The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1865-09-22

with official force. 1t decides the no;nt f,,,v
and should determine your action il, the mat.
ter. 'AS AAA"'-
tits not expected that you should decide q.
court nice and intricate questions of law
and for this reason the law has appointed leoai
advisers upon whom the responsibility rest of
examining such questions and advising you &C.
cordingly.
II the able counsel for the shareholders
tnose Oh the Attorney General, they have q full
ana complete remedy in the courts, where the
quesuon can be finally settled and deter
mined; while if You should strike aut the
assessment on this large amount of proper
ty, the public would be deprived of this
decision.
1t is to be recollected also that the question
| involves not merely the taxes due to Ramsey
| county, but those due the CITY of ST. Paui.
the various townships as well as to the State ;
and this consideration renders 1t very impor.
tant, where so large an amount is involved. to
protect the public interests from loss-while
o course to the individual interests of those
o1Jectlng to this assessment who have COM
plete remedy in the courts ii they desire to
| avail themselves of it.
There is point in the construction of this
ACT OF congress upon which the able Counsel
1or the share holders have dwelt at consider
ape length, and urged with great earnestness.
l! Is commended by them that inasmuch as the
United States bonds have been exempted from
State taxation by prior Acts of Congress and q
well settled National policy,-that the Act of
June 3, 1864, in presumption of law. intends
that shares of stock in the National Banks
should be taxed only so far as they represent
other capital or property than the United
States bonds pledged by the Banks; or in 9th
er words that in assessing such shares pro-
per deduction should be made on account of
these bonds.
It will be seen that the Act of Congress in
question, does not upon its face admit of such
construction. 1t makes no such exception
or qualification in its terms, for it allows the
shares to be taxed by the State authority with
out any other restriction than the rate of tax.
alton and the place where the assessment is
made.
In addition to this the debates in Congress
pending the consideration of, the Bill clearly
show that these shares in full, were intended
to be taxed under the State laws without any
allowance or deduction on account OF the Unit
ed States bonds forming part Of the capital of
the Banks.
The question of the policy Of Withdrawing
from State taxation the large amount of capital
sorb, was agitated to considerable extent in
Congress during the session of 1864, and at
the time the Bank bill was introduced in the
House, the general sentiment seems to have
been that this capital should, under certain re-
strietions, be allowed to be taxed by the States
as other personal property or mooeyed capital
The bill as introduced in the House con-
to be taxed at their market value under State
laws, substantially in the form of the proviso
in the act of June 8, 1864. After some discus
sion this provision was amended as follows |
"And nothing in this act shall be construed to |
prevent the taxation by States of the capital |
stock of Banks organized under this act, the |
same as the property of other moneyed corpo. |
rations for State or municipal purposes, but no
State shaltimpose any tax upon such associa- |
tions or their capital, circulation, dividends or
business, at higher rate Of taxation than |
shall be imposed ny such State upon the same
amount of moneyed capital in the hands of
individual citizens of such States; Provided
That no State tax shall be imposed on any part !
of the capital stock of such association invest
ed in the bonds of the United States deposited |
as security tor its circulation" Oh. K. 395. |
Congressional Globe 1864, page 1887
The bill thus came into the Senate and was |
referred to the Committee Of Finance. This
committee reported an amendment by striking |
out the above quoted provision and
to taxation substantially similar 70 the
proviso in the law as it now stands-that
is to say-allOwing the shares of stock to be I
taxed under State laws without restriction ex-
cept as to the rate of taxation which was /
limited to the same rate assessed upon other
moneyed capital in the hands of individual
citizens Of each State.
Thus it will be seen that two propositions /
were considered by the Senate Committee. |
One to allow the States TO- tax the capital of |
these Banks as other moneyed capital but exc.
epting from, such tdrdt;on 90 much of said caps.
tai as aoas inrested in tile United States Bonds. |
The otser to allow the States to tax the shares |
of stock as individual capital of the sharehold- |
ers sosthoat any such exemption or restriction. |
Congressional Globe of 1864, page 1871, |
each of these propositions had its advocates |
in the Senate and was discussed at length. |
Among those who advocated the latter prOpo. |
siliOn was Senator FesseHden who strongly |
urged it as an act of justice to the States. I
quote the following from his able argument:
We say simply in reference to this matter:
1t you choose instead of specie or any other
property that you have which is to be depos-
tied as security for your bills, you may de-
post and we will accept bonds of the United
States. That is q privilege we give them.
Then we say when there is an organization of
a bank in this way, and the persons who put
their capital inteit take it out of their other
as that. is to State taxation. and put it
in this particular Bank, that that capital
shall remain subject to State taxation precisely
in the same way that other property is, or that
it was before they invested it in that particu-
lar mode. That is all we say in reference
to it."
If you insist upon sequestering-because
cannot use any other word that expresses MY
idea-so large an amount of capital as this in the
way in which the Senator" CHS was Senator
Chandler, who advocated the former PROPOSE
tion) proposes to do it, you will create q diff
fculty which it will be very troublesome to get
over. 1t was substantially the views which I
have thus imperfectly expressed that guided
the committee in coming to this conclusion. y
Congressional Globe, 1854, page 1872.
1t was well underst God in the discussion
that the latter proposition covered the shares
of stock in full without any deduction or al.
lowaDce for that part of the capital stock in.
vested in the United States bonds. and this
latter proposition stood in contrast with the
former in this particular The latter proposi.
ton prevailed and was incorporated in the sec.