The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-06-25


as the "other moneyed capital referred
to In said statue, from the other classes
OF moneyed capital which does not come
In competition with National banks. In
the cases OF Supervisors VS.. Stanely and
Hill VS.. Exchange Bank from New York
t10b U. S., PIP. 305 and $40. respectively,
that court In constituting the effect OF the
New York statute which permitted all
parties to deduct their indebtedness from
the value OF their personal property, aud
which had been construed by the court OF
appeals of New York as not allowing any
Of such Indebtedness to be deducted from
the value OF National bank shares, re-
versed that court and held that such
statute was In contraventlon to the act OF
congress quoted above, and that parties
holding National bank shares should be
permitted to deduct their Indebtedness
from such shares. The case of Evans
Vile Bank vs. Britton, cited above. con-
strues a statute Of Indiana very similar
TO ours in that It permitted the taxpayer
to deduct his bona fide indebtedness from
his ''credits or money at interest" and "all
other demands against persons or bodies
corporate" total amount Of all cred is.
The court uses this language, on page 32l:
THE act of congress does not make the
tax on personal property the measure Of
the tax on bank shares in the State, but
! the tax on moneyed capital In the hands
\
loaned at interest and demands against
persons or corporations are more purely
representative of moneyed capital than
personal property so far as they can be
said to differ. Undoubtedly there may be
such personal property exempt from tax
alton without giving bank shares right
to similar exemption, because personal
property is not necessarily moneyed cap
ital. But the rights. credits, demands and
money at interest mentioned in the In
diana statute, from which bona lde debts
may be deducted, all mean moneyed cap
/ ital Invested In that way. 1t is unueces
sary to repeat the argument in People VS..
Weaver 600 IT, S., $500, on this point. We
are OF opinion that the taxation Of bank
,hares by The indiana statute without
permitting the shareholder to deduct from
/ their assessed value the amount of his
I bona hde Indebtedness as in the case of
other investments Of moneyed capital Is
a discrimination forbidden by the act Of
congress"
Many other cases might b. cited, some
of very recent date, but by reference to
those cited there will be found review
Of all the early ones which clearly sup
port those cited The case of First Ma
/ tlonal Bank Of Garnet, Kan, VS.. Ayers
16 Sup. Court Rep tU. s., 412, Q5916S
U 81, has been cited as establishing a
different rule to that referred to above, but
l do not so understand It.
Under a statute OF Kansas a person or
corporation was allowed to deduct from a
specified class Of credits certain kinds of
debts. or in the language OF the court,
some debts could be deducted from some
moneyed capital" and it was claimed that
inasmuch as a holder of National balk
stock was permitted to deduct his debts
from his shares of stock that the statute
was in conflict with section 52l9, United
States statutes, and the court in discussing
that case says;
There Is no proof in the case as to
the proportion which credits from which
debts may be deducted bear to the whole
amount of credits owned in the State, MOI
Is there any proof as to what proportion
the entire credits owned In the State bear
TO other moneyed capital owned therein
1t then proceeds to point out a large
, class OF moneyed capital in that State
being credits from which debts can moi
be deducted, and proceeds From the
record In this case 1t is wholly impossible
TO determine that there is any discrmina.
tion against the holders OF National bank
stock. In order to come TO a decision il
, favor of the plaintiff in error IL would bI
! necessary for this court to take what ooun-
sci for the plaintiff calls judicial notice o.
what Is claimed to be a fact, viz, that tn,
!, amount OF moneyed capital in the STATE
. OF Kansas from which debts may he de-
. Quoted as compared with the moneyed cap
> ital invested in shares of National bank!
- was so large and substantial as to amour
. to an Illegal discrimination against Ma
= tional bank shareholders. This we can no
a do There is no proof whatever upon tht
y subject. The State court has itself de
:, termlned from its own knowledge tina
y the credits from which debts may be de
Quoted do not constitute large or ever
. material part of the moneyed capital OF tn
y State, and on the contrary that court say
" that debts secured by liens on real estate
" money invested in corporate stocks OF al
". kinds and descriptions including railroad
e banking, insurance loan and trust com
- panies and all the multlfarous forms 0
70 moneyed securities, moneys on deposl
subject TO call and other forms of invested
?, capital constitute the great bulk of III
y moneyed capital in that State and from
y all such muneyed capital no deduction 70
y debts is allowed. As the record appear
there Is no fact OF which the court cal
10 take judicial notice. The relative proper
V tlons in which the moneyed capital in tn
'e state Of Kansas is Invested in the varlou
X kinds of securities to be therein found tbi
10 court can not iudicially know. Whel
&c proof shall be made regarding that matter
~ Il may then be determined intelligeutl
Or whether within the case Of Mercantile Ma
l. tional Bank VS. Meyer. supra, there ha
= been real discrimination against tn
y holders OF National bank shares and henc
IN violation Of the above cited act Of con
IN eress. The single fact that the statut
" OF Kansas permits some debts to be de
rs Quoted from some moneyed capital, bu
/ not from that which is invested in III
l. shares of National banks Is not sufhcien
"a to show such violation
Is In the case ut bar the evidence whicI
A. was wanting in that case has been sup
OF piled, and it appears that in this sta.
A. ether moneyed capital" employed il
So making profit by It's use as money by wa
IN OF loan, discount and otherwise Is ia
l. greater than that invested in Natlona
A. bank stock, the loans upon real estat
I'd alone amounting TO over forty-slx mil
as lion dollars and debts secured by chatte
lie mortgages over thlrty-one million dollar
"a independent OF the loans upon persona
m security and money used In disc6untin
IS paper etc, which was shown to be yer
Of large when compared 70 that fnveste
Is in National bank stock. viz, nineteen mil
Us lion dollars. In this state debts may b
IN deducted from all these credits, yet unde
or defendants contention they can not be de
ne Quoted from the value of shares In Ma
e. tional banks. Under that contention. 4
II owning 00e in money, could loan Il o
Is cr without any kind OF security or /
IN dlscounting bills, notes. etc, and coul
Of dpdupt tharpfrpnn frr fnx{nr nurnnssp ,,,,t