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

OF afsessment for him which is not in
conflict with the act of congress- and the
law In that case can be held valid. For
aught that appears. these appellants owed
no debts; and II they did, they nay have
been already deducted from debts which
were due TO them in making a general as
scssment OF their property"
The converse OF the above proposition Is
shown in the case at bar, and had Il been
shown In that case, as In this, that appel
lants (plaintifis here) owed such debts
and had no credits from which to deduct
the same, the rule would have been ad-
hered 10 as laid down In 105 U S.. cited
in that case and above. But did the legs-
laiure intend that shares In National banks
should be for taxing purposes construed 10
be personal property as contradistin-
guished from other moneyed capital In
the hands of individuals" being used in
loans. discounts and other like purposes,
money at interests. The language OF the
closing paragraph of article $3.50 is taken
substantially from the act of congress
qroted above, viz Nothing herein shall
be so construed as TO tax National and
State bank shares or the shareholders
thereof at a greater rate than is assessed
against other moneycd capital in the hands
of individuals" The sentence, al grga or
rate than is assessed against other
moneyed capital in the hands of indl-
States Statutes, and had received judicial
construction by the United States supreme
court, as above shown, before 1t was in
corporated In our statute and the rule of
construction IN this State is that lin adopt
inging the language of the statutes OF
other States it must be presumed that
our legislature intended to adopt with II
the well settled construction placed upon
such language by the courts of those
I States - fRrOthprs Muudpll GO Texas
246)
The ruling Of our comptroller's office was
IN accord with such construction, viz: that
holders OF shares in National banks could
deduct their indebtedness from such shares
for a number Of years after that act was
passed 1sSS) and until, as suggested by
counsel the publication of the Rosen-
berg Weekes case. which being construed
adverse to such ruling, It was changed by
/ that Office and thereafter such deductions
we're not permitted. AS stated above.
| do not so construe that decision. To SO
/ construe our statute would be to give 1t
meaning IN the contral enton Of the act of
! congress and thus render it nugatory and
such construction should he in all cases
avoided If II can be construed so as to
make 1t valid | am unable to determine
whether the language 50 adopted from the
/ act of congress was intended to carry with
it the construction given 1t by the United
States supreme court or not. If so, our
/ law is not in contravention thereof and is
nugatory to that extent In either event
the result is the same. viz: that inasmuch
as the holders Of very large proportion
of other money capital in the hands Of in
dividuals in this state, employed it in the
making of profit by its use as money at in
terest may deduct their debts from their
credits, that this entities the holders of
National bank shares having debts but no
credits from which to deduct the same
may deduct such Indebtedness from the
value of their said shares. It, therefore.
follows that the Injunction heretofore is
sued should be perpetuated and it is so
ordered. Marshall Surratt, Judge.