The Portland daily press., 1867-05-15

United States, would not every of them rascal
deserve to be disfranchised? That is the Demo
cratic precedent That is what Frank Pierce told
Jefferson Davis, the Democratic party North
would uphold the Democratic party South in
doing. When the Good Templars commit the
crime of treason, the precedent established by
the Military law now in force at the South may
be justly invoked. Until they put themselves
in the precise position of the Democratic party
South, they will not become subject to the in
conveniences which that party now experien-
4 ces. % .r..
| Taxation of National Bank Stock.
To the Editor Of the Press L
The dissenting opinion of Judge Dickerson
in the matter OF taxing the stock of National
banks, is an interesting and thoroughly con-
sidered one; and must commend itself to the
common mind more forcibly than the opinion
of the majority of the Court on the same sub
| ject matter. s.i7r1 -r..i - ..
The point at issue between him and the ma
iority is whether there may be an appropria-
ton of the benefit of the tax to other corpora
tions than the cities or towns by whose assess
| ors the valuation was made SO that all the ben
efits and burdens of this tax upon stock may
| be enjoyed and borne proportionably by those
localities where the stockholders reside.
When we consider that corporate shares are
| mere personal rights, and are identified with
the holders as closely as it is possible for prop
| erty to follow the person, and that a tax upon
| shares, like tax on money loaned, is in effect
a personal tax; and when we consider how
anxious the Legislatures of all our States are
H.
| and have been that such taxes should also fol-
low the person for the purpose of just and
| equal distribution; and when we further con-
| slider how unjust and unequal system is that
which submits the property of residents of
one town to taxation for the local benefit of
another town, beyond what circumstances un-
avoidably require, it seems hardly possible that
| Congress should have designed such inequita-
| BILE results beyond the power of the States to
| prevent or alleviate o| ,.i4 .'4
| 1t is to be considered also that all municipal
taxation, though local, is by delegation of au-
| thority from the State; and it would seem that
| if the State delegates the authority, it might,
in doing it, lawfully impose such restrictions as
would secure its exercise in an equitable man
ner. -' NJ -.t.- De- '
Take, for instance, monies raised by taxa
ton for the use of school districts. Though
levied by valuation of estates within the dis
tricts, they are ordinarily assessed, not by the
assessors especially designated by the districts,
| but by the assessors of the town, collected by
the town collectors, and finally applied exclu-
| sively to the uses of tbe district. For all the
purposes of voting and applying the tax, the
district is as foreign to the town as would be q
district in anA.l-sr eo'vn; but the tax being
pad by the inhabitants of the district is ap-
piled to their exclusive benefit If the major
| ity of the Court are correct in their construc-
ton OF the actof Congress, hereafter the stock
OF the National banks, located in towns where
the district system prevails, cannot be compel
led to contribute to the support of the district
schools. 80 s5slol 5a-ay as.5..er 5lT Ti- ---.-.-
1t has been questioned whether the restric-
tions imposed by Congress which have been
| cited by both Judge Dickerson and che nlajori-
| ty of the Court, are valid. Independently of
authorities to the contrary, it would seem that
Congress has no inherent power to interfere
with the taxing prerogative of the State except
to forbid unjust determinations, that inde-
pendently of legislation by Congress stock in
National Banks would be subject to State tax
| alton, that Congress would have concurrent
right of taxation, and in the exercise Of that
right might possibly exclude the right of the
States but that, if Congress valves its concur
rent right and does not tax, the stock falls into
the general mass of personal property, and be-
comes like all other property, subject to the
taxation by the State upon the principles Of
its own peculiar system. The right to limit
and restrict arbitrarily is always an incident
of the right to grant If Congress has no
right "to confer upon State the sovereign
right of taxation,'' and State is not "colnpe-
tent to receive such a grant" the incidental
right cannot exist. That Congress has no such
right to confer and tho States are not compe-
tent thus to receive, are expressly declared by
4 the Supreme Court Of the United States in
Van Allen VS.. The Assessors, 3 Wallace Re-
ports, p. 5S5. And it seems also to be distinct
ly implied in that opinion, that the right of the
State to tax National Bank shares is not a
right conferred by Congress, and exists not
merely by virtue of the provisions Of Congress
sional legislation, but is concurrent with that
of the national government, and exists in full
force SO long as it is not excluded by the exer-
else of the paramount authority of Congress
in taxing for the benefit of the United States
1t is true that in his dissenting opinion Chic
Justice Chase does not seem thus to construe
the decision Of the Court, yet to US the Ian
guage of the Court seems clear; and If the
words 'at the place where such Bank is locat
ed" are to be construed, as is apparently as
sumed, as meaning 'at the town or city where
such Bank is located" we hold, notwith.
standing the dissenting opinion of the Chiel
Justice, that it may well be questioned wheth
| er such a restriction is lawful. O..
| 1t does not yet seem to have been well CON
sidered what is the construction to be placed
upon the second section of the Act of our Leg
islsture referred to. Now that by the opinion
of our Court the subsequent sectious are nulli
fed, does that section authorize the taxation
by town where the Bank is located, of all thu
stock of the bank including what is owned b,
| residents of other towns in the State If it doe
| SO authorize. is it in conformity with the legis
lation of Congress, assuming that Legislation
to be valid? ...
In the first place the language of Congress
is that nothing in the Banking Act shall
construed to prevent all the shares held b
any person from being included in the yalue
tion Of the personal property of such person
F Such language in strictness applies only whel
there is valuation Of personal property 1
! which the stock can be included. 1t contem
, plates the valuing the stock, not as q specih
valuation for specific taxation, but as part
, a general valuation of personal properly
With very few exceptions there is no vaiua'o'
of personal property except OF residents, an
/ NV the assessors of the towns where tney re
side So far Congress apparently looks 10 tn
+.xot;op of residents, and not OF non-resideht'
p,t the Act of orr State, while 1t follow
# haltinolv the language Of Congress, varyin
s.,u, II by omitting the limiting word 'persor
al" before property" in effect lays specif
tax upon all stock owned by persons not res
| dents of the towns where the banks are locs
ted, and provides for its enforcement by lie
on the stock as all specific taxes are ordinar
ly secured. This is apparent, because thoug
the State Statutes direct the stock to be ir
: cluded in the valuation Of the several holder
y yet as We have already said, there are wi,
few exceptions no valuations of non-residen
in which it can be thus included.
The express object of Congress was to pr
vent any discrimination against stock in N
e tional Banks. If, however, all such stock Is
= be taxed in the town or city where the pank
), located, there will be no certainty whatsoe''
= that it will not suffer in comparison WIN qua
Rank Stock. for which the holder Is taxed