The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-03-02
NATIONAL BANK STOCK.

NATIONAL BANK STOCK.
Court OF PennsyIVRnia---AreS Shares
OF stock in National Banks Liable
TO Taxation:
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
on Monday, at Philadelphia, decided
that the shares in national banks are
subject to State taxation in the hands
ofthe shareholders. Judge Agnew de-
livered the opinion of the Court; Chief
Justice Woodward dissented, stating
that he had considered the subject care
fully, and the more he examined it, the
more he was convinced that it was his
duty to declare his dissent. All tax
| laws should be strictly constructed
against the Government. Justice
Strong was not Present at the argu-
! ment. We annex the opinion of Mr..
| Justice Agnew:
William Mintzer VS.. the County of
Montgomery. Error to G. P, of Mont
gomery Counts.
Opinion by Agnew, ]. Are the shares
of stock in the National banks liable,
\ in the hands of the stockholders, to g
State tax? This is the question in the
stated case and it presents two points.
l. Is the taxation provided for in the
State law2
2. Is it forbidden by the act of Con-
gress.
The 32d section of the act of 29th of
April, 1874, provides for the taxation of
debts, accounts, stocks in incorporated
and unincorporated associations, and
public loans. The leading intent of the
law seems to be to reach money in eve
ry form of investment. With this guide
to Interpretation, the meaning of the
stock clause is plain i"Also, all shares
or stock in any bank, institution, or
company now or hereafter" incorporated
by, or in pursuance of, any law of this
Commonwealth, or of any other State
or government" 1t is true, that there
were no National banks when the act
! was passed, but its operation was made
prospective. Unless, therefore, we deny
that the United States are a govern
ment, we must say that corporations
created under an act of Congress are in
corpOrated in pursuance of the law of
| another government. Those existing
| under the laws of other States are pro-
vided for in terms, and the expression
\ "another government must be con-
| fined to foreign governments, if not APP
plicable TO that of the United States.
But this would be TO interpoIate the
word "foreignh contrary to the main
/ intent of the act. Capital would be
much more likely to run into National
banks erected in our midst than to flow
into foreign Institutions. Thus an i'm
mense amount of pecuniary capital in
the hands of the wealthy would escape
taxation if the term government" be
| forced out of its natural Specification.
Looking at the attempt to reach all
kinds ofmoney invest mentS, weShould
sadly miss the legislative mark by re-
stricting the subject of taxation to
shares in foreign institutions.
In the S3d section the Legislature
provided for the mode of collecting the
State tax upon stocks OF corporations
created by 9ny law of the Common
wealth, making the payment directly
from the corporation, into the treasury
| of the Commonwealth. This mode is
somewhat varied, and is now supplied
by the act ofl2th of April, 1853. But
this proceeding being confined to the
corporations of this State, and not
reaching those of other States or gov
ernments, the sd section of the act of
lS44 remains operative upon the shares
of stockholders in the institutions of
the latter class. Hence the decision in
Allegheny county Us. Shoenberger, l
Grant, 50, is not applicable to the stock
in our own State banks.
The general banking law of 1850 and
the supplement OF 1852, as to State bank
taxation, providing for the exemption
of the stock of the Estate banks from
taxation other than for State purposes,
1t was held in that case that such stock
was exempt from taxation for county
purposes. But that does not touch the
case before us. The shares ofthe banks
and other corporations of other States
and governments, remain liable to as
sessment under the SD section of the
act of 1874. 80
1t is equally clear that the shares in
National banks have been, by express
provision in the forty-frst section of the
National Banking law of Sd June, 1864,
let open to State taxation as part of
the personal estate of the holder pro-
Vlded, the rate of taxation does not ex-
coed that assessed upon other moneyed
capital in the hands of Individual -citi-
zens OF the State, and does not exceed
the rate imposed by the State upon her
own State banks. The language OF the
several provisions Of the act of Con-
gress (says Justice Nelson) is SO explic-
IT and positive as scarcely to call for
Judicial construction. The stated case
raises no question of excess IN the rate
OF assessments or of repugnance to the
provisions of the forty first section. 1t
Is, therefore unnecessary, with the de-
clsions of superior Court before us,
to say more on this branch OF the sub
ject.
The enabling act of 1864 applies only
to the banks whichIavailed themselves
OF It's provisions. There are several
State banks which did not, among them
the old Bank of Pittsburgh, which never
suspended specie payments, and vet re-
mains "A Stale bank. But even had all
the banks OF this Commonwealth gone
In under the National system, leaving
no State bank in existence, the law for
taxing State banks would still remain,
and would apply to any State bank
which might arise. The question is not
whether a subject of the tax may chance
to be found. But it is sufficient that
the law stands unrepeaIed, and we
know OF at least one remaining State
The Judgment is therefore affirmed.