of its capital.

§ 1097. The proper method of taxing the property of banking corporations. -The bank does not own the shares. It owns the capital, and shares are owned by its stockholders. Consequently, a state has no right to assess them in a lump sum measured by the capital in the name of the bank and collect the tax from it directly. To do so would in the case of national banks violate the fundamental rule of all

of New York, of trust companies, and of companies created outside of and owned in the state, virtually escape taxation; such property not being "moneyed capital in the hands of individuals," within Rev. St. U. S., § 5219. Id.

Mining claims, being real estate, are a different class of property from the stock of national banks; and the fact that taxes are laid upon the claims belonging to mining corporations under 12 Sess. Laws Mont., p. 67, and not upon the stock of such corporation, and that such claims are assessed at the rate of five dollars per acre, without regard to value, while the stocks of national banks are assessed at their market value, is not a discrimination within the meaning of Rev. St. U. S., § 5219. County of Silver Bow v. Davis, 6 Mont. 306; 12 P. 688.

Under Rev. St. Tex. 1879, the real estate of national banks is not subject to taxation. Rosenburg v. Weekes, 67 Tex. 578; 4 S. W. 899.

Under Rev. St. U. S., § 5219, before the assessment of national bank shares can be held invalid, it must be shown that there is in fact a higher tax imposed on them than on other moneyed capital, and it is insufficient to show merely that the state laws provide a different mode of taxing moneyed capital invested in savings banks or other corporations. Richards v. Incorporated Town of Rock Rapids, 31 F. 505.

It is no valid objection to a tax upon national bank stock that the property of other corporations in a state are exempted. Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 121 U. S. 138; 7 S. Ct. 826; National Newark Banking Co. v. City of Newark, Id. 163; Davenport Nat. Bank v. Board of Equalization, 123 U. S. 83; 8 S. Ct. 73.

The excess only of the par value of national bank stock over the amount of the owner's interest-bearing indebtedness is liable to taxation. Peavey v. Town of Greenfield, 64 N. H. 284; 9 A. 722; Richards v. Incorporated Town of Rock Rapids, 31 F. 505; Stanley v. County of Albany, 121 U. S. 335; 7 S. Ct. 1234; McAden v. Commr's of Mecklenburg Co., 97 N. C. 355; 2 S. E. 670.

National banks located in Kentucky stand, as to taxation, upon the same footing with state banks. City Nat. Bank v. City of Paducah (Ky.), 9 S. W. 218.

An act which does not permit the holder of national bank stock to set off his indebtedness is so far in conflict with Rev. St. U. S., § 5219, such set-off being permitted in all other cases. Stanley v. Co. of Albany, 121 U. S. 335; 7 S. Ct. 1234.

The territories have the same right as the states to tax the shares of national banks. County of Silver Bow v. Davis, 6 Mont. 306; 12 P. 688.

taxation and of the provision of the national banking act, that the shares shall be taxed at their true value like shares in other moneyed corporations. The entire property of a bank, real and personal, may be of no greater value than its nominal capital, and it may be considerably indebted, in which case the true value of the shares would be less than par. Consequently, to tax the bank upon the nominal value of the shares would be amenable to the further objection that it is a discrimination against its shareholders. State taxlaws requiring shares in incorporated banks to be listed at their true value in money and taxed in the city, village, etc., where the bank is located, do not conflict with the rule above stated.

§ 1098. Bank may be required to furnish lists for taxing purposes.-All banks may be required to keep in the office where their business is transacted, a full and complete list of the names and residences of their stockholders and the number of shares held by each, open at all times during business hours to the inspection of all officers authorized to list or assess the value of such shares for taxation, and to make out at the proper time and return to the proper authority duplicate reports of resources and liabilities in addition to the statement relating to names and places of residences of stockholders therein.1

1 Miller v. The Nat. B'ks, Ohio Sup. Ct. 1889; 25 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 289, 293. Very similar questions were raised and disposed of in First Nat. B'k v. City of Richmond, 39 F. 309; 25 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 298, note, and an injunction was granted restraining the city and its officers from proceeding with the collection of the tax. See also, Hill v. Nat. Albany Exch. B'k, 105 U. S. 319; Whitbeck v. Mercantile Nat. B'k, 127 U. S. 193. For discussions and decisions with reference to taxation of national banks and national bank stock the following authorities may be consulted with profit. Van Allen v. Assessors, etc., 3 Wall. 573; People v. Commr's, 4 Wall. 244; Nat. B'k v. Com., 9 Wall. 353; Mercantile Nat. B'k v. Mayor, etc., 121 U. S. 138; Lionberger v. Rouse, 23 Wall. 485; Waite v. Dowley, 94 U. S. 533; Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S.

§ 1099. Requirements of National Bank Act.-In the assessment and taxation of shares of national bank stock, the owners thereof having no other credits or moneyed capital, are entitled to deduct their bona fide debts from the value of such shares of stock.1 And it was held this should be allowed, although national bank shares were not enumerated among the solvent credits from which debts could, under the law, be deducted.2

Where a state tax-law has complied as far as possible with the true intent of the act of congress, the state taxation of the shares of national banks is not invalid.3 And if a state law does not, on its face, discriminate

311; German Nat. B'k v. Kimball, 103 U. S. 733; Pepton v. Com. Nat. B'k, 101 U. S. 143; Cummings v. Merchants' Nat. B'k, Ib. 153; Davenport Nat. B'k v. Davenport B'd of Eq., 123 U. S. 83; People v. Wearer, 100 U. S. 539; B'k of Red. v. Boston, 125 U. S. 60.

Act Pa.. June 30, 1885, imposing a tax upon debts owing from private corporations, and requiring that the treasurers of the corporations shall assess the taxes and deduct them from the interest, is not unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of the contract, which secures the payment of the indebtedness in imposing a tax upon the debt, and making the debtor the collector thereof. Lehigh Val. R. Co. v. Commonwealth (Pa.), 18 A. 410; Delaware L. & W. R. Co. v. Same, Id. 414; Com. v. North Pa. R. Co., Id.; Clearfield Bituminous Coal Co. v. Com., Id.; 25 W. M. C. 24, 28.

1 Bressler v. Wayne County (Neb.), 25 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 301. Since writing the text this case was reversed, and it was held that a statute taxing unincorporated state banks on a valuation based on the difference between their assets and liabilities did not discriminate against the owner of national bank stock who by the statute was not allowed to deduct his bona fide indebtedness within the meaning of Rev. St. U. S. § 5219, Bressler v. Wayne County (Neb.), 49 N. W. 787.

2 McAden v. Commrs., 2 S. E. Rep. 670. See also, Sumpter Co. v. Nat. B'k, 62 Ala. 464; Pollard v. State, 65 Ala. 628; Miller v. Heilbron, 58 Cal. 133; Peavery v. Greenfield, 64 N. H. 284; 9 Atl. Rep. 722; Ruggles v. Fond du Lac, 53 Wis. 436. The deduction must be demanded before paying the tax. Sup. v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305. Where under a rule adopted by the board of assessors of a city all shares of stock of state and national banks were assessed at par without regard to their actual or market value, making the requisite deduction for real estate owned by the banks, it was held that this method was not in violation with the act of congress prohibiting the imposition by state authority of a greater rate of taxation than that assessed upon other moneyed capital in the case of a bank the market value of whose shares was below par. Stanley v. B'd of Supervisors, 121 U. S. 335.

3 Rosenberg v. Weeks, 67 Tex. 578.

against national banks, and there is neither evidence of a legislative intent to make such discrimination nor proof that the statute works an actual and material discrimination, there is no cause for holding it to be unconstitutional.1

§ 1100. Subject to state methods.-No other than the tax upon shares and upon real estate of national banks can be levied and collected. But a state law requiring the tax upon the shares of its stockholders to be paid at the place where it is located is valid.2

But no license tax can be imposed upon them nor can any other control be exercised over them by the state than as permitted by act of congress.3

§ 1101. Constitutional provisions.-The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States provides that" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Many important questions have been already adjudicated in cases affecting both corporations and individuals under this amendment since its adoption having a bearing on the subject of taxation. The results of the decisions may be summarized as follows: 1. It is not necessary that a party shall have an opportunity to be present when a tax is assessed against him, and to then have a hearing, provided that a remedy is given by suit to enjoin the collection in which both the

1 Davenport B'k v. B'd of Eq., 123 U. S. 83.

2 Nat. B'k v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; Lionberger v. Rouse, Ib. 468. Macon v. First Nat. B'k, 59 Ga. 648; Second Nat. B'k v. Caldwell, 13 Fed. Rep. 429.

validity of the assessment and its amount may be contested.' 2. Due process of law does not require that there shall be judicial proceedings to enforce a tax, but it is competent to provide for them. 3. Neither the inadequacy of the consideration to the public upon which the taxes when collected are to be paid, nor the fact that payment is to be made before the benefits are received, is sufficient to render the assessment void." 4. The federal courts cannot inquire into the propriety or justice of legislation of the states on the subject of taxation where a party is deprived of no constitutional right. Each state may determine for itself the public necessity for levying and collecting a tax, and may devise its own system of taxation free from federal interference, and the mere fact that the enforced collection of taxes works a hardship and produces an inequality in particular cases does not constitute a deprivation without due process of law.3 5. It is no unlawful deprivation of property when a resident of one state is compelled by its laws to pay taxes on a debt owed by a non-resident and secured by mortgage on lands in another state. 6. The right to notice at some stage in the tax proceedings has, in one case, been affirmed as a constitutional right; and a law attempting to validate an invalid assessment has been held void as taking away the right to a hearing.5 7. Corporations are entitled to the same treatment and legal protection in

1 McMillan v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 37; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U. S.

701.

2 Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U. S. 701.

3 Kelly v. Pittsburg, 104 U. S. 78. See Norris v. Waco, 57 Tex. 635.

✦ Santa Clara County v. S. P. Ry. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. See also, San Mateo

County v. S. P. Ry. Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 722; 7 Sawy. 517

5 Albany City B'k v. Maher, 20 Blatchf. 341. But see In re Van Antwerp, 56 N. Y. 261.