ally scrupulous, and who, having least experience in business, are least able to bear the burden, while the most inadequate returns are invariably made by the rich, who are usually most ingenious in evasion and most fertile in expedients to escape taxation. The result is that always and everywhere no appreciable part of such intangible property is reached by laws, however ingeniously framed or severely enforced. The heavy and ever-increasing rate of taxation in our cities makes this result inevitable. Safe investments are rarely found which yield more than 4 per cent, and the rate of taxation being generally from 2 to 3 per cent, it is not to be wondered at that there should be endeavor to escape a burden which takes more than half of their income. Evasion and downright perjury is the consequence. The legislation complained of is the outgrowth of this state of things, which is not peculiar to the State of Maryland, but the lawmakers of that State, having in view that trait of human nature which impels the man of average honesty to be in matters of taxation about as honest as he thinks he can afford to be, have endeavored to bring hoarded wealth from its hiding, by the promise of taxation at a rate which would not be practically confiscatory, with the result that over $50,000,000 of property has been returned for taxation which had never before been brought to light. The exact figures are that before the passage of this act $6,481,047 was returned, the greater part of this amount belonging to trust estates, while in the year following $58,885,000 was returned for taxation; and the precise question now presented for determination is whether the valuation of this property for purposes of taxation at 30 cents on the $100 works such a discrimination against national banks that the courts should be compelled to declare this legislation void, as obnoxious to the provisions of the statute of the United States intended to prevent hostile discrimination against national banks." The court concluded that the legislation was not inspired by any spirit of hostility to national banks and did not fall within the inhibition of the Act of Congress.

§ 298. Taxation of real estate of national banks.

The real estate of national banks wherever located, whether in the State of the bank's location or elsewhere, is taxable like other real estate. As already pointed out, there need be no deduction from the value of the shares of national banks on account of the value of real estate located and taxed in other States, supra, § 272. There is no provision in the Act of Congress requiring the deduction of the valuation of real estate located in the State of the location of the bank from the valuation of the shares. Where the laws of the State require the appraised value of the real estate of corporations to be deducted from the actual value of the shares before they are listed for taxation, national bank shareholders are entitled to the same deduction, and the denial of this right would be not only violative of the Act of Congress, but a denial of the equal protection of the laws.1 It has been held in a number of State courts construing the laws of those particular States, that the assessed value of the real estate must be deducted from the valuation of the shares. Thus the Court of Appeals of Maryland 2 decided that the State can tax the real property or the shares of stock of a national bank but not both. The court said that it is not a mere metaphysical subtlety to say that the corporate property is represented by the shares of stock, and that it is substantially true that the taxes assessed on the property of the corporation are in reality paid by the shareholders and paid by them directly.1

It was held in Indiana, where the statute directed that the realty of national banks should be taxed like other realty and its value deducted from the capital stock, the shares of which must then be taxed to the holders, that the bank could not recover the taxes paid on its realty on the ground that the value of the realty had not been deducted from the capital stock, for the wrong in not making the deduction was done to the stockholders and not to the bank.2

In New York, the State court, construing the New York statute, held that the assessor must deduct from the actual value of each share the sum bearing the same proportion thereto, as the assessed value of the real estate of the bank bore to the actual, rather than the nominal, value of the capital stock.

In other States it has been held that, where the statute requires the shares to be taxed at their actual value without deduction for the real estate, this includes the taxation of the realty, which is accordingly exempt from unequal separate assessment.5

§ 299. Double taxation of national banks.

These decisions of the State courts however, denying the right of double taxation by taxing the bank shares without deduction for the assessed value of the real estate, are based upon State laws. If the State allows the double taxation of other moneyed capital invested in corporate shares, through the taxation of both the corporate shares and corporate property, there is no prohibition in the National Banking Act requiring the deduction of the value of the real estate so as to avoid double taxation in the case of national banks. There is no discrimination in double taxation if all of the same class are subject to it.

The Act of Congress protects against double taxation, as already shown, in the case of shares held by non-residents, by providing that such shares cannot be taxed in the State of the owner's domicil, but only at the location of the bank. There is no protection however against the incidental double taxation growing out of the ownership by the bank of real estate located in other States. The value of such real estate is included in the valuation of the shares of the bank, and is also assessed for taxation in the States where situated.

$ 300. Enforcement of tax.

Where the bank is made the statutory agent of the shareholders for the payment of the tax and the duty imposed upon it to pay the whole tax to the State, reimbursing itself from the shareholders, it has been held that the State may enforce the collection of the tax from the bank by the methods employed in other cases, supra, § 269. Where the assessment is against the shareholder personally, without any statutory right to enforce payment from the bank, the State may employ the same remedies against the shareholders as against other delinquents in the payment of personal property taxes. Thus a stockholder in a national bank is bound to take notice of the time appointed by the statute for the hearing of complaints in regard to assessment of bank stock; and the proceeding by which the valuation is determined, though it may be followed, if the tax is not paid, by a sale of the delinquent's property, is due process of law.1 Where the State statute authorizes not only distress and sale of personal property, but fine for misconduct for the non-payment of the personal property tax, such statute may be enforced against the delinquent national bank stockholder.2

§ 301. Visitorial power of State over national banks.

3

The State has the power to require the cashier of a national bank to furnish to the designated official a true list of the names of shareholders and the number of shares. The court said that the national banks are subject to State legislation, except where such legislation is in conflict with some act of Congress, or where it tends to destroy or impair the utility of the banks as agencies of the United States, or interfere with the purposes of their creation. It was no objection to such a law that the Act of Congress requires the national bank to keep a list of its stockholders posted up in its business office. The State has the right to pass such a law for the purpose of enforcing its taxation of the shares. It was objected that the purpose of the act