The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-03-13


The Courts ..
SUPREME CouRT OF THE UNITED STATES
Opinions- The Nsv Tork toz easss-T Taxation Of
National Bank shares BY the Statss-Ths rate Of
a''e',msnt-Ihs people efths STATE Of NsU YOrk,
er rel. Duer, and TIE same, er rel Mead, vs. TIE
COmmi,siones Of Tdrss and A,sessmsnts Of tie
city Of Nsw York, aud Rups5er Of othsr edse,.-
The facts In these familiar from frequent
publication, and they are sufficiently rostated In the
BY the court, Mr.. Justice Nelson delivering the
opinion These cases write Of error to the Court
Of Appeals Of the State Of New York. The relator
In the arst Is an owner Of ono hundred and fftytwo
shares Of stock in the National Bank Of Commerce,
in New York. The capital Of tho bank consists Of
one hundred thousand shares Of one hundred dol
lars each, and which IL invested In United States
securities and exempt from State taxation. Tho
commissioners Of taxes In making their assessments,
valued the shares ut par, and imposed upon them
tho same rate taxes as was imposed upon other
personal property In this city. .."
The COMMISSIONER In their return to the oertio-
rd state that In estimating the value Of the shares
they made no deduction on account Of the invest
,uent Of the capital Of the bank in United States
"a rurities That In the valuation Of the personal
esta 70 Of individuals, these securities held and
owned by them were deducted, and the tax
ssssed on the balance and the like deductions
were made from the capital Of insurance oompa-
mics.
reiator in the Bank Of Commerce, was carried to
the Supreme Court OF the State, and after argu-
Inent was affirm cd, and thence to the Court Of APP
peals, where the Judgment Of the Supreme Court
was affirmed. The case now here on error, I'M
der the 25th section Of the Judiciary Act. The
drst objection taken to the legality Of the tar Is
the ground that tho Commissioner In the valuation
Of the shares refused 70 deduct the amount OF the
capital Of the bank invested in United States
rities and hence refused to regard this deduction
in the valuation of the shares. This question has
heretofore been oonsidred BY TINS court and after
full elaboration determined, IN the case Of Van
Allen vs.. The Assessors wallace, DIS, and need
not again be examined That case was one oil
large class Of cases, which were thoroughly argued
and received at that tine the most careful examin-
alton Of the court. The next, and perhaps the
only material question In the case, arises from
construction Of lcauie in the inst proyiso Of the
41st section Of the National Bank Act.
Aher referring to the taxation Of these shares BY
State authority, 1t provides, but not at greater
ratio than Is assessed upon other moneyed capital
the hands Of individual pitizens Of such States"
II Is argued that the assessment upon the shares Of
the reator Is at greatef rate than that OF the per-
sonal property Of individual citizens upon the
United States seeuritisi held and owned by them,
when at the same time the deduction was dis
allowed to him. Tho answer Is, that upon true
construction Of this clhus Of the act, the meaning
and intent Of the lawmakers were mat me rate Of
taxation of the shares should DO the same, or not
greater, than upon the mOneyed capital OF the in
diyidual citizen which subject liable to taxa
ton. That Is, no grefter proportion or per cent
age Of tar In the valuation Of the shares should DO
levied than upon other moneyed taxable capital In
tho hands OF the citiEsis' Ihis RUE seemsto DC n
edectuAl test TO pretent unjust discrimination
against shareholders a could we'll be devised. 1t
embraces class which Constitutes the body polite
of the State who make 70 laws and provide Tor Its
taxes. They cannot boyrestsr than the citizens
impose upon themselves It Is known that sound
policy in every well-rSulated and enlightened
State or Government certain descriptions Of prop
erty and also certain institutions such as churches
hospitals, academies cemeteries, and the like, are
exempt from taIationi but these exemptions have
never been regarded disturbing the rates Of tax
alton, even whore tho fundamental law had or.
dained 1t should DO unbrm.
Tho objection Is angular one Az the time
Congress enacted this ne rs iimination against
discrimination, ~ was Hsi known 70 INA. pouy tnAt
these securities In the hnds Of the citizens were
exempt from taxation. mad peen 50 held oy .ns
court, and. for abundant caution, had passed into
q law The argument folnded on the opJecuon, II
It proves anything, props that those seeurities
should have been taxed the hands OF indiViduals
to equalize the taxation aud since that Congress
by this clause In the ppvlso intshaed 70 suoyeo'
them, as thus situated, taxation and therefore
there was error in the dduction' This we do not
suppose is claimed Du II this is not the result Of
the argument, then the'ther conclusion from II Is
that Congress required th the commissioners snouid
deduct the securities an at the same time intend
cd the deduction II mad should operate as yio-
lAtiOn of the rate Of th' tax prescribed We dis
sent from both oonclusias and think souna con
structon Of the clause and one consistent with Its
wsr6S and intent, Is ago consistent with all the
acts Of Congress: on the nbJsct. .,.,. that, t.,
Tho commissioners, inheir return state that IN
fsurance companies creded under the laws o. tne
state, and doing businos In the city Of New York,
,ere respectively ASSESSED upon the balance Of
tbeis capital and surplu profits liable to taxation,
after deducting thsrefIm such part as Is invested
in United States securities; =,
Another objection ta1n Is that the taxation Oh
the shares OF the relApr is illegal on account Of
this deduction, II being departure rom me iats
Of assessment presoribsdn the clause areaoy etSa'
The answer is that this cause does NOT IesL 70 INC
test by which 10 prevent discrimination against tho
shares that Is confined P the rate oil assessments
upon mOneyed capital iTfhe hands Oh Individual
citizens.
These installations an not withln the Wotus VI