New-York tribune., 1901-03-30
raKLNG PRETATE BANKERS.

Senator Krum'S bill 10 impose the same tax
FOR State purposes private bankers that Is
imposed on State and national banks appears TO
he fair and reasonable measure. Private
bankers have generally been regarded as justly
subject 10 the burdens imposed on those VINO
transact similar business under a corporate
name. Their opportunities for making money
are in most directions great. and in some
WAYS the,- possess decided advantages in free
dom from restrictions placed on corporations
Hitherto they have been taxed on their capltal
=. personal propertv at the local rate just as
the holders of bank stock have been The new
law changes this arrangement, and levles
tax Of per cent for State purposes on banking
corporations in lieu Of local personal taxation,
and the logical completion OF the State tax sys-
TEN calls for similar treatment Of private banks.
Indeed so far as the new tax is more onerOus
than the old as IL might be in some parts OF
the State where the local tax rate is low ana
assessments are loosely made. the State is COM
PEELED 70 impose il on private as well as incor-
rorated banks The State Is forbidden by the
Federal Government 10 tax national banks AT
a higher rate than other moneyed capital. III
il take. nltional banks per cent on their capi-
tai il must tax private banks at as high rate.
There may he some question whether local tax
alton instead Of STATE taxation could under any
circumstances be construed as other than dis
elimination by the State in favor Of the private
bank AT any rate the determination or the
comparative severity would he complicated
problem and by far the simplest and best
method is 10 apply the same rule 10 banking
capital. individual or corporate.
II private bankers in this and other leading
cities OF the State. with tax rates comparable
10 our own. were honestly assessed according to
existing Law. Senator Krums measure would
he great relief to them. Instead OF paying
ala per cent here they would pay per cent on
the same banking capital. The truth probably
is that the banking capital reported to local
assessors for the 2i@ per cent tax Is much
smaller than that which the bankers, under a
vigilant State administration. would be com
PEELED to acknowledge. AT least that is the in
ference from the opposition on the part of some
OF these bankers to being favoredswith a smaller
tax rate than they now are subject 10. II as
a matter Of fact the proposed tax is higher than
the existing one as enforced. il is evident that
the change is necessary. unless the national
bank tax is TO be nvaldated as violating Fed
eral law. IL as a matter of fact IL is lower.
then the bankers should rejoice over the I'M
sought favors of benefcent government. In
any event il is a just tax. Banking corpora
tions have been notoriously overtaxed in some
sections OF the State. and there was a crying
need for equalization. which appears 10 have
been admirably accomplished by the general !
per cent State tax in place Of the varying local
assessments and rates on personal property
An equalization TO he just. and possibly even
to be valid, must apply 10 banking capital
whether welded by an individual. a hrm. a
State corporation or national corporation. and
that is the sort Of equalization which Mr. Krunl
| proposes.