, 1873-02-15
Slate. Court 1nj,snotions Preventing tho
~, Collection, Of National Bank
Taxes Reversed by the
., ...: +: Supreme Court,
Review Of Decision by Judge Blodgett,
and OF Arguments Based on tho
Action of the Federal
-. Courts.
Tho Supreme Court Can Find No Authority for
:" the Ruling Of The United States Cir.
- cult Court.

Auk Eu8 CuN6GtlQu "a kAAtb Ol UAAh 0tuSA Wu3AQ
che banks do buainosa in this county, whose
stockholders reside In othor counties and States,
WAS followed by an avalanche Of petitions. for
auoh in3unctions both in tho State and United
States Courts, all OF which, or nearly 90, havo
been obtained; the relief thus granted, At tire
expense Of Chicago and Cook County, amount
ing already to the serious sum Of upwards of
half million dollars.
Tho Supreme, Court Of Illinois has Just
severscd the deoiaion Of The Circuit Court
Of Lsaalle' County, In tho cause, First
National Bank OF Mondota, Y. Daniel III.
Smith, Collector Of tho town Of Mendoza
and, In doing so,. has expressed ita nom
concurrence In tho decision Of the United States
Circuit Court in very decided tornH, that deoia-
Ion having been cited and relied on in the argyll
ments. We print auch portions Of the decision
OF. the, Supreme Court as refer to tho United
states Circuit Court:
+, Tho eaae In the United States Circuit Court, to
esn o e
u Tie City q Chicago Tho shares q tho there residents
sp;ss 1sss as!" f. ,s sa,'s
Pssons of meir owneEs It the dono!!s of the latter
md NEo therefore, not taxable there For aught that
S:;.aS y Fss saoa Il n; e III
nont of property Belonging 70 non-resdens, and nos
wthn a. ety. .esosd!ha to The stow ot tho ooat
hs adn.resident owners but certainly W. none %
ahs residant taxpsyers and did not destroy either
sh hass Z such iansh q
khe Federal Courts because the same position 10 taken
Sae deso and tho Is s.ae rce i asked for he rcs
didn't stocahodsls th.t was granted there A. y s
saen e sae 1sss @
5aelsasea M % sS'hss tas ps:ssa q sss Pssp
g L bat fois1 e. s %
Il this IL not always truo Of tangible personal prop
i
Mon q not Questioned It Ia undoubtedly tfuc that
@ cook donaty 70 fssy TX UPON ands or othss prop
'sr.y hsvng l1ed stus IN Lss.is Count ~ Ghs % &c 70
determining what law shall govern n Tie distribution
dscs..sd q whs + ~, + III
fs11ed 70, nd ot a. eounss for ths sppel!.n seoa
cannot b changed byaatute The LegIelsture by the
eeses 1851 certainty iateSasA 70 change II IN rssssd
Il ts1sston, n Se county xhero tho bank . uataa
hsj1sqaa.ge emglopGd T. broad enough 70 e'sss s
e. saansh 'aa se s power q
WHARF . the constitutional provision which psohi1s
The chahge7 We havo besn referred 70 none; and in
Il xioas 70 sonjsotalo tho ascison q
ths Federal Court naaumea and ,ta based upon tho
by sstte' om ths person of the owner undesirable.
Ut nd srs pointed to no pEo1alon OF tae Constitution
nd
tho: Legislature ehanaa r. r1. o. lha connaen
= Ssa Sat ss elas Rn
,caly dented by Court q such zespectabil!fyt We
esy ssss T.: T. s a
s a& & q. &c. 't s
&hN+Rn ft1n6 NJ II
poses = To-. be.- deemed to have no sstus,
sass ~: IL Rs Ht e. z hs
tns shoga r. r. p ssps51tisa 5 i; % q u
hs 1Saa.s e si s4 s Il
fAd courts oe till country, and has been sanctioned BY
@ IL II o
propolty not having ts actual nas within the city.
as ~f q To- n
Thornton, % Illinois, 500, ko severance Of tho stas
s& as ss
i 81 Boar Board ot I sapes75soss v SsSsapost, .
to resident q New Yori, and sent to - agent il
oontty The Property ~ S4s i mofe e1oss Il asso but
Is was By lie terma Of Tho Revenue law, severed
owner anu Att1GQg1 10 agent EtAt9
to the latter case that tho possession Of the agent
+ :, s bR5t 81 s S. &s,ss
trol o. sghts nd inteeats q tho et.ttas gut
arc not hovsyor, strictly speaking. ehals and + has
t. eko,<s n action; 81, il other. works, thoy
are naraly evidence cf property. They are,
=. .hsy sseoe S1s as. and daer from 1ss moSaSs
re : e :ss.; ] ssss9s
ehoss IN otio and what more to the purpose, Is
personal property" Ang : Ames en Corn, eth Ed,.
Bank V Nov York isallroad Company, Kern, es7,
IN py
Enuninants aud evidence Of the holders tlt1o to given
aa 6s aa S e. e.
tho aw 1t would seem to DO ornently proper for tho
Iegsslature to AZ thu s!tas Of property anomalous
however, not whehes the sot 81 1867 under which
these taxes we're osed, Was Just Or reasonable but
power. II II was not, then thete u no power In our
1gsaature to change any ARTIFICIAL rule of The common
vd for the same reason. Dut IN our opinion tho net
Of 1887 not only constitutional. but was also very
Ed ss r Of ass Pp
Of bank shares, when. from tho very nature OF tho
property eaght to b PLACED toE tas pnsPo.s of a1a
ance Of tho sps Of such ahare4 from the potson Of
their BY providing that they hould not bs taxed
except In ths Bate whore tho bank la established hut
apart from tbs it is really much moro reasonable to
AZ Tho u. Of shares at ne place where tho bunk 10
Or Wind up Ia affairs, than to separate, BY legislation
tangible Rezsonal property from tne person OF ita
y another tomorroy Its actual :' s' + able e con-
by tho owner whoreyor he may bo. But
not ~ With bunk aharee. 'The banking
must transact its business aud then wind up lis affairs
when ccaaos to exist, It Ia tho Tstee OF the stock
hoders who must como to its counter for their anna
dividends, and their share Of asaots final Quida-
ton IL debss are payable 1T 1ta counter, and its
cToda receivable there No trauafer Of atock can be
completed unlesa shown upon the books OF the bank
s Of Tho nsmea aud residence Of oil the stockhoders
must hs thsro kept. Tho property In 1ts own nature
noaaeaaes much mora OF the 1nmobity Of real estate
tnan my other personal property which can now
ne naturs Of tAia property whom ii xed tho sus of
re a1afea at Tue Locality Of tho bank We have seen
hat the exerotsa OF tho power by ths Legislature was
both proper and Legitimate. I've have shown why il