New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-11-28
rec is ordered for the complainant.
COMMENTS ON THE RESULT.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Andrews mas haO
charge for the city of the proceedings in the SUI
preme Court begun by the banks of New-York to
prevent the collection of this years taxes. TRIB
UNE reporter asked Mr.. Andrews yesterday for
his opinion as to the probable effect
Of the decision of Judge Wallace in
the similar proceedings instituted by the Albany
bank Mr. Andrews said that he had not read the
opinion and only judged of its effect and terms from
the reports in the morning papers. If the decision
went so far as the reports seemed to indicate, Mr.
Andrews thought it wOud dispose of tire whole
question in the lower courts, and the only thing
left to do would be to take APPEAL to the United
States Supreme Court. Even if the General Term
of the Supreme Court of this county. which now
had the matter under consideration, sho1d
decide in favor of the city; 1t probably
would not help matters much the banks
would continue actions IN the Inlted states
Circuit Court and by injunctlOns would restrain the
collection of the taxes. In the event of the banks
of the city carrying their into the United states
Courts Mr.. Andrews said that the matter would he
brought before the United States athe
earliest poss bic time The amount of taxes involved
by the litigation is about 81 100000 1t only al
1cts the for tins wear, ihe taxes for future
wears are regulated by the law passed last sDTlng.
BY bank officers the announcement of the decision
was received with great composure. 1t was not IN
expected. however, ana DO action beyond mat
already taken some months ago after The decision OF
the United States supreme Court Is proposed at
present by the associated banks. No meet
ing was held yesterday, but bank officers meet
ING on the street CONGRATULATED each other
heartily on the issue of the long contest The chair
man of the Tax Committee of the Clearing House
sent out circular letter on Friday confirming the
news of thu decision, and counsel later In the day
filed the complaint OF the National Bank of Com
merce in the United States Court. President VAIL
of tins bank. SAID yesterday that he could add moth
ing to what had been SAID already on tho ect the
matter was in the hands of counsel and therefore he
took no present interest in it. William A. Camp.
MANAGER Of the Clearing House, SAID that 10 con-
cered action bad been taken by the banks since
q lrput inU nt 10 ne II tow n
which lie had not seen. he believed the banks
were of some advantageltOthe community, notwIths
standing the prevalent opinion that they were
merely objects or oppression. Excessive taxation
of banking capital he considered great error on
the part Of the people
George :. COe. president of the American Ex-
change National Bank who is also chairman of the
Tax Committee of the associated banks, declared
that the decision inst and sensible il was what
was to be expected alter the decision of the United
States supreme Court IN inc spring OF the present
year. Mr. Coe did not know whether an appeal to
that Conrt would be taken nc5 IN the pres;
the question should be carried there, 10 re-
versal of the present decision would be
gained. Taxation of bank shares had been
cessive and unjust. and result of this of
| oppression had been 10 reduce largely the amount
of banking capital. Since 1873 this reduction in
! the banking capital of New-lork City had been
nearly $3O000.000 " If the same conditions bad
existed during the panic Of 1871 MT;
gone down together. They now are like a pyramid
standing Its apex, and IN great commissions il is
necessary that they should be firm on a "oad base"
In regard TO the effect of the decision upon the
payments OF taxes made IN former years bank
officers expressed no opinion. They said that
that question was one 10 be settled only by the courts
The recovery of the money already paid would be
very difficult. The banks were willing TO bear
their share of the pubic burdens, but justice TO
their shareholders required that they should not
submit to n wrongful tax. II was believed gem
orally that the effect Of tho litigation would be the
creation of some uniform system OF taxing National
bank capital The recommendation of tine Con-
trolier of the Currency that Congress should pass
law fixing the maximum rate of taxation by State
authorities on National banks was praised
equitable and timely.
HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION.
The history Of the litigation under the Act of
1866 extends ever nearly the entire period since
its passage. Tie National Banking law contained
a provision that taxation by any State on the
shares of banks within it should not be at
greater rate than was assessed on other
money capital in the hands of citizens
of the State. In the face of these provisions how
ever. the Legislature OF tins State in 1866 passed
the act from which the trouble has arisen. Under
il. terms the Court of Appeals of this state held that
taxes could b. levied uDOn bank shares without any
deductions for debts On appeal to the United
States Supreme Court, IN the suit of the National
Exchange Bank Of Albany, II was there held that
this State hai no ught TO tax bank-slares contrary
10 the pr visions OF the National Banking act that
State had the night to pass laws Tor the taxation Of
bank shares but, If so taxed. deductions mus, To-
made for debts, IN the case of private indvdu-
ais The tax asse.sors as between these conflicting
opinions of the Cont Of Appeals and the United !
states Supreme Court, decided to levy the tax
upon the banks before, dcductlug the
debts from the assessments IN order to meet, they
claimed the objections of the Supr. ne Court.
But the National Exchange Bank resisted this !
levy ~ II did the others. IL cOnleudcd that the
United States Supreme Court had ser aside the prcy
ous cve9 because the act of SG6. under which they
were assessed y0id and annuity and if void no
assessment could be levied under IL at all The dr.
rcctoTs insisted therefore. that until law was
passed meeting the 0hJe lions which condemned !
The other the shares could not be taxed at all. |
ben the law of $50 was passed they had an added
argument n tie fact mat the Legislature IN passing
10 had confessed their position 10 he the correct one.
This law of 1850 differed from the law Of S6G only
in providing that IN the assessment of bank shares
each stakeholder shOud bee allowed all tine deduc-
value of other taxable personal property owned by |
individual citizens OF tins state" OF course the |
litigation before judge Wallace could not ue |
affected by the law Of 1880 except as II showed |
that the LEGISLATURE ackuOV edged that the law of
$3.50 wac not valid for thc enforcement OF the taxa
tons under II, by passing another law which should
take It's place.
WHEN he matter came up for the consideration of |
the Tax Commissioners Of this city last summer, |
they found that they had to make the assessment |
under the act of 500 else collect no tax for $50
upon bau shares at all the new law not being passed
in time affect the assessment for TINS year. Under
the advice OF Corporation Counsel Whitney the |
sessments were made. deducuug from the value of |
the shares tho amount OF debts. The sIXtY-tYe |
banks of this city affected by these assessments at
once instituted CcrtOTa1 proceedings IN the Supreme
Court of the County for review of the action of |
the commissioners. The proceedings were insti- |
tuted both al Special and at General Term but the
main questions are now awaiting decision before the
latter tribunal