Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-04-06
IMPORTANT DECISION ON THE
TAXING OF RANKS

We ACdlA nun the I4eHtpHtS hpptub
that Chancellor Morgan Of that city
has delivered an opinion in the several
bank tax cases which have been under
advisement for some time past. We
extract from the ChancellOr's opinion
the following:
First-It is said that the city Of
Memphis has no power to issue distress
warrants for the collection of its taxes.
There is some doubt as to whether there
is any specific act Of the Legislature
now Unrepealed which authorizes
directly the Insurance Of warrants. In
a multiplicity of legislation this power,
which once existed by special law, may
have been repealed or omitted. How
ever that may be, the power exists by
ordinance, and such authority was re-
cognized by the Supreme Court in II
Humphreys, 249, and also by the court
Is Humphreys) speaks of such a war
rant as an immemorial right. We
think the city has the power to issue
distress warrants for It's taxes.
Second-The next question that
arises Is as to the power to levy taxes
upon the shares Of nOn-Tesidents.
There can be no question but that the
State can, under the national banking
law, collect taxes upon shares Of ma
tiOnal banks when tire shareholder lives
IN the State, but we do not think that
the city can tax non-residents upon
their shares either in national or State
banks unless so provided in their char
tiers. We think the 9 Yerger case set
ties this question upon principle. Stock,
IN accordance with all the authorities,
Is IN thenature of a chose IN action and
can have Nc locality; it must therefore of
necessity follow theperson of the owner
The court says 1t is not money, the
money IN the bank is the property of
the institution, and to the ownership
of which the stakeholder has no claim;
his right Is to receive the dividends
The State can tax tangible and visible
property within its jurisdiction no
matter where the owner may reside
But as to stocks, bonds, etc, belonging
to nOn-residents, the State has no ju-
TlsdictiOn to tax. When there Is juris-
dlctiOn neither as to person or property
the imposition of a tax would be ultra
Uires and void. The case in Z Heiskel
is not in conflict with this view.
The Chancellor proceeding with his
decision says Tbesec cases turn main
ly upon a construction Of the eighty
first section of the revenue act of
1873" That section reads
"That Municipal corporations within
the State shall not levy a tax upon
money capital loaned or upon money
vested in bankruptcy, or IN any species
of manufacturing or mining or upon
any other corporation exceeding tne
amount Of tax levied by the State upon
such capital"
This the Chancellor holds to be IN.
constitutional formany reasons Those
of general bearing and interest are ex-
pressed thus
The Constitution, article ,, section
l., saysnO bill shall become a law that
embraces more than one subject mat
ter, that subject to be expressed IN the
title Of the bill. The bill that en-
braces this section was introduced, IN
directly, for revenue purposes for State
and county, and not for municipal pur-
poses. Municipal corporations are not
mentioned IN the title-only State and
county. This is fatal under the Con-
stitutIou. This Is 4 salutaTy provision
OF our Constitution, for 1t prevents that
species Of secret legislation that has
been SO injurious to the State. Neither
the public nor the Legislature can be
put upon notice, when the title con-
tains one subject and the body Of the
bill another. As a repeating, re-
visory or amendatory act, section
81 must also fan uuder the latter
clause Of article ,, section i, because
the act Of which it Is a part does
not, IN its'captlon CT otherwise" recite
the title or substance Of a law or laws
as to municipal corporations which It
repeats, TevIses or amends. 1t Is said,
however, that this part Of the c5nstitu-
ton does not apply to repeats and
amendments by Implication. Under
such a rule Of construction as that it
Is difficult ID see what the cOnstitu-
tional provision Is worth, since 1t may
be 50 easily evaded. But repeaIs and
amendments by implication are never
favored, and since 1T Is a principle Of
very extensive operation that statutes
Of a general nature co not repeal by
implication charters and special acts
passed for the benefit of particular
manufacturer see Dillon, section "a,
there Is a feature about this section 81
that We Onght not to pass unnoticed.
By It's location IN the act It follows the
general repeating clause which almost
inVariab y concludes all acts Of the leg
evidently showing that it was
a section, the matter Of which was an
This itself would
the wisdom Of the constitu-
ton which requires the subject Of an
act to be embraced IN its title.
Judge G. W. Heisken, Of the First
Circuit Court Of Memphis, says Of the
opinion Of Chancellor Morgan:
l agree with the conclusions reached
n this opinion, but not as to the rea-
soning as to some Of the points de-
,ided. ! will further examine the
question as to the right Of taxing non
'esident stockholders IN national banks
before announcing my conclusion as TO
O. L L