The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1889-03-07
BANK STOCKS.
SHALL. TREY Re TANED At PAR OR
MARKET VALUE.
TIE QUESTION DIsCUSSEFD BIZ
FORE FINANCE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE DrCisiON HELD II
Nf~ikNI
Meeting 81 the Committee on streets
Inforfnnato hooiius Aitay-
.Sourt Proceedings aud
rfhfr CitN NsNs

The Committee on Finance met last
pighi "a ..45 o'clock and considered the
ordinance. which WAS referred 90 them
At fhc iasf mccfinrol the Common Conn
eli. conceruinr fhc taxation Of bank
stocks accord ne o. their market value
instead of ihc'i par value.
The following gentlemen representing
different banks oi the city were present
Nessrs james Is. Pace Of the Plsnior-
Bank. and Mann g. Qusrles, cashier
Colonel Palmer. president Of the City
Bank. Nr Charles L. Williams, counsel
OF First National and Union Banks, and
Mr.. isaac Davenport
They au agreed in saying that IL the
stocks OF thc bank. were taxed at their
market vsluc. they could not invest IN
civ bonds end of course This would
damage the hnancial condition Of the
city. ...-oo...
Sir Davenport saia ne had $4,000 in
vested I'm CITY bonds. bat II this Ordi-
nance was passed bee could no longer m
ye.i in ihcsc bonds. ass he received no
per cc1t. ON them, aud did so simply iOI
az accommodation 90 the city
Mr. William. and Colonel Palmer also
rnsde statements 90 the same effect
sfr g. Il. Meredith the City Attorney
va. present. representing the ciiys IN
terest lie very ably argued the cues
,ion saving that they should be no
change ID the ordinance because some
OF the banks had paid no taxes
claiming exemption because OF the
market value OF The shares
thatit was deemed necessary IN order To-
prevent such claims of exemption 10 TAX
The shares belonging 10 the dnieienl
holders thereof instead Of taxing the
csuitel stock of the bank that by tax
inc the shares instead Of the capital took
the hnnk would De- prevented from claim
in- "a. exemption sO much of iis capital
as might DO invested In United states
bnugs nnl similar classes OF securities.
The ordinance be said. properly does
not tax the bankers 40 al. but taxes the
shares of stock. which is the property OF
tbe individual holder and merely re-.
ouircs tie bank 90 collect the tax, and
thereby save the city the trouble
Of looking 10 each Individual
holder. Bv such course
the city Is not burdencd IN getting taxes
ON the large number oi shares that she
could not otherwise resch. that from the
aggregate value from Tho entire number
of stocks mo- deduction should be allowed,
no matter in what property or security
The capital Of The bank might De invest
Ell. that sOfar AS the bank is concerned
no greater burden was placed upon 10 IN
the way OF taxation tiau would be the
ca.e u ne city should require each
holder ~ stock t0 return 10 tie OOmmis-
s.nnerthe number of shares he might
hold and have The same listed for taxa
lion Should the city pursue The latter
cour-e n0 holder of stock, when
he should State 10 The Comms-
sloner the number OF shares hc might
hold. would Dee expected 20 have de-
Quoted from tie value OF his stock any
proportion 0f tle shares of the nOn-taN-
BE securities that the bank might hold,
That a- the individual holder
would be allowed 20 make no
such deduction neither should the
bank be- allowed SO 10 do. because
under the proposed ordinance II Is
still the individual holder, and not the
bank. which IS taxed The only bearing
that The ordinance has upon the bank IL
10 REQUIRE IL Go bee collected from the in
diyidual holder Of their taxes, and under
the ordinance the bank pays no tax. lie
also stated thsi the position contended
for. that the ordinance authorizes indi-
yidual taxation. yas untenable
After Mr Meredith had finished The
committee took the matter in idera-
lion. but declined 90 allow their decision
10 be published until other measures per-
tanning 10 This was determined upon.