The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1869-01-21

vides for such taxation. The first and
second Sections of said Act are substan'
tally the same as the act of 1868. me
I'D Section provides that Assessors snail
conform to such changes as may
hereafter be made by Congress IN the
laws with reference to National Banks;
and It further provides that "such shares
shall not be assessed ut greater rate
than is imposed by law on other mon
eyed capital in the hands OF lhdi'io""'s
The 4th Section, expressly repeats the
Act of 1866, and further provides Una.
ali A cts and parts of Acts INCONSISTENT
with the provisions of this Act are mere
by repealed" o,, tbo
Does this repeating clause repeal inc
former laws of this Stale WIN IcIelenIo
to Banks organized ny STATE "''"o'
ty: A.. .;,,o ,ftheA Act
. r. ia IAN Act to provide for taxing
NoI;ounI Banks and no other klhu.
The bodv Of the act has reference to no
other kind OF Banks than Ndt1onM
Ranks and the repeating clause repeats
n,,lv arts with reference to Natlonal
no1ks II seems to me that the repeal
;nu cl,use does not reach the former
acts nroyidng for the taxation or Banks
oryanized under state authority. Inc
rule is that the last act if Repayment or
plainly inconsistent repeats a prior az.
without any repeating words. It, may
he nertinently asked then, why ana not
the net of 1866 repeal the former legisia-
ton The answer is they were not IN
consistent. and if not inconsistent
na;ther is the act Of 1868 inconsistent
with the former legislation.
II is further insisted that the provision
:, the l1st Section of the act of Congress
nnproycd June Sd 1854, providing that
tha tax imposed shall not exceed the
rate imposed on Banks authorized un,
der the authority of the state Is repealeu
| V implication by the act of Congress
Npproved February 10th, 1865: The iat-
ter act is an act explanatory OF sa'o 4lS'
section. and in my opinion Is not heteS-
sarily Repayment to any OF It's pro'isIo''S.
Boti acts contain the restriction t'at
"the taxation shall not he greater tnah
is assessed on their moncyed capltai III
the hands of individual citizens OF the
state Ifthis restriction Is repughaht
to the other provision in the la'tef
statute why not when hoth s'eho TO-
yethcr in the act OF 1864.
Where there are no repeating WORDS
it Is the duty OF oult~ t''n WA
statutes as toavoih conflict. Repeats ny
imulication are not favored. Instead OF
thcsc two provisions being repu-naht
they are entirely harmonious and mean
simply. , n,,,,,
shall be taxed only in such states as
provide for taxing shares IN state
Banks.
I'd. That they shall only be taxed at inc
same rate as other money capital so that
discrimination cannot be made against
non resident shareholders.
1t therefore seems that there has been
no such additional legislation since the
decision Of the case of Hubbard VS.. Inc
Board of Supervisors as vii! authorize
the collection of this tax; i'll thus de-
termining this case am not insensiose
to the magnitude of the interests lnVo'E-
ed and to the further fact that the pub
lie mind in this State has been resting
in the belief that the shares OF all Ma
tional Banks in the state are taxable
but however desirable that they should
be taxed, it is not the province OF Courts
to enact laws, but to administer them a.
they find them. .,,
The demurrer to the petition VII! be
ovcr-ruled and the injunction mace per-
petual and the same entry viii he MADE
in the case of the Iowa City National
Bank.
JAS. II. RoTHKoCn, Judge.