Daily Davenport Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1864-1874, 1869-01-14

k0shrock. January 11th 1890.
NesEs j. MoRskxAN
aud othsrs
W
A. c. YouSKiN and JOHNSON CorsrY,
others District Court
and January Term 1869
Willis Dowss st al
vs. Iowa City.
The Same.
STATEMENT OF CASE.
IN, plaintiffs calm tia. they arc the
owners Of seven hundred and fifty shares
Of one hundred dollars each, Of the stock
Of the First National Bank Of lows CITY.
Ths, they were the owners and holders Of
sad shares or sock OF the lst day Of
January 1863. That the Assessors of Iowa
City, and the Assessors Of Iowa City Town
ship, claiming that sail shsres of stock
were taxable for the year 1868, for STATE.
County, G. iiy School ard other purpcsss,ss
ssssed aut placed SAID shares on tho asses>
sment books for the year 1865. That the
Board Of Supervisors Of johnson County,
levied the ordinary State, County Schesl
aad other taxes for the rear 1868, ION said
shares, and that the City Cohnci, levied
the municipal taxes, for the year 1858, Of
said shares, and that the defendant, You.
nkin, being the Treasurer Of said county 10
about to proceed TO collect said taxes on
said shares. Plaintiffs claim that said tax
es are illegal VA. said shares Of stock AZ
not liable 70 taxation, and ask 5that the
defendants be snjoiusd from collecting the
same.
The defendants demur to the petition
for tbs reason tina. it does not, contain
facts sufficient to constitute . cause Of ec-
ton.
EDxoSDs 4 RANSOM, l. JouN WILLIAMS
CLARK j. HADDocK for for Defendants
the Banks.
OPINION.
Tie Supreme Court Of this State in the
case Of Hubbard ys. The Board of Super
visors OF Sohnson County, 53rd Iowa l5o
determined that Chapter los, Laws Of 1865.
providing for the taxation Of shares in Ma.
tional Banks, was unauthorized and invalid,
for the reason that the laws of this State
din not provide for the taxation Of the
thares in the banks organized under The
authority OF this State, but only Of the
Capital Of such Banks.
The questiod then to b. determined ia
this case, ia, has there been any legislation
by the Legislature Of this State or by Con-
gross. since the decision OF the case OF
Hubbard, W Tne Boar d OF Supervisors, pro-
vidlng for the taxation Of the shares OF
stock in National Banks.
II is claimed by the defendants that
ohapter l53 Lave Of 1868 being "an act to
frovlde lor ths taxation Of the SHARES Il |
National Banks" by its terms proves for
such taxation. TIE FIAt aud second
sections ofsaid A.. Of 1853 The sid Sec
ION provides that Assessors shall conform
TO such changes as may hereafter bs made
by Congress n the laws with reference to |
National Banks; and it further provides
that such shares shall not be assessed at q |
greater rate than is imposed by law on
other moneyed capital IN the hands Of in
dlviduals in this Staate.'
The i.h Section, expressly repsals the
Act of 1866, and further provides "that oil
Acts aud parts Of Acts Inconsistent with
ptaled.'
Dess this rspeAling clause repeal the
former laws Of this State with reference to |
Banks organized by State authority!
| have given the title ofthe Act.
1t is an Act to provide for taxing Ea-
tional Banks and no other kind. The
bsdy o! tho act has reference to no other
kind OF banks than National Banks, and
the repeating clause repeas only acts with
| reference to National Banks. 1t seems to
me that the repeating clause does net
Tesch the farney acts providing for tho tax
| alton OF banks er.auiz.d under State au
thority. The erule is tha. the last act, il
repugnsns OF plainly consistent, repeats
. prior act without any repeating worda
|, may be pertinen,iy asked, then, why did
| the act OF 1866 repeal the former legisla.
tions! The answer is, they are not incon>
| sistent, neither is the act Of 1865 incoIsit
| tent with former legislation.
l. is further insisted that the provision
| in the 4lst section Of the act of Congress,
approved June Sd, 1854, providing thst
the tax imposed sheil not exceed the rate
| imposed on Banks authorized under the
authority of the State, is repealed by i'm
! pliea,ion by the act Of Congress approved
February 10Th, 1868. The latter act ia an
act explanatory of said 4lst section, aid, in
my opinion, is not necessarily repugnantt TO
any Of its provisions. Both acts contain
the restriction that "ths taxation shall net
be greater than is assessed on other money
ed capital in the hands Of individual c,ti>
sens OF the State" IL this restriction is
repugnant to the other provision in the
latter statute, why not when both stand
together in the act Of 1864
| Where there ars no repeating words il is
the duty Of Courts to so coustrue Statutes
as to avoid conflict. Repeats BY implica-
ton are not favored. Instead Of these two
provisions tsing repugnant they are entire
ly harmonious and mean simply:
1st. That shares in National Banks shall
be taxed only in such States a. provide for
taxing shares in State Banks.
ID. That they shall only be taxed at the
same rate a. other msnsy capital 20 that
discrimination cannot be made against non
resident shareholders.
1t therefore seems that there has been no
such additional legislation since the deci-
sion Of the case Of Hubbard rs. the Board
Of Supervisors A. will authorizs the eollec
ton Of this tax in thus determining this
case am not ineensibls 70 the magnitude
of the interests involved, and to the fur>
thsr fact that the public mind in this State
has been resting in the belief that the shares
Of all National Banks in the State are taxa
bic, but however desirable that they should
be taxed, il is not the province Of Courts to
enact laws, but to administer them 50 they
find them.
The demurrer to the petition will be over.
ruled and the Injunction made perpetual
and the same entry will pc made in the
case OF tbs Iswa City National Bank.
Jas. H. RornRocK, Judge.