Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/853

 the business of this court by its decision to place state banks on par with national banks, with reference to the taxation of their stock. Is the tax imposed on the stock of state banks valid? is the question we must decide, together with questions of jurisdiction and other vital questions which we will soon reach. The United States Supreme Court has made its determination with reference to the taxation of national bank stock, but that is as far as it can go; it can determine nothing with reference to the validity of tax on state bank stock, for that is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the state and of the state court, and, as we lave seen, the satestate [sic] can classify personal property in the state for taxation, and can impose a higher tax on one class than another.

Perhaps national banks whose stock cannot now be taxed for the reasons above stated will have an advantage over state banks whose stock is taxed, but to put them on a plane of equality by annulling the tax on state bank stock is not here the business of this court, and the Majority cannot point to a law which authorizes them to do so. The fact that national banks will thus gain an advantage is no reason why state bank stock should escape paying a valid tax, nor should the fact of that advantage in favor of the national banks be allowed to obscure the real questions here presented. Let the majority compare the disadvantage thus suffered by the state banks with the loss and injury the state will suffer if the valid tax on state bank stock is judicially cancelled.

Another point which is of vital importance to this case, and which must be kept steadily in mind, is that, if any tribunal or body of officials has any jurisdiction of the matters herein involved at this time, which we very much doubt, it is the county commissioners.

The petition for the writ shows that plaintiffs had full knowledge of all that the taxing officers did with reference to the taxation of their stock. It shows that the plaintiffs, through its proper officers, under § 2115 (chap. 61) did furnish a statement showing the value of its shares of stock on April 1st; the statement also shows the amount of its surplus, reserve fund, and undivided profits, as required by law. This statement was verified by oath. It further shows that various district, county, and state taxing officers proceeded in exact conformity to law for the perfection of the tax claim against the shares of stock, and did take in due form of law such steps for the assessment, equalization, levying, spreading, and charging of the tax against such shares of stock, and did all such other things as were necessary for the perfec-