondents