8 Wall. 495-514, 18 L. 207, BANK FOR SAVINGS v. THE COL LECTOR.

Internal revenue.— Savings banks, having no capital stock, and whose business is confined to receiving deposits and loaning same, are engaged in "banking" within revenue act of 1864, and upon repeal of proviso excepting them became liable to the tax, pp. 510511.

Cited and principle applied in Oulton v. Savings Institution, 17 Wall. 119, 21 L. 620, agreement that bank is to reimburse depositor only out of first disposable funds, does not change the case; German Sav. Bank v. Archbold, 15 Blatchf. 402, F. C. 5,364, holding tax to be on bank, not on depositor, consequently constitutional; Reed v. People, 125 Ill. 597, 18 N. E. 297, 1 L. R. A. 326, holding act instituting savings societies, confers banking powers. Cited in 19 Am. Dec. 425, note on deposits in savings banks, collecting authorities.

Distinguished in German Sav. & L. Soc. v. Oulton, 1 Sawy. 699, F. C. 5,362, holding deposits payable upon acquisition of profits, etc., not taxable. See 17 Wall. 119, 21 L. 620.

Banks in the commercial sense are those of deposit, of discount, and of circulation, all or any of these functions may be exercised by the same association, p. 512.

Cited and principle applied in Oregon, etc., Co. v. Rathbun, 5 Sawy. 35, F. C. 10,555, holding corporation having its own money not a bank; New Orleans v. N. O. Sav. Inst., 32 La. Ann. 531, holding that institution was a bank of deposit, and liable to bank license.

Statutes.- Proviso, although repealed, may be resorted to in expounding a phrase in another section, p. 513.

Cited and principle applied in Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 561, 27 L. 1032, 3 S. Ct. 399, Commonwealth v. Bailey, 13 Allen, 545, United States v. Monte, 3 N. Mex. 126, 3 Pac. 47, Territory v. Luna, 3 N. Mex. 155, 3 Pac. 244, Cortesy v. Territory, 7 N. Mex. 97, 32 Pac. 507, 19 L. R. A. 356, and Harrington v. Smith, 28 Wis. 62, construing various statutes; Viterbo v. Friedlander, 120 U. S. 726, 30 L. 782, 7 S. Ct. 972, considering French text in construing civil code of Louisiana. Cited in Baum v. Thoms, 150 Ind. 386, 65 Am. St. Rep. 374, 50 N. E. 360, discussing effect of repeal of repealing act; Washington v. Corinth, 55 Vt. 470, to point that one part of statute must be construed by another.

66

Internal revenue.- Moneys received on deposit and invested at " until repaid, and liable to the tax, p. 514. once, are deposits " Cited and principle applied in Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 609, 611, 18 L. 903, 904, and Provident Institution v. Massachusetts,

6 Wall. 627, 18 L. 912, holding deposits of savings institution invested in Federal securities exempt from State taxation, to be taxable.

3 Wall. 514-559, 18 L. 200, THE BERMUDA.

War.- Spoliation of ship's papers at time of capture warrants the most unfavorable inferences as to ownership, employment, and destination, p. 550.

War.— Where cargo was sent to a neutral port, there to be transshipped and carried to blockaded port, the original destination, the vessel was liable to condemnation, pp. 553, 558.

Distinguished in The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 54, 56, 18 L. 570, holding vessel destined for a neutral port with no ulterior destination for the ship, violates no blockade.

War.- International law allows free trade by neutrals with belligerents, of all except contraband goods, if no blockade be violated, p. 552.

War.- Neutral ship taking on contraband cargo, ostensibly for neutral port, but destined for belligerent port, is liable to seizure from beginning to end of voyage, p. 552.

War.- Neutral ship, if acting in good faith, may convey contraband to a belligerent, subject to seizure of offending goods, p. 555. Cited in The Carondelet, 37 Fed. 802, discharging vessel carrying arms deliverable to the Dominican government; The Itata, 56 Fed. 509, 15 U. S. App. 1, discharging vessel, which receives arms, etc., intending to carry them to insurgents in foreign country.

War.- Ship, conveying contraband goods destined to belligerent port under circumstances of fraud, is liable to condemnation, p. 557.

Cited and principle applied in The Adula, 89 Fed. 358, condemning vessel attempting to enter port, with knowledge of the blockade. War.- Cargo, nearly all contraband, consigned to enemies, must be condemned, p. 558.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in Withenbury v. United States, 5 Wall. 821, 18 L. 613, as instance of libel, where all the matters were not finally disposed of, yet an appeal allowed.

8 Wall. 559-560, 18 L. 220, THE HART.

War.- Neutral vessels controlled by belligerents in their trade, or sent with contraband to neutral port, real destination being bel ligerent port, may be condemned as enemy's property, p. 560.

No citations.

8 Wall. 560-564, 18 L. 78, BOLLINGER'S CHAMPAGNE.

Customs duties.- Penalty of forfeiture attaches, where entry of champagne has been made by fraud, though duty paid would be same if entry had been true, p. 564.

Cited in United States v. Seventy-eight Casks of White Wine, 27 Fed. Cas. 1037, holding that false description in invoice subjects goods to forfeiture.

8 Wall. 564-566, 18 L. 168, THE DOURO.

Appeal and error.- Practice of bringing up appeal without merit or expectation of reversal, condemned, p. 566.

Cited in note to Prentice v. Pickersgill, 6 Wall. 513.

8 Wall. 566-573, 18 L. 67, THE MOHAWK.

Shipping.- Purpose of a "register" is to declare nationality of vessel engaged in foreign trade, and enable her to assert that nationality wherever found; vessels engaged in home traffic are enrolled," p. 571.

66

Cited in St. Clair v. United States, 154 U. S. 151, 38 L. 943, 14 S. Ct. 1009, admitting certificate of vessel's registry, and proof as to flag carried.

Shipping. Under act of 1793, concerning enrollment, there is no provision for forfeiture of vessel as provided in registry law of 1792, pp. 571, 572.

Shipping. Under act of 1831, respecting vessels engaged in trade on northern frontiers, enrollment and license are equivalent to certificate of registry, and are subject to forfeiture under act of 1792 for fraudulent use of certificate of registry, pp. 572–573.

Cited in Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. 696, 37 L. 1226, 14 S. Ct. 271, holding that steam pleasure-yacht is not a coasting vessel."

66

Distinguished in The Acorn, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 436, F. C. 29, holding that oath under the statute being extra-judicial, its falsity caused no forfeiture; The Nabob, 1 Brown, 118, F. C. 10,002, where forfeiture because of transfer to alien has never been judicially declared, latter may join in libel.

3 Wall. 573-603, 18 L. 229, VAN ALLEN v. THE ASSESSORS.

Taxation.- Statute of New York of 1865, taxing shares of national banks, while State banks were not taxed upon their shares, but upon their capital stock, is void, p. 581.

Reaffirmed in The People v. Commissioners, 94 U. S. 418, 24 L. 165. Cited and principle applied in Thomson v. Pacific R. R., 9 Wall. 590, 19 L. 798, holding company incorporated in a State, not

exempt from State taxation, because employed in the government's service; First Nat. Bank v. Richmond, 39 Fed. 314, holding that taxation of national bank stock in solido was not authorized; Whitney Nat. Bank v. Parker, 41 Fed. 409, holding invalid statute taxing national bank shares, and making no deduction for non-taxable securities; State Bank v. Board of Revenue, 91 Ala. 219, 8 So. 853, holding that shareholders of State and national banks are equally entitled to deduct from value of shares their indebtedness; McHenry v. Downer, 116 Cal. 25, 27, 30, 47 Pac. 780, 781, 782, holding void, tax of national bank shares under section 3608 of political code, State banks being exempt; People v. Nat. Bank, 123 Cal. 60. 69 Am. St. Rep. 37, 55 Pac. 688, holding national banks exempt from State taxation except so far as Congress has expressly consented; People v. McCall, 43 Ill. 288, abating State tax on shares of national banks; State v. Garton, 32 Ind. 4, 2 Am. Rep. 318, holding that Congress cannot impose tax on official bond of State officer; Wiley v. Starbuck, 44 Ind. 307, 15 Am. Rep. 250, holding remedy given by national banking act, for recovery of excessive interest, cannot be supplemented by State statute; Hubbard v. Board of Supervisors, 23 Iowa, 144, 145, holding same as cited case, and First Nat. Bank v. Fancher, 48 N. Y. 526, to same effect; Commonwealth v. First Nat. Bank, 4 Bush, 103, 96 Am. Dec. 288, holding valid tax on national bank shares same as that on State banks; National Bank v. Fisher, 45 Kan. 730, 26 Pac. 483, allowing stockholders of national bank same deduction from assessment, as other taxpayers, owning moneyed capital; Fifield v. Close, 15 Mich. 508, holding void law of Congress requiring process in State courts to be stamped; State v. Boyd, 32 N. J. L. 274, declaring illegal, tax, in 1865, on national bank shares; People v. Commrs., 67 N. Y. 519, holding that statute of 1865 being unconstitutional did not create a contract; Pittsburgh v. National Bank, 55 Pa. St. 50, declaring unconstitutional the taxation of national banks, except as provided by act of 1864; Van Slyke v. The State, 23 Wis. 662, 664, 665, holding that State may tax national bank shares though capital only of State banks is taxed, if the two taxes are equivalent. Cited in Williams v. Nolan, 154 U. S. 551, 18 L. 236, 14 S. Ct. 1215, reversing case on its authority. Cited, without particular application, in Bank of Comm. v. The Mayor, 43 N. Y. 187. Cited in 69 Am. St. Rep. 40, note on State taxation of national banks.

Distinguished in Primgar Bank v. Rerick, 96 Iowa, 243, 64 N. W. 803, holding valid statute providing for assessment of shares of State banks, to bank, and of national banks to its shareholders.

Taxation. Under act of 1864 a State possesses power to authorize taxation of shares of those national banks in the hands of stockholders, whose capital stock is wholly invested in stock and bonds of United States, p. 582.

Reaffirmed in People v. The Commissioners, 4 Wall. 255, 18 L. 349 (see dissenting opinion, p. 259, 18 L. 350), and Lionberger v. Rowse, 9 Wall. 473, 19 L. 723. Cited and principle applied in Provident Institution v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 630, 18 L. 913, holding portion of deposits of savings institution, invested in Federal securities liable to the tax; Evansville Bank v. Britton, 105 U. S. 325, 26 L. 1054, holding invalid, State statute taxing national bank shares, without permitting owner to deduct from their assessed value his bona fide indebtedness; Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U. S. 667, 33 L. 775, 10 S. Ct. 326, holding that the assessment was not unconstitutional; First Nat. Bank v. Farwell, 10 Biss. 271, 7 Fed. 518, refusing to allow shareholders for capital invested in government bonds, as also in Stratton v. Collins, 43 N. J. L. 567, and Adair v. Robinson, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 280, 25 S. W. 736, all holding likewise; Union Nat. Bank v. Chicago, 3 Biss. 91, F. C. 14,374, holding that national bank shares must be assessed at par; Exchange Nat. Bank v. Miller, 19 Fed. 379, holding same as cited case; Sumter Co. v. National Bank, 62 Ala. 468, 34 Am. Rep. 32, First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 65 Ill. 47, Wright v. Stilz, 27 Ind. 340, Bank of Shreveport v. Board of Assessment, 41 La. Ann. 183, 186, 189, 5 So. 408, 410, 412, Packard v. City of Lewiston, 55 Me. 457, and Stetson v. Bangor, 56 Me. 282, 285 (see dissenting opinion, 289), Austin v. Board of Aldermen, 14 Allen, 362, Smith v. Webb, 11 Minn. 502, 504, Lionberger v. Rowse, 43 Mo. 78, State v. Newark, 39 N. J. L. 382, People v. Commrs., 35 N. Y. 424, Williams v. Weaver, 75 N. Y. 36, Fraser v. Seibern, 16 Ohio St. 620, McLaughlin v. Chadwell, 7 Heisk. 391, and Harrison v. Vines, 46 Tex. 21; In re Sheffield, 64 Fed. 836, holding that State cannot tax patent-right; Baldwin v. City Council, 53 Ala. 439, holding that city was without power to tax national bank stock; Linton v. Childs, 105 Ga. 569, 32 S. E. 618, holding State statute taxing bank presidents inoperative as to presidents of national banks; People v. Moore, 1 Idaho, 510, holding that territory had authority to tax shares of national banks; State v. Board of Assessors, 47 La. Ann. 1502, 18 So. 465, holding shares of stock in corporation exempt from taxation, are taxable if held by another corporation; County Commrs. v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 48 Md. 121, holding State, under Federal statutes, can tax either realty of a national bank or its capital stock; Flint v. Board of Aldermen, 99 Mass. 145, 96 Am. Dec. 714, holding that Congress can exempt shares of national bank from State taxation; Smith v. First Nat. Bank, 17 Mich. 480, holding invalid State tax upon capital stock of national banks; Carthage v. First Nat. Bank, 71 Mo. 509, 36 Am. Rep. 495, holding that municipality cannot exact license tax from national banks; Commissioners v. Davis, 6 Mont. 315, 12 Pac. 692, holding valid the tax on national bank shares; State v. First Nat. Bank, 4 Nev. 355, 357, holding national bank notes not taxable by State; Bank v. Peterborough, 56 N. H. 46, 22 Am. Rep. 426, holding that State can tax surplus of national