Year: 1867

National Bank Tax. Haaa r


While we are surprised that the present res
pectable Legislature of Maine should have
been so inconsiderate or 50 duped as to have
passed the act providing Tor the taxation of Ma
tional Banks. making it partially dependent
on an opinion of the Supreme Court, we are
much more surprised at the answers which
that tribunal has rendered to the questions pro-
pounded to it. Their adjudication on the mat
ter thus submitted to them, which is to pro-
duce more excitement, and more bad feeling
than any other subject which has agitated the
public mind for years, materially affect, the pO-
litical status of the State, and drive, from it
much OF its needed capital, is embraced in
very few sentences. Not word is introduced
to show the reasonableness OF its conclusions,
or to reconcile those Immediately affected by
it to its unjust operation. The effect of It is,
that the country or surrounding towns, are to
be tributary to those of greater extent. Those
in these towns who have been able, and just able
to live on their income, as well, as numerous
widows and orphans, are doomed by it to pay
large part of their living, to build up the large
cities of Bangor, Portland, Lewiston SC. So
that Bangor may subscribe any amount in aid
Of the European s. North American Railway
or assume any degree of Indebtedness, and all
the towns about are obliged to furnish from
their bank-stock inhabitants, funds to aid them
in their high purposes. Though overburdened
with debt by the accumulated demands Of the
late war, these bankless towns, are required,
first of all, to assist in relieving the large and
wealthy cities OF their liabilities. They are to
help make and repair their streets, maintain
their poor, sustain their schools, pay their war
debts, and the officers of their municipal gov
ernment for their services. And this opinion
of the highest judicial authority of the State,
sustaining an iniquity without q parallel under
any other government, is sent forth apparently
without any deep though hit, or consideration Of
the havoc which it makes of the principles
which lie at the foundation of the government
under which we live.


1t would not have done to have elaborated
this opinion. The court would have soon found
themselves involved in a labyrinth from which
they could not escape, without periling the
conclusion to which, in these few words, they
had come. ,z5tad h.lsd .sfstaiE --.-N -'~'-
We do not propose any extended examina-
ton of this opinion, just now The court has
declared the law, and so far as they are con-
cerned, the matter is settled. They are its au-
thorized expounders, and from their adjudica-
ton there is no appeal, except to the people
themselves. But it is right for the public 10
have some understanding Of the law, which Is
so seriously to affect their interests, and be in
formed of the reasons on which it is based. IL
these reasons are weighty, the oppressed will
bear their burdens with patience; if not, they
will look about them for their appropriate REM
edy. ai1Aq 1i' n9apus 7at fH t9-s2 -oDiursni g,
aiThe court extract three provisions from the
Act of Congress, and offer them to the public
as the bases OF their opinion, after italicising
certain portions, and neglecting to do so to
other portions which we deem far more mate-
rial. Tins the principal extract is given to
their readers, in this way. provided that
nothing in this act shah be construed to pre-
vent all the shares in any of said associations,
held by any person or body corporate, from be-
ing Included i,l the ca'udtaon ofpersonal prop
erty Of such person or corporation, IN the assess
n,eat Oft taxes imposed by or under State a,lthor-
ity at the place sohere such bank is located, and
not otherpise" Now why did they not itali-
else the word prevent? Is it not the material
word on which the whole proviso depends?---
Are not the force and effect of it entirely dis
regarded? Or rather have they not ascribed
to il a definition for which there is NO authori-
ty?-The words nothing shall prevent" have
been assumed to be equivalent to BE it en-
acted" Now, every one with ordinary knowl-
edge of the principles of our national and state
governments, knows that the former has no
right thus to meddle with our process of at
tanning the means of supporting our own ad-
ministration. They, have power to say that
certain specific property created by them or
owned by them shall be exempt from taxation.
But they have no power to say what shall be
taxed or what shall not be taxed for the pur-
pose. And we further know there was no such
intention to invade our independence in this
Act of Congress, because the plain import of
this phrase precludes the idea of such intent


And what is the effect and what the import of
this word in the relation for which it stands?
Clearly it carries with it a very decisive signif
-icancy. 1t releases the claim of exemption
from taxation on the part OF the United States
gOvernment,-and then recognizes the right of





according to the authority of the State. And
what is their authority under the law of the
State? To tax the personal property of their
ltotonsnaen only. One would suppose that there
would be no difference of opinion on language
SO plain as this; more especially when the rea-
son for this license is SO apparent that those
who have the special benefits OF banks as daily
B Repositories, and as places of discount should
pay something for privilege, which others
living abroad, cannot enjoy. s,r ,srf
-'si But the court are as plainly right in anoth-
er remark as they are wrong in this, that it
would be clearly in the teeth of the law to tax
stockholders living elsewhere than in the
bank town. If they had stopped here the
whole State would have been satisfied with
their adjudication. Unfortunately, Providence
seems to have withholden that wisdom which
is profitable to direct" just where it was most
needed; and they were left to add, sit is obvi-
Gus that the assessment and collection are to
be made and the taxes applied to the use
: of the town where the bank is situated. tU
'nl As inducement to the conclusion which the
court had thus in view, they cite the enactment
of Congress, that the cashiers OF the Banks
shall keep at all times list of the stockholders
and their residences, for the inspection of'.the
officers authorized to assess taxes under State
authority" italicising what we thus mark as a
quotation We are unable to discover the ma
teriality of this requirement. to the question:
The same thing was required of cashiers un-
der our State Bank laws, only an additional
duty was imposed oa them, of giving notice
of the ownership of stock to assessors Of
other, than the Bank town. And under
this act of Congress- establishing national
Banks, there was just as much reason for this
duty ofkeeping the list for the examination OF
those required to assess under State law as there
was for this notice under the former. There
is continual need OF learning the fact, whether
one has invested his property in the stock of a
United States Bank, as there is also, whether
he has invested it in bonds. The asseyerations
of taxable inhabitants are not always perfectly
reliable. But we are unwilling to believe that
the court regarded this provision as bringing
any material aid to their construction of thi.
statute. bda sIsaT.i 10 atos $50 .rofi.ef s.


The principal buttress Of this opinion of the
court is the italicised portion of the section be-
fore mentioned That assessors under State
authority are not to be precluded from includ-
ing in their valuation of personal property, all
the shares of any person or body corporate, in
the assessment of taxes at the place where the
Bank is located. Now, keeping in view, the
proper province ofthe general government, and
the rightful jurisdiction ofthe State, how can
there be doubt as to the true construction OF


this paragraph? 1l' 5E qua 9ai ga ha