The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-03-23

be harmonized only by confining the assess |
ment of shares to those living within the place |
where the bank has its location. My conclusion |
is, that Congress Intended to contlne the exer- |
tion Of its citizens individually, by includ-
ing their shares in the valuation and assess |
ment OF their personal estate See Van Allen |
VS.. Assessors, Wallace, u. s. Rep 5S5, $50, 5S7.
In the third place. what is the operation of
taxation in the mode proposed in the State act
It's effect is TO transform the national associa-
ton into State agent and to compel 1t to per-
form a burdensome duty not enjOined by its
charter, without authority and without com
pensation. This is done by making it the duty
Of its officers to collect the tax annually from
every stockholder and to pay 1t into the State
Treasury. 1t also depreciates the stock TO the
extent Of the burden imposed on the corpora
tion,
In the third place. it compels payment of
taxes by non-residents, whose capital was not
before the subject of taxation, and who may
be compelled to pay personal tax on the same
shares at home. Clearly this is contrary TO the
whole scope and intent of the Bank act, and to
the particular provisions of the 4lst section.
A State corporation deriving It's powers and
privileges irom the law may be regulated and
neither its existence nor its franchises rom
the state, and therefore owes 1t no special duty,
and cannot be burdened by an imposition
upon its privileges 1t is unlike, in this respect,
a foreign corporation, which can exercise It's
The supreme authority of the Union which
establishes 1t here also protects IL from Inter
ference. The State may send her Assessor TO
the shareholder, and to find him out the AS
SCISSOR may call on the bank for information,
/
State to compel the bank to act as her agent in
collecting the taxes from the shareholders, and
to burden it with the trouble and expense and
responsibility of collecting and paying them
over into the State Treasury What remedy
has the bank against the shareholder if he
shares or dividends? The tax is not specific
| lien on the stock or the dividends.
The act Of 1866 provides no mode for Its en-
| forcement either against the bank or the stock
| holder. This brings us to consider what authO-
rity can be exercised by the Auditor General
March. a.
ment of a tax account against the bank or the
! stockhoder. That act extends to all persons
| or corporations intrusted with the receipt or
coming into the possession OF public moneys
| State corporations when made the receivers
therefore be compelled to settle accounts before
| the uditor-General. Easton Bank VS. Coutts,
| 10 Barr, 442; Commonwealth VS.. Runk, Casey,
| 235 The act of 1866 was obviously intended to
| bring the national banks within the operation
| OF this law as they are expressly claSSed with
| the State banks. 1t is not the stockholder, but
the corporation, which is subjected to the duty.
According to the docrine OF commonwealth VS..
| Runk supra, an account may be settled for the
| tax against the bank without previous notice
| to appear; and the bank becomes fixed for the
| sum stated in the account unless IL files an
| appeal within sixty days after notice of the
settlement, and specification of the settle--
ment; and security TO- prosecute The appeal
ton, not the individual stock holder. is
| diction and process, and to perform
an illegal, burdensome, and expensive duty,
| without any provision for recourse against the
| stockholders. In effect, this is to compel the
| banks to pay tax contrary to the provisions
of the forty first section of the act of Congress,
| and to involve the consequences already stated.
It is equally clear that, under the provisions
| OF the act OF 1866, the Auditor General can
| not compel the individual stockholder to
| settle an account for the tax No provision Is
| made ior reaching him. but the duty of collect
| ing and paying over is devolved upon the Off
GERS of the bank. Besides, individuals who hold
| no Office. and no franchises of the State, and
| who are not receivers of public money, but
! mere Taxpayers, have never been held TO be
within the PROVISIONS OF Ihe aGI OF iotl. AS 70
I HON he
| through tax officers. II would be inconvenient
and burdensome upon the State Department
| payer, and it would be highly unjust to the citi-
| zens themselves to transfer the settlement and
payment of their taxes to the seat of govern
ment Persons falling within the provisions of
the act of 1911 are required to appear upon sum
their accounts at his office. Then again, If the
bank submit to the state jurisdiction, and pay
the tax, the stockholder is without remedy If
the pay ment be erroneous.
The settlement being with the bank and not
with the stockholder, he cannot appeal. AS to
the bank, the settlement would be in S0ttdo for
the whole tax, and the individual tax would
not appear separately At all events he Is no
ment. He cannot sue the State to recover back
his tax, and ii he could recover it from the bank
as a miSpayment, 1t can only be on the ground
that the bank was not amenable to the State
Jurisdiction.
What have said shows that the plaintiffs, as
individual stockholders, have no complete
remedy at law, which disposes of the second
cause Of demurrer, and brings me to consider
the first, whether the Court has Jurisdiction to
enion against officers of the State.
That the Court has jurisdiction results from
the conclusion that there is no authority on the
part of the Auditor General and State Trea'
surer to set the amount and compel payment OF
the taxes imposed by the act Of 1866. The law Is
in conflict with the act OF Congress, and is
therefore void by force Of the I'd Section of the
9th Article of the Constitution OF the United
States. Such being the case, the attempt &c
collect the tax by the proposed settlement
, of account under the act of 1911 Is
, illegal and without authority. The State can
not be sued; and If the Court do not interfere
and the tax be collected and paid over by the
J Cashier, there is no remedy either TO the bank
or the stockholder. 1t is a case of void autho
rity, not of irregularity in the exercise of law
ful authority, or of mere discretion. This case
| is almostidentical with that OF Ar6orn VS. BanB
United States, 9Wheaton, 7S9. The right K
| grant an injunction in such ease Is borne ou
l by many NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. VS.. Lewis,
Mylne & Craige, 5I; Miller vs.. German. !
} Casey, 0; Kerr vs.. Nego, IL Wright, 2O2 Mayor
: and Councils OF Baltimore VS.. Porter, lS Mary
; | Railroad Company, Baldwin's Rep, 2O5; Belk
nap VS.. Belknap, Johnsons Chancery, 1853
= Hilliard on Injunctions, Ed 1855, S4;
The demurrer is overruled, and the defend
. | ants ordered to answer 10 the bill,
q A similar order was made in the following
\ | cases.
] Ashhurst VS. Hartranft.
y Brown vs. Hartranft.
3 3 Pennsylvania Company for Insurance, etc,
Stoever VS.. Hartranft.
~ Dutihl vs. Hartranft.
g Court OF Quarter ssssiOnH-Judge Brew
n | ster.-ln the case OF the Commonwealth Vs
Jane Breaker, convicted OF a charge of assault
L and battery upon her child, the defendant wa
"a months, and ordered to pay fine of 81 an,
n enter security in $1,000 TO keep the peace
Snd EnssSG Mafs isS
81 Life Company, which vas argued on Wednesday las
(. tins, and William M Meredith and Edward pA' j.
re Thomas. Esgs for aeisndsnts, Judge Brewster d,
ts ton for special injunction was refused