The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-07-01
TAX IS ILLEGAL.
- Hshford Says the State
- Tax National Banks
AssoI County eNJo'sEo.
- - Assasss ss'sss cs.osssasa
!. n.hSe-Rebbss KsssssseA
vspo YsssAsn.

~.~.1sfs, Il National banks In this
.s.~xs~ esslss Of 1891 mss practically
- 1eciassd, Illegal By Judge hsn'ord.
- te6ureemsns Of the law by the county
ndmvosirR - collect the TAI Tor 1871
~ r11ieted rs the Boston Nssiona bsnk,
~ essft,e National hank. the Puget
- Nssieasl baak sid The Sasionsl
- a Co,hmsros, On the around fhat
~ ~ dissylminstss between nassooaa
- skete or : elvats hanks In the matter o.
: Judge Hsnfcrd granted .
noorary iajunction restraining the coz
lueios OF thA taxes pending finAi hesT-
~ a the ca&e, and Prosecuting Attorney
6nIe, flied ssdsmurrsr 20 the bal OF com.
sS.Int ON chs ground thss IL did not set
Rh Sufficient grounds Tor sceion. In the
wument he Ard on the demurrer, In which
ls.son, Carr & Preston appeared for the
100 and Prosecuting Attorney Miller
~ - counsr. the Law applicable 20 the
- - covered. and Judge Hanford's
a~61n overriding the demurrer fore
5000 victory for the banks II they
| - mfDe1Dt.ste the allegations - TO facts
= 80 I'LL; OF complaint. The county
| eSfptv de Al answer 70 the complaint
- - eass will come 20 issue on the
- judy. Hanford's opinion 10 - fol-
6sepA snses Circuit Court. District Of WISH.
80. xofshsss Division.
- SCUM: National Bank, OF Seattle. ~
10y u King O. al
E1ssjty: xsss BY the Puget sound Medicinal
- II Sssfsse. ios sa Injunction 70 prevent
sosd psAcssdsnxs 70 enfoscs paymsos By
1tnok. u sssss aud county taxes foe the $sas
go ~ sspatai stock. Dsmurrss 70 hli:
kvis1.
11u1. district Judge:
= go h. wing been argued and suhmtttsd
% demurrer TO the bill Of complaint. the
= pos cslied upon ss this time, % give IN
- upoa 81 questions which have bssn de-
- DO raofs than decide - 20 the sum
- - the ;tsii OF complaint 70 support de-
~ az psx, az che relief prayed for. II the
nonls she. COZ shalt Be confessed OF proven.
- III does sx plsc!sly cot forth the fact and
- noeesr 81 Discrimination against share
M11u u nstiynsi hank stock. In the valuation
1Dt lot ass 'sAEasnt - compsfvd with tns -
uos1 fos Che same year. OF other mouisd
NSnh u the. hands OF Individual cisissus OF
- an1e. ancs invssssd In this state % - 70
j ~ peods pom the use thereof - money.
I ~ rat Of local governments 70 tax national
! III ssoek y Given by section s.2ts Y. q X. g..
~ mn ssA,sicsion against such diecstmtnar
1mo tAis biis charges. II the facts are - a.
-. ~ 1iar&xasd Of the Law In this particu-
= q The pastos the Assessor ana squaiising
l1nees q ~ county and state renders the tar
kNtsd spsa ss:ioaai baak stock illegal. and the
ouyleinsas h ,sntitlsd 70 protection - prayed
People ~ Weaver, 100 q. d. so; Psison N
bsns. lSl q. T.. i<3; Cummings " Bank. III,
~. a amt A.
~ the ssne tis complainant has undsStak On
s spsovs shsss !sess u conirovsrted. and oppo..
haisy fce dsshs % should be Afforded. The
6aslsues Of ise argument In support OF the
lmsesss h sknt the bill 10 untrue and that
~ II evofoasos nave not been anticipated
- 6eaisd. Fas passing upon the demurrer
Aoeeast y be.ssd to treat the bill - bsing
E ~ esd The :mattss ia avoidance 20 merit a.
tnnsa aseds o. b. set forth In ap answef.
~ 6ecis!"n Of the supreme court Of the
eu1o1 o>esss. ki,ish was cited - sustainiug
! 0wltdiiy q Che tax. are dtstineuishsbis from
/ - ~ ID IL present state by the TACT that In
- ~ nsrSs were fully presented, sy the
4 Don0lago Of 18th sides and testimony, or BY
i U9o9 statsmSfsts Of the fscts. IL 10 true that
/ - HI II Tia case doss not pasticuiasisa
- lissfimints:oas compiainsd Of, o. specify
ooces with Sny greater minntensos than the
u 10 the cass.ot the Firss National Bank Of
nuoesa ". Csnuty OF Chehalis, In which the
HDpns court II this stats aslirmed . judgment
j \ hsos Of ths defendant upon demurrer "a
zOHIL but Is In also true that the bill before
N fully as.dcnnite aud specific In its state
ums Y; the fscss constituting discsiminssion
49, hill In shs case Of Boyer w. Boysr. swpra,
NJ Which the srs,tcme court OF the United States
~ that IN ~: sscr should have been required.
\ - Nvessed the docislon OF the supreme court
bansyivpns,. sustaining demurrer 70 the
Nnl
epnufrer ovesruied.
The threatened enforcement of the same
~ by the cry Was also resisted by the
ans banks sn a similar action begun q
~ week. aga. and Judge Hsnford also
esnsed a temporary injunction yesterday
9ainss the esty pending the final deter.
osnatien of The suit. As practically the
me auestions are involved i'm the two
msis the resct of the second action is tore
Aatowed by thar in the case against shs
ennsy.
As the taxs,s IN law Was amended by tho
-, lcgis.atur~. only the assessments fol
- years ashland ls92 are affected. Inas
nsch ~ the Aresens law provides for tn.
hsation Of mortgages. IL ~ not likely thai
- banks vii: resist its enforcement
- --~------~-~----s-=--~