The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1881-06-29
RAUM,S DECISION

w ASd1NGEON, ullC Sc--AOulullSSI
of Internal Revenue, Raum gave a decision
to-day in the Bank of Montreal case. 1t
seems that an examination of the books of
the bank at Chicago discloses the fact that
during the past nine years full returns for
taxation have not been made of money
belonging to the bank and employed in the
business of banking at its Chicago estab
lishment Ranm, in his decisions says:
In my opinion the law is well settled
that the Bank of Montreal being foreign
corporation cannot establish branch in
Illinois by Virtue of the authority CON
ferred III its charter. This author
ity can be conferred only by the lows
of that state. Such law has not
been cited and is not believed
to exist Bontelle has stated in his argu-
ment that the business of the bank in Chi
cago is transacted in the name of the Bank
of Montreal, and that suits in respect to
such business are brought in the name of
said bank. Under the foregoing statement
of law and facts, / am of the opinion that
the provision of the law cited in regard to
branch banks and the allotment of capital
is not applicable to this case The legisla-
ture of Illinois probably possesses the con
stitutional power of restricting by law the
exercise of powers of banking by foreign
corporations in said state This, however,
has not been done. The bank of Montreal
is therefore lawfully engaged in the busi-
ness of banking in its own name in Chica-
go. 1t has brought portion Of its fund
within the jurisdiction of the laws of
the state and the United States and
with said funds has engaged in the bus
mess of banking. 1t is under protection of
those laws and subject to their pro
visions in respect to taxation. The
laws of the United States have been
framed with the view of leyying a uni
form tax upon the business Of banking.
Certain exceptions have been provided
for capital invested in United States bonds
and in respect to the deposit 81 certain
classes of savings banks, but no exemption
has been printed for the funds of foreign
banks employed in the business Of banking
! in this country. | regard it as contrary to
sound public policy and prejudicial to the
interests of the United States to exempt
from taxation the funds of foreign banks
which are employed in the business of
banking in this country in competition with
domestic banks, whose capital is subject to
taxation The rule in taxing domestic
banks is to assess the chartered capital
This rule cannot Justly be applied to the
Bank of Montreal for the reason that its
! s., 600 900 of capital has not been brought
within the Jurisdiction Of the laws of the
| United States. A fair and just rule would
seem to be to tax the amount of money
brought within the jurisdiction Of the Uni
| ted States and used in the business OF
banking, month by month during each
! semi annual tax period. In concluding his
! opinion General Raum says: For the
months of December, 1880, January, Feb
ruary. March, April and May 1881, said
| the bank returned for taxation S6OO.OOO OF
| the capital which it actually employed in
| the business of banking, and other OF It's
monies. (not including deposits,) the sum
| OF $3.50, 964. 60, for which it made no re
| turns for taxation. 1t seems inconsistent
with the true Interpretation OF sections
| . .4O7 and 3.408, which were enacted for
/ the purpose of raising revenue, to suppose
that it was the intention OF Congress
| that so extraordinary an exemption
should be granted as appears to have
| been taken by the bank i'll the case just CT
/ ted. Such construction OF sa1d section
would operate as a serious discrimination
| in favor of foreign banks doing business
in this country, which couid not nave DeeH
intended bv the law making power | am
therefore of the opinion that the Bank OF
Montreal is liable to taxation as capital OIL
ALI it's money brought within the Jurisdlc
tion of the United States and used by II al
! Chicapo in the business OF banking.
First Comptroller Lawrence has given q
decision to-day in which he maintains tha
the act of Feb %, 1875, as to fees OF mar
shals and clerks, does not change the rat'
or mode of computing on mileage on WritS
served by marshals, and that 1t prohlolt'
constructive mileage on writs transmitted
to and served by deputies and mileage 10
travel not necessarily performed IN,
opinion furthur maintaing that by force q
section 877, Revised Statutes subpenae
for witnesses who are required to attenl
anv term of circuit or district court OF
tbe mari of the United States, should re
ouire them to attend to testify general!
on behalf of the United States, and unde
such subpoena they are required d0d to testh eonT
rs the case NAV be, Clerks of courts ar
required re by law to insert in one writ tn tn
names of all such witnesses who b at s,,h tn
time of issuing warrants are to pc SUP
nmnad and who reside in one LOCALITY OF Il
: The same direction from the place Wher
writ is returnable. Marshals are entitled