The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-11-23
COMMON cost $500
Decision in the Howard
Savings Bank Case Hing
ed on Punctuation Mark.
Especial to .srhe Jersey city News.'l

Especial to The Jersey City News."1
NEWARK. Nov. %, 1S99.-The Tax Conn
missionsrs of this eity 1nake no secret Of
their disappointment at the reversal OF
the decision OF the Supreme Court I'm the
appeal case OF the Howard Savings lnsta-
tuition of this city against the Mayor and
Common Council.
The local officials believed they were
safely entrenched Within ehe law in as
sessing the Howard Savings institution
on it's holdings of legal tender notes and
gold and silver certificates. The case was
heard in the Supreme Cour by Judges
Depue, Van Syckel and Ldppincott. The
opinion was written by Judge Depue and
was concurred in by his associates.
1t appears, however, that after the case
was carried up to the Court of Errors and
Appeals a new point was raised. This
was of a peculiar nature, and it brought
fhe issue DO a question of the imterpreta-
tion of the p~hrasaology OF one clause OF
the act of 1866, the meaning of which was
/ changed. it was chained. by the insertion
OF a comma in a section describing the
| class of securities exempted from taxation
by the act.
The law as printed reads in n part:
1.-The following property shall be exempt
ed the property. bonds and Sc
/ curities OF the United States and the bonds
| and securities of this State, which are by
law exempt from taxation"
Argument was nae on the proper inter-
| probation of the above clause, and re
| course was had to the original copy of the
act. When this was produced it was
shown that the comma in the clause quot
ed after the word State Was not present.
1T appears as If that comma has caused
the city of Newark nearly $500 in taxes
from the Howard Savings Institution
said Tax Commissioner Lowry this noon.
The decision OF the Court of Errors
means that the Common Council win lave
to refund to the Howard the amount OF
taxes, with interest. that 1t paid under
protest in 1888. on SIC, 900 worth Of United
! States securities, ant that our assessment
this year on SIS. 0oo of the same class OF
property viii not be collected. The in
| stltution cannot go back of 1895. as the
year before, for while a protest was made
| That year they failed to submit a sworn
statement Of their valuations and the city
refused to recognize it,"
THE Howard is the only one OF the
local savings Institutions that has claim
ed this exemption. It IS the only one,
| too, tina makes a practice of counting its
/ greenbacks on the day before 1t makes
its statement Of its taxable and non-tax-
able possessions.
This decision does not Involve the Ma
tional banks. which are taxed under diff
! ferent laws. 1t does not involve all per-
| sons who possess ~greenbacks or certiff-
| Gates of the character named in this case
81 do not believe said Mr.. Lowy, that
the exemption of Government securities
will continue after this year. / do not
hesitate to say hat the Legislature will
undoubtedly pass a law at its next SEES
| sicl that Will remedy the defective law
and enable us TO tax these securities
| They should be taxed. The Government
has given the power of taxing its securi-
| ties to the States. by an act of Congress.
Other States do SO. and until now it was
believed to be good law in New Jersey,
| We sought to have a bill passed by the
| last Legislature III would settle our le-
! gal right in this regard, beyond all CUES
ton. We were told that there was nc
! necessity whatever for any additional leg
/ islation, and the decision Of the Supreme
| Court in this very case Of the Howard
\ Savings Institution was referred to-"