New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-12-14
United SIXTIES SUPREME COURT.
TIE "DEPOITs' OF SAVINGS BASKs-ALrHoCGH
INVESTED IN CONVENIENT SECURITIES ARE
THEY STILL "DEPOsITs' AND SUBJECT TO
STATE TAXATION

THE "DEPOTTsn or SAVINGS BASKs-ALTHOUGH
INVESTED ~ GOVERNMENT SECURITIES ARE
THEY STILL "DEPOsITS' AND SUBJECT 10
STATE TAXATION
The Society for Savings, plaintiff IN error
act g. W cote Treasurer Of The state q Connecticut
This issue was submitted without action to the superior
grow out Of the following facts: ...
The defendant in error IS Treasurer of Me state
q The Society for Savings Is species 81 corporation
commonly known a savings bank created by specld
OF the Legislature, and organized ana DONG passs
f Hartford and is empowered by IT'S charter 10 receive
deposts OF money aud 10 lOan use, ana Improve H. anu
~ npIy and divide the net income and profits thereof IN
win the general powers Of such corporations.
g. The Society Tor Savings on the lst Of July 1868 haa
which the sum Of $57 then invested and held IA
securities Of the Government OF tne ohteu s,es %c
I'm Their return the State Controller was made ac
d,eiv setting forth these figures, accompanied with
ayn,enf OF the state tax all but the amount 80 IN
vested in Government bonds. The treasurer however
std upon payIneut Of the State tax all moneys de
nnsited with the Society not doducng the invested
In Government bonds: which was refused. The matter
yas fhereupon submitted 10 the court for arbitration
nnder provision OF state law relating 10 amicabe suits
Judgment of the state Court was IN favor OF the Treas
ureT and requiring payment Of the tax ON the entire de
nosis as exaced by him. The then taken 10
tho Supreme Court OF Errors Of the State where the udg
ment affirmed. IL came thence here. on appeal by
the society Tie Judgment below the effect that
the question not tax on property but ON the
corporation as such-On the franchise.
The plaintiff in contends that Indebtedness due
from the United States exempt from taxation by the
Constitution, and expressly exempt by act or Congress-
whether owned by individual or corporation"
cannot be embraced in any part OF any basis with refer
ence TO which the Ua OF the property whether franchise
or other property Of such individual corporation is
fixed for the purposes of taxation II does not at all
avoid The question 20 say that 10 Is the franchise which Is
taxed certainly not unless II appears that this tax 10
levied upon naked franchise irrespective OF property
ar business as basis Of value standard liability. The
tang OF "A franchise not confined in It's exercise 10 cor
DOratious may be enforced against Individuals and
II is easily seen that under such power the immunity
from taxation OF q creditor Of tho United states
will Of the tax in question be sustained 10
rendered OF no practical value. II each ind-
ydna aud corporation throughout the State should DC
eoured 10 state the OF the cost OF the personal
nroperty owned by him the lst " January IN each
YEAR aud kpay a certain tax on Tho amount TAX
inar 10 The one In question would result IL has no re-
snect 10 the value Of the property at the time Of the TAX
ht rests substantially IN ts case, upon the amount
oid for NJ further deposits Of the plaintiffs institution
70 To be so managed and held that IL would DO safe TO
saw that their amount represents as nearly tho Nue
posed . - ,..,,., ,,,., t,t, Ia tam os has
The defendant In insists That be rue ~ a1
,s,n determined by the Supreme Court Of the Umted
states Bank Of Savings agt Collector Vol 6iD thhS
,onev received" by savings bank, whether lnvebi,u
- no, orc depos.tap and that when receIIe0 bR Lho