Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/884

 870 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �t lie amount so invested, without deduction in any form of his indebt- edness of $6,000. But if he should loan the $10,000 and take a note therefor, or if he should buy promissory notes "with that money, thereby becoming the owner of credits, he-will not be required to pay taxes upon the money value of his credits, but only upon $4,000, the difference between his credits and his indebtedness. �It is thus seen that, under the operation of the rule prescribed by the state law, moneyed capital, not invested in national bank shares, will, in Bueh cases as the one supposed, be burdened with less taxa- tion than the same amount of capital invested in such shares would be. Congress, in granting authority to the states to tax national bank shares, certaiuly did not intend to expose moneyed capital so invested to greator burdens than were imposed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens. On the contrary, its pur- pose was, for all purposesof local taxation, to place moneyed capital, represented by national bank shares, upon the same footing with the most favored moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of any state exercising the power granted by congress. Here, the state law, by way of diminished taxation, accords to moneyed capital in- vested in credits, held by its citizens, privileges of a substantial character which it denies to capital invested in national bank shares. �The state law, in effect, holds out an inducement to invest in credits rather than in national bank shares. It seems to me that that law enforces, in certain cases, a rule of taxation inconsistent with the principle of equality which underlies the legislation of congress, and conformity to which is essential to the validity of state taxation of national bank shares. �There are other grounds upon which the learned counsel of com- plainant assail the state law. It is contended that the shareholders are subjected to double taxation as to the real estate of the bank, beeause, in addition to the taxation of shares at their cash value, the bank was required to pay and did pay taxes for the same year upon the real estate used in its business. It is quite sufficient to say that the bank is not entitled to relief upon this ground, since it satisfactorUy appears that, excluding the real estate of the bank, the shares are not assessed beyond their fair cash or selling value. The objection that the state law makes a discrimination in favor of individuals and corporations, other than national banks, owning United States bonds and securities, is not, I think, well taken. If I do not mis- apprehend this objection, it rests upon the ground that the state does not impose taxes upon securities which the law exempts from ��� �