The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-02-04

% IN the haE us OF Citizens are Liable
to state Taxation as Other Personal
Properly. iie
SUPREME Court THE UNITED STATES
.at Nos. S0l and S07-December Term,
1880. - .-Gs-s- aG tn i1'sE-g -Ht
The People of the State Of New York,
rex rel. Denning DePr, plaintiff in
= error, agt.s The Commissioner of
Taxes and Assessments for the CITY
and County of New York and The
People of the State of New York, ex
rel.' Ralph Mead, plaintiff in error,
agt.u The Commissioners of Taxes
auand Assessments of the City and
County of New York. In error to
the Court of Appeals of the State of
.a New York. sr-I--af
Mr.. Justice Nelson delivered the
opinion of the Court, as follows:
These cases are writs of errors to the
Court of Appeals of the State of New
York. The relator in the first is an
owner of 152 shares of stock in the Ma
tional Bank of ofCommerce, in New York,
The capital of tho bank consists OF lOO,-
600 shares of 500 each, and which is
investedin United States securities and
exempt from State taxation. The Com
missioners of Taxes, In making their
assessments, valued the shares at par,
and imposed upon them the same rate
OF tax as was imposed upon other per-
sonal property in the city. The Com
missioners, in their return to the GER
uorari, state that in estimating the
value OF the shares, they made no de-
duction on account of the investment
OF the capital of the bank in United
States securities. That in the valuation
of the personal estate of individuals.
these estates owned and held by them,
were deducted, and the tax assessed on
the balance; and the like deductions
were made from the capital of insu-
rance companies.
/, The assessment of this tax on the
shares of the relator in the Bank of
Commerce was carried to the Supreme
Court of the State, and, after arpu-
Court of Appeals, where the judgment
of the Supreme Court was affirmed.
The case is now here, on error, under
the 25th section of the Judiciary act. The
first objection taken to the legality of
the tax is on the ground that the Com
m1ssioners, in the valuation of the
shares, refused to deduct the amount of
capital of the bank invested in United
States securities, and hence refused to
regard this deduction in the valuation
of the shares. The question has, here.
tofore, been considered by this Court,
and, after full .deIiberation, determined
in the case of Van Allen against the
again be examined. That case was one
of the large class of cases which were
very thoroughly argued and received,
at the time, the most careful examina-
tion of the Court. The next, and per-
haps the only material question in the
case, arises upon construction of a
clause in the first proviSo of the forty-
first section of the National Bank act,
After referring to the taxation of these
shares by State authority, il provides /:
But not greater rate than is assessed
upon other moneyed capital in the
hands of individual citizens of such
States. ~" 1t Is argued that the assess
ment upon the shares of the relator is
at greater rate than that of the per-
sonal property of individual citizens,
upon the ground that allowance was
made on account of United States secu-
rites held and owned by them, when at
the same time the deduction was
disallowed to them. The answer is
that upon a true construction of
this clause of the act, the meaning
and intent of the law-makers We're
shat the rate of taxation of the shares
should be the same, or no greater, than
upon the moneyed capital OF the indi-
vldual citizen which is subject or liable
TO taxation Thati is, no greater proper
ton or per centage of tax in the Valua-
ton of the shares should be levied than
upon other moneyed taxable capital in
the hands of the citizens. This rule
seems TO be as effectual test to pre-
vent unjust discrimination against the
as could well be devised
1t embraces class which constitutes
the body polite of the State, who make
its laws and provide for its taxes. They
cannot be greater than the citizens i'm
pose upon themselves. 1t is known
that sound policy in every well-regula-
ted and enlightened State or: Govern
ment, certain descriptions of property,
and also certain institutions-such as
hospitals, academies, ceme-
teries, and the ike-are exempt from
taxation but these exemptions have
never been regarded as disturbing the
rates of taxation, even where the fun
damental law had ordained that it
should be uniform. The objection is a
singular one. At the time Congress en-
acted this rule as a limitation against
it was well known to
that body that these securities in the
hands of the citizens were exempt from
taxation. 1t has been so held by this
Court, and for abundant caution, had
passed into a law. The argument foun-
ded on the objection, if it proves any-
thing, proves that these securities should
have been faxed in the hands of indi-
viduals to equalize the taxation; and,
hence, that Congress by this clause in
the proviso intended to suject them, as
thus situated, to taxation; and, there
fore, there was error in the deduction,
This we do not suppose is claimed. But
II this is not the result of the argument,
then the other conclusion from il is, that
Congress required that the Commits
sioners should deduct the securities,
and at the same time intended the de-
duction, If made, should operate as
violation of the rate of the tax prescrib-
ed. We dissent from both conclusions,
and think a sound construction of the
clause, and one consistent with its
words and intent, is also consistent
with all the acts of Congress on the
subject. The Commissioners, in their
state that insurance companies
created under the laws of the State, |
and doing business in the city of New
York, were respectively assessed upon
the balance of this capital and surplus
profit, liable to taxation, after deduct |
ing therefrom such part as is invested |
In United States securities. Another |
taken is, that the taxation of
the shares of the relator is illegal, on |
account of their deduction-it being |
departure from the rate of assessment |
prescribed in the cause already cited. |
The answer Is, that this clause does not |
refer to the rate of assessments upon |
insurance companies as test by which |
to prevent discrimination against the |
shares that is confined to the rate of
assessments upon moneyed capital in |
the hands of individual citizens. These |
institutions are not within the words,
or the contemplation of Congress /; but |
even II they were, the answer we have |
given 10 the deduction of these |
securities in the assessment of the prOp-
eFty OF individual eitizens-is- equally |
applicable TO them. The companies are |
taxed on their capital, and not on the |