The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-05-04
Taxation Of National Hank s,ocL
JUDGE DICKINsoN's DISSENTING OPINION.

.... BELFAST, March, %, 1867
Sm:-The undersigned has the honor to sub
nit his answers to the interrogatories propos-
ed to the Justices OF. the Supreme Judicial
Court by the House of Representatives, Feb.
26, 1867. II ..s Ut@
Two inquiries are made: 90 H 20
1st. "Does the law of Congress creating Ma
tional Banks and banking associations require
that all taxes assigned by virtue Of State law
ON the shares of such banks, shall be applied to
the use and benefit of the city or town i'm which
the same is located, where shares in such banks
are owned in some other town or city in this
State?
I'd. Are the provisions contained in Sec
tions three and four of bill entitled 'an act
providing for the taxation of the property and
stock of national banks and banking associa-
tons in the State Of Maine Approved March,
1867, inconsistent with any existing law of
Congress- aaG
These questions limit the field of inquiry to
the requirements of the national banking law in
regard to the place entitled to the benefit of the
tax therein specified and to the consistency ofthe
enabling act with the laws of Congress. The
place of valuation and assessment is material
only so far as it throws light upon the matters
inquired of. r.s...-....r
In constituting statute, it should receive that
Interpretation which will give it effect, IL this
can be done consistently with its language ana
the fundamental law. The Legislature is the
judge of the policy and necessity of a statute,
and, within these limitations, it is the duty Of
the judiciary to uphold the judgme mt of the leg
isiature. When, however, statuteis of doubt
full import, or there is an equipoise of meaning,
it may receive that construction which best
comports with the public policy, convenience
or necessity. These principles ofinterpretation
should more especially be invoked where the
statute ola state relates to an act of Congress;
it being manifest duty, in such case, to en-
deavor to harmonize, and not to antagonize
state with national legislation. "a Estr-
Viewed in the light of these principles, in the
judgment of the undersigned, the law of Con-
gress is not of dOub btful or difficult interpreta-
ton. .r.7-. --...f ..--. s..a t.ir rs'T-
The forty section of the act of Congress
entitled "an act to provide national currency,
secured by pledge of United States bonds and
to provide for the circulation and redemption
LutrtOi3 dppIONco ouho -, AooxJ eoheoAho thC
following provisions, to wit: Provided that
nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent
all the shares in any OF the said associations,
held by any person or body corporate, from
being included in the valuation OF the person
al property of such person or corpora
ton in the assessment of taxes imposed by
or under State. authority, at the place where
such bank is located, and not elsewhere, but
not at greater rate than is assessed upon
other moneyed capital in the hands ofindivid-
ual citizens OF such state. Prouided further
that the tax so imposed under the laws of any
state upon the shares of any of the associations
authorized by this act, shall not exceed the
rate imposed upon the shares in any of the
banks organized under authority 0fthe State
where such association is located; Provided al
so, that nothing in this act shall exempt the
the real estate of associations from either State,
county OF municipal taxes, to the same extent,
according to its value, as other real estate is
taxed -c.s~t {--.ta,.6.a s.aI--.
The first act of Congress providing for the or
ganization of national banks, passed February
25, 1868, contained no provision concerning
State taxation, but the last section reserved
the right of Congress, at any time, to amend
alter or repeal the act; and the act Of 1864, is
re-enactment of the prior statute with several
material amendments, including q recognition
of the right of the several states to tax the
shares in such associations, as has been decid-
ed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
IfCongress had intended to require that all
taxes assessed on the shares of national banks
by State authority wherever owned shall en-
u,e to the benefit of the town or city where
the banks are located, it would have said SO in
plain and unambiguous language, and not
have left so grave question to be settled by
judicial construction. Such certainly is not
the obvious meaning of the statute (Sec. Az.
That section establishes q rule of valuation,
and limits the rate of taxation but it does not
designate the place to be, benefited by the
tax. This standard requiresN,) that the
| valuation shall be taken at the place where
the bank is located, and not elsewhered2),
that it shall not be higher than that on other
moneyed capital at that place; (3), that the
tax assessed thereon shall not exceed the rate
imposed upon the shares of State banks in that
locality. The obvious design of these provis-
ions is to protect this kind of property against
unequal taxation, by placing it on the same
footing as similar property at the place where
the banks are located, and by requiring that
the tax assessed on any of the shares of the
same bank shall not e1ceed, the tax on the
shares owned at that place; that the rate of
taxation on shares owned out of such places
shall uot exceed, though it may be less than
the rate there imposed; in other words, the
valuation at the place where the hank is locat-
ed is made the nldrimun standard of valua-
ton, and no higher tax can be imposed upon
any of the shares of national bank than is
there assessed on such valuation. e.
The words of limitation, "d,ad not eise,chere,''
protect the shareholders who do not reside in
the place where the bank is located from the
liability to double valuation. The previous
language provides for valuation at the place
where the bank is located; this clause mega
tives the idea of another valuation. ,,,...
Without this restriction there might be two
valuations in respect to shareholders residing
elsewhere, and a conflict of authority might
arise, as to which should govern. These words
are added to guard against such contingencies.
The meaning of both restrictive clauses, tax
en- together is the same as if the act had pro-
vided in terms, that the valuation, when taken,
shall be taken only at the place where the bank
is located f-tt-.w efFr fsaSFss&A
In the further requirements in regard to the
taxation of real estate (Sec. Az, and provision
that the books of the corporation shall be kept
open for the inspection, not only of the assess
ors of the town or city where the banks are To-
Gated, but generally, "to the officers authorized
to assess taxes under state authority" the ma
tional banking law assimilates itself to the gen.
eral theory of taxation. 1t makes no change in
the state law, requiring that the tax on per-
sonal property shall be applied to the benefit
Cd the place where the tax payer resides, but
leaves it optional with the state legislatures,
whether so to modify their legislation; as to
apply the tax of all the shareholders to the use
and benefit of the place where the bank is To-
Gated, as has been done by the legislature of
New York, or to preserve the analogy of the
existing law, as is done in the enabling act Of
this state, now under consideration, by giving
the place where the stockholders reside the
benefit of the tax ON their shares, and the place
where the bank is located that of the tax on
the shares Of persons residing out of the state.
The somewhat anomalous mode of requiring
I the valuation to be made in one place, and the
tax assessed to be applied to the benefit OF an
o. her is no argument against the construction
con tended for since the legislature mad ADOPT
"a :. h;s mode. and has an undoubted right to
A. unless prohibited by the act Of Congress.
T. Al.