The record-union., 1898-12-24

sessments made for the purpose of State
taxation; but the Legislature of each
State may determine ana direct the man.
her and place of taxing all the shares OF
National Banking Associations located
within the State, subject only to the two
restrictions, that the taxation shan not oe
at a greater rate than is assessed upon
ether moneyed capital in the hands OF in
dividual citizens of such State etc. 1t
was also provided that shares owned by
non-residents should be taxed in the city
or town where the bank is located, and
not otherwise. The original Act required
a list of shareholders to be kept open at
the bank, during business hours, for the
inspection of State officers ana no other
visitcrial power was allowed.
The Attorney General does not deny
that national bank is fiscal agent of
the United States. created by II as
means of exercising its powers. Nor
does he apparently question the power of
Congress to limit or deny the right OF
the State to tax its property. but he con-
tends. that although the State cannot tax
tax the property of its agents, al least
where there is no express inhibition by
Congress, and that taxation of the per-
sonal property of bank, as other like
property in the State IS taxed, is not
prohibited either expressly or impliediy
by the Act of Congress.
the Supreme Court of the United States
are final, and accordingly counsel have
most elaborately considered numerous
cases decided by that tribunal / think
counsel really disagree, however, only on
one point, viz: whether taxation of such
property is prohibited by the Act of Con-
Appellant states his contention as fol-
lows: AN important question raised
here, is, whether the inherent right rests
in q State to tax the property of a Fed
eral corporatin, unless prohibited by
Congress, or whether its right to tax the
Pr9neT5y From tbe Of 5eTa SHeh s derived
The respondent submits two PROPOSE
tons: |, Congress has the, power, and 2,
has h, limited the power Of the state to tax
course, that it has denied to the States
the right to tax any property OF national
banks except their real estate; although
permitting the taxation of the shares 10
the shareholders.
Since. therefore. respondent bases its
that Congress has prohibited the tax. it is
only important as matter OF argument
to determine whether the State may tax
such property unless forbidden by Con-
gress, or whether it derives its power to
tax from the permission given by Con-
gress.
1t is an important consideration in re-
gard to this question, that Congress has
expressly provided for the taxation of the
shares of the bank to the shareholders.
and has directed the mode in which this
clared by the Supreme Court of the Unit
ed States, that by this provision Congress
from which it could properly derive a
taxed, and it is hornbook law that the
stock represents the value of all the as
sets of the bank. 1t has been SO expressly
Enrke, s. Cal. 594 s spring valley Water
Francisco vs.. Frey, So Cal, 470) It is as
snmed in San Allen VS.. Assessors. 3 Wall,
2a3 also in People VS.; Weaver. 100 U. S,
tion was intended only ITO protect the
bank from ANYTHING beyond an equal
share of the public burdens"
obvious. Under our decisions we cannot
deny that when the caeital stool, is as
National Banks the value of the shares
was was in part made up of Z. S, bonds in
which portion Of the capital must be in
vested. The bonds are not subject to
State taxation. yet no reduction is re-
quired from the assessment for the in
vestment in tho bonds. So the real estate
may be assessed as we'll as the stock.
but the value of the shares IS made up
in part by the real estate. The trouble is,
shareholders the stock. but on the other
hand. we assess to the CORPORATION all
its, assets. which We have held gives the
value to the stock Under our methods
of classification. made for the purpose of
equalzrg the burdens of taxation, it has
been held that We cannot assess the
shares of stock in a National Bank as
other money capital is assessed.
But conceding that Congress could di
rect the extent and mode of taxing the
property of the bank. if the mode pro-
vided would If pursued subject the prop
erty of the bank to taxation to the same
extent that other like property is taxed.
the conclusion is irresistible that it was
intended that the tax expressly permitted
should he the only tax to which the prop
erty is to be subjected.
But it seems to me that the precise
question was determined in Rusenplatt
VS., Johnson. 104 L. s., 462. A State at
tempted to tax the personal assets of an
insolvent National Bank. It was quite
naturally thought that it had then ceased
to be a Governmental inStrumen tality. In
a short opinion, by the Chief Justice, it
was held, that as the assets still be-
longed to the corporation they were ex--
empt under Section 1924 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States
In Covington City Bank against Coving-
ton. q Fed. r. 4S9. Mr.. Justice Mathews,
refers to the case. After asserting the
power of Congress in the premises, he
says: 'It has in fact withdrawn them and
their property from the domain of State
taxation, except so far as it has ex
nressiy consented that they may be taxed.
That consent, so far as it has been
given, is contained in Section 5219 of the
Revised Statutes.
1t does not permit taxation of any
property belonging to the bank, except
from Rusenp1att VS.. Johnson, 104 U. S.,
1862
General ard special deposits are assess
able to the depositors. CYuba VS.. Adams,
7 Cal. So
The judgment and order are affirmed
TEMPLE J.
We concur: Mcfarland, J; Henshaw, J.