The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-02-06

ers in State banks, and at least does not
appear to have been intended as any dis
elimination against national bank shares.
The real estate is considered q part Of
the banks capital or property. rather
than that of the shareholders interest
III its certificate of stock.
DEDUCTION OF INDEBTEDNESS
The question of the right OF a national
bank shareholder to have his Indebtedness
deducted from his share of the stock be-
tore assessment OF the same for taxation
has rscenIy been decided adversely by
the Supreme Court of Appeals Of Virginia.
Burgess VS.. Smith, 95 Va, sos.
As to what is nloneyed capital within
the meaning of the national rnanktng act,
and what wIH be deemed a discrimination
against the shareholders in national
banks by reason of allowing a deduction
on account of indebtedness in favor of
the owners Of other classes OF personal
property has been so often under review
of late by the courts Of last resort that
any general discussion is unnecessary.
Briefly. 1T may be said that absolute
equality of taxation is net expected, and
the purposes Of the national banking act
are satisfied when exemptions are not
made from taxation on the investments
in the shares of institutions or 5ll1iyi-
GuaiS carrying on a similar business 10
that cf the bank. and upon persons en-
gagged in operations and Investments of
a like character as the bank The act
docs not make the tax on personally gem
orally the measure Of tax on national
bank shares, but the tax on moneyed cap
itai i;l IKE use. 4 number OF authorities
are cited 70 support this principle.
DUE PROCESS CT LAW
'Conplainants insist that this act Of
the Sd of March, 1896, providing a new
assessment for taxes against national
banks. is void, because of the lack Of
tll:e process of law, ard they most v.gor-
cuSiy asStail This act ard the act of the 9th
of March, 1890 for this reason. The 15rin-
ciPle governing the determination of this
question under these two acts, by reason
of the peculiar terms of the respective
acts. depend upon entirely different con-
.siderationS. Under the fTSt-named act
uhes co1lstitIHtionafty OF which the court
deems il unnecessary TO pass upon) the
assessment seems clearly to be In the
nature of "a judicial act and the banks
cashier is made liable for the amount
OF the tax. but no provision is made for
its teconTingf self-collectable or in the
nature Of an execution. and it is expressly
provided that the :sa,lIe slaii iDe recover
able Of the banks cashier and sureties by
motion upon fifteen DAYS notice in the
Circuit Court OF the city of Richmond,
and the question turns ON whether or nor
this requirement of the state to seek
the Intervention of court of justice in
the collection of its revenue does not Of
itself constitute due process Of law.
THE ASSESSMENT.
Under the second act, upon the assess
ment being made Of the taxes, the tax
bills become sclf-eXecut ng and can be
enforced by levy, and the question turns
upon the character of the act performed
by the assessor in making the assess
ment; in q word, whether he acts Judi
ciaily or otherwise. A careful inspection
of the act shows that the assessor per-
forms no judicial act in what he doss,
the fair Interpretation being, that the as
sessment made by him is upon the market
value of the stock as reported to him by
the bank, and the act itself fixes the
amount of the tax. and, under this view.
further notice to the taxpayer Of the as
seSSment is not required. a most inter
,rting discussion of this whole subject IS
TO be found in the leading case of Hargar
as. Reclamation District, No. los, Ill L.
S., 701. The bank itself having fixed the
market value OF its stock, and the statute
the amount of the tax, the assessors duty
was merely ministerial one and the act
is not void because of the lack OF due pro-
cess of law
DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURT.
"Complaipants further assail the valid
ity Of the act of the 9th OF
March, 1890. and the amendment thereof
of the Sd of March, 1885, because the rate
OF tax prescribed is not uniform as re-
quired by the Constitution of the State
and because also the original act is in
violation OF the provisions of the Constt-
tuition, in that it fails to state distinctly
the amount of the tax levied and the OBJ
ject to which it is to be applied, as re-
puired by Article 10. section 16, OF the
Constitution of the State. These obiec-
tons do not appear TO be we'll founded.
and the acts themselves haze been more
than once passed upon by the court OF
last resort in this State and in so far as
their validity is concerned under The
State Constitution, this court viii follow
the dScisions of the State court Com
monwealth vs.. Charlottesville p B. & l.
Co. supra. 90 Va. 100: Burrows VS.. Smith,
% Va, 69i: Mer Bank US. Pa, 161 L. S