Opinion of the Court.

stock, to be ascertained in such other manner as the Treasurer may deem best: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent all the shares in any of the said associations, held by any person or body corporate, from being included in the valuation of the personal property of such person or corporation in the assessment of taxes imposed by or under state authority at the place where such bank is located, and not elsewhere, but not at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of such State: Provided, further, That the tax so imposed under the laws of any State upon the shares of any of the associations. authorized by this act shall not exceed the rate imposed upon the shares in any of the banks organized under authority of the State where such association is located: Provided, also, That nothing in this act shall exempt the real estate of associations from either State, county or municipal taxes to the same extent, according to its value, as other real estate is taxed." 13 Stat. 99, 111, c. 106.

The provision relating to taxation which, it is alleged, was inserted by way of amendment in the Senate, appears as section 5214 of the Revised Statutes. Other provisions of the act of 1864 are reproduced in sections 5217 and 5218 of the Revised Statutes.

By section 5222 of the Revised Statutes it is provided: "Within six months from the date of the vote to go into liquidation, the association shall deposit with the Treasurer of the United States lawful money of the United States sufficient to redeem all its outstanding circulation. The Treasurer shall execute duplicate receipts for money thus deposited, and deliver one to the association and the other to the Comptroller of the Currency, stating the amount received by him, and the purpose for which it has been received; and the money shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States and placed to the credit of such association upon redemption

account."

In Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 672,-in which the constitutionality of the act of Congress of October 1, 1890, 26 Stat. 567, c. 1244, was questioned upon the ground that a

Opinion of the Court.

certain provision which was in it upon its final passage was omitted when the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, this court said: "The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the President, that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the Government, and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. And when a bill, thus attested, receives his approval and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled act in the custody of the Secretary of State and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate and of the President of the United States, carries on its face a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the Government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated, leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution."

Referring to the above case, it was said in Harwood v. Wentworth, 162 U. S. 547, 560, that if the principle announced in Field v. Clark involves any danger to the public, it was competent for Congress to meet it by declaring under what circumstances, or by what kind of evidence, an enrolled act of Congress or of a territorial Legislature, authenticated as required by law, and in the hands of the officer or department to whose custody it was committed by statute, may be shown

Opinion of the Court.

not to be in the form in which it was when passed by Congress or by the territorial Legislature.

The contention in this case is that the section of the act of June 3, 1864, providing a national currency secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and for the circulation and redemption thereof, so far as it imposed a tax upon the average amount of the notes of a national banking association in circulation, was a revenue bill within the clause of the Constitution declaring that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills," Art. I, § 7; that it appeared from the official journals of the two Houses of Congress that while the act of 1864 originated in the House of Representatives, the provision imposing this tax was not in the bill as it passed that body, but originated in the Senate by amendment, and, being accepted by the House, became a part of the statute; that such tax was, therefore, unconstitutional and void; and that, consequently, the statute did not justify the action of the defendant.

The case is not one that requires either an extended examination of precedents, or a full discussion as to the meaning of the words in the Constitution, "bills for raising revenue." What bills belong to that class is a question of such magnitude and importance that it is the part of wisdom not to attempt, by any general statement, to cover every possible phase of the subject. It is sufficient in the present case to say that an act of Congress providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, and which, in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act, imposed a tax on the notes in circulation of the banking associations organized under the statute, is clearly not a revenue bill which the Constitution declares must originate in the House of Representatives. Mr. Justice Story has well said that the practical construction of the Constitution and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question proves that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.

Opinion of the Court.

1 Story on Const. § 880. The main purpose that Congress had in view was to provide a national currency based upon United States bonds, and to that end it was deemed wise to impose the tax in question. The tax was a means for effectually accomplishing the great object of giving to the people a currency that would rest, primarily, upon the honor of the United States, and be available in every part of the country. There was no purpose by the act or by any of its provisions. to raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations of the Government.

This interpretation of the statute renders it unnecessary to consider whether, for the decision of the question before us, the journals of the two Houses of Congress can be referred to for the purpose of determining whether an act, duly attested by the official signatures of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President, and which is of record in the State Department as an act passed by Congress, originated in the one body or the other. And for the reasons stated, it is not necessary to inquire whether, in any view of the case, the defendant would have been personally liable for the tax collected by him pursuant to the act of Congress, and subsequently covered into the Treasury.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE Concurs in the result.

LUMBERMAN'S BANK v. HUSTON. Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. No. 203. Argued and submitted April 21, 1897. Decided May 10, 1897.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

The most favorable view of this case for the plaintiff in error is to regard it as presenting the same question that was determined

Syllabus.

in Twin City National Bank v. Nebeker, just decided. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case the judgment is

MR. JUSTICE WHITE Concurred in the result.

Mr. John J. Crawford for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error.

Affirmed.

TINDAL v. WESLEY.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

This was a suit by citizens of New York against citizens of South Carolina to recover the possession of certain real property in that State, with damages for withholding possession. One of the defendants in his answer stated that he had no personal interest in the property, but as secretary of state of South Carolina, had custody of it, and was in possession only in that capacity. The other defendant stated that he was watching, guarding and taking care of the property under employment by his co-defendant. Both defendants disclaimed any personal interest in the property, and averred that the title and right of possession was in the State. Held, That the suit was not one against the State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States declaring that " the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign State." Whether a particular suit is one against the State within the meaning of the Constitution depends upon the same principles that determine whether a particular suit is one against the United States.

United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, and other cases, examined and held to decide that a suit against individuals to recover the possession of real property is not a suit against the State simply because the defendant holding possession happens to be an officer of the State and asserts that he is lawfully in possession on its behalf. The Eleventh Amendment gives no immunity to officers or agents of a State in withholding the property of a citizen without authority of law; and when such officers or agents assert that they are in rightful possession, they must make that assertion good, upon its appearing, in a suit against them as individuals, that the legal title and right of possession is in the plaintiff.