Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/264

 252 FEDERAL REPORTER. �gress, because it does not permit such deduction on account of debts. �It would seem that these decisions are conclusive to the effect that the act of 1866 is to be regarded as though it in terms declared not only that the shares in national bank- ing associations should be taxed at a rate and upon an assessment prohibited by the act of congress, but also as though it declared that no other tax should be imposed on account of such shares, because, being a substitute for the existing provisions of the general laws as respects the taxa- tion of capital represented by bank shares, it is by implication a repeal of those provisions. �The decisions of the courts of a state in the construction of a state statute, •where no federal question is involved, are conclusive upon the courts of the United States, and the con- struction which was given by the court of appeals to this statute bas been recognized as controUing and final by the supreme court of the United States. But it is urged on be- half of the defendants that the court of appeals may recon- sider its views in the light of the decision of the supreme court, and the consequences which ensUe from that decision. Undoubtedly these consequences may be serious, as share- holders of national banks may in some instances escape the payment of taxes upon their personal property to the extent such property is invested in bank shares. This con- sideration, as -well as those graver ones which lead courts to seek for some construction of law which will uphold it if possi- ble, would appeal with great force to any tribunal before which the question originally presented might come. But this court must take the law as it finds it, and must aocept the decision of the court of appeals as authoritative. This court cannot substitute in the place of that decision its own judgment as to what the court of appeals might possibly decide upon a reconsideration of the questions involved. �Besides the decision of the court of appeals, reference should be made to the act of the legistature of June 26, 1880, as a legislative exposition of the act of 1866. The later act is clearly intended as a substitute for the act of 1866, ����