A state statute is not void which, for the purposes of taxation,
requires, under a penalty for his neglect or refusal, the cashier
of each national bank within the state to transmit, on or before
the fifteenth day of April in each year, to the clerks of the
several towns in the state in which any stock or shareholders of
such bank shall reside, a true list of the names of such stock or
shareholders on the books of such bank, together with the amount of
money actually paid in on each share on the first day of that
month.
On the 9th of November, 1865, the Legislature of Vermont passed
the following act. Acts of 1865, p. 17.
"An Act providing for taxing stock in the several banking
associations in this state, formed under the Act of Congress
approved June 3, 1864, entitled 'An Act to provide a national
currency.'"
"SEC. 1. It shall be the duty of the cashiers of the several
banking associations in this state formed under the Act of Congress
approved June 3, 1864, entitled, 'An Act to provide a national
currency,' and the cashiers of all other banks in this state, to
transmit to the clerks of the several towns in this state in which
any stock or shareholders of such banking association shall reside
a
Page 94 U. S. 528
true list of the names of such stock or shareholders on the
books of such banking association, together with the amount of
money actually paid in on each share on the first day of April in
each year hereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April in
each year."
"SEC. 2. The stock and shares of all such banking associations
shall be set in the list and taxed in the same manner that the
stock in the several banks in this state, which are chartered under
the authority of this state, are liable to be taxed by the existing
laws thereof."
"SEC. 3. If any of the stock of such banking associations is
owned by or stands in the name of any person residing out of this
state, it shall be the duty of the cashier of such banking
association to transmit to the clerk of the town in which such
banking association is situated the names of all such nonresident
stock or shareholders, with the number of shares standing against
the name of each of such stock or shareholders on the books of such
banking association, together with the amount of money actually
paid in on each share on or before the fifteenth day of April in
each year."
"SEC. 4. Whenever the collector in any town in which any such
banking association is situated shall have a tax against any stock
or shareholder in such banking association who is not a resident of
this state, it shall be the duty of the cashier of such banking
association, upon presentation of such tax to him by such
collector, to pay the same, and charge the same to such stock or
shareholder on the books of such banking association, and all
dividends due and becoming due upon the same shall be holden to
such banking association for the payment of such tax."
"SEC. 5. If any cashier shall neglect or refuse to make returns
to any town in this state, as provided in this act, he shall
forfeit and pay to the treasurer of such town, for the benefit of
such town, the sum of $500, to be recovered by an action on the
case, in the name of such treasurer, founded on this statute."
This action was brought in March, 1870, in the County Court of
Windham County, Vermont, by Dowley, as Treasurer of the town of
Brattleboro', against Waite, the cashier of the First National Bank
of Brattleboro', to recover the penalty prescribed by the fifth
section of the foregoing act, for refusing, in 1866 and 1867, to
make to that town the returns provided for in the first
section.
The only defense set up at the trial was, that, as the bank was
organized under the law of Congress, Waite, as such cashier,
Page 94 U. S. 529
was amenable to no law but that, and that the state had not
power to prescribe or define his duties as such cashier.
Waite also offered evidence tending to show that, at all times
during the years in question, the bank kept such lists of its
stockholders as the act of Congress requires, which were open to
the inspection of the trustees of said town, who were permitted at
all times to transcribe therefrom, and set in the grand list of the
town all such stock of said bank as they deemed taxable.
Dowley waived all objection to the admission of the evidence,
but claimed that, if admitted, it constituted no legal defense to
the action.
The court thereupon directed a verdict for Dowley, which was
taken.
To this decision Waite duly excepted; his exceptions were
allowed, and the cause passed to the supreme court for review.
That court rendered a decision affirming the judgment of the
county court, and giving judgment for Dowley against Waite for the
amount of the verdict with subsequent interest.
Waite thereupon brought this writ here, assigning for error that
the Supreme Court of Vermont erred
First, in holding that the statute of the state was
valid under the Constitution of the United States, as not repugnant
to nor in conflict with the acts of Congress providing for the
organization and management of national banks, being the Acts of
March 25, 1863, and June 3, 1864.
Second, in rendering judgment against him for the
penalties provided by a statute which is invalid, as repugnant to
and in conflict with said acts of Congress.
Page 94 U. S. 532
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of
Vermont, and, as is frequent in writs to the state courts, it is
objected that there is no jurisdiction. The plaintiff in error was
cashier of a national bank in that state, and the judgment which
this writ brings here for review was rendered against him for
penalties imposed by a statute of that state for his refusal to
transmit to the clerk of the Town of Brattleboro' a true list of
the shareholders of the bank who resided in that town, with the
number of shares held and the amount paid on said shares. The
record shows that
"The defendant's counsel claimed in defense that as said bank
was organized under the law of Congress referred to in plaintiff's
declaration, the defendant, as such cashier, was amenable to no law
but said law of Congress, and that the state legislature had not
power to prescribe or define his duties as such cashier."
That this proposition raises what is called a federal question
within the meaning of the act of 1867 admits of no doubt. We are
also of opinion that no judgment could have been rendered against
the defendant in the state courts without holding and in effect
deciding that this plea was bad, for if the state could not impose
the duty of making such a list on the cashier by reason of the act
of Congress or the Constitution of the United States, then the
defendant was guilty of no offense, and the judgment is for that
reason erroneous. This plain proposition cannot be evaded by any
opinion delivered by the supreme court of that state. This Court
therefore has jurisdiction.
And the single question raised by the record is whether the
statute of the state is void which requires the cashier of each
national bank within the state and the cashiers of all other banks
to transmit to the clerks of the several towns in the state in
which any stock or shareholder of such banking association shall
reside a true list of the names of such stock or shareholders, with
the number of shares standing against the name of such share or
stock holder on the books of such banking association, together
with the amount of money actually paid in on such share on the
first day of April.
The proposition on which this statute is asserted to be void is
that Congress has legislated upon the same subject, and that
Page 94 U. S. 533
where there exists a concurrent right of legislation in the
states and in Congress and the latter has exercised its power,
there remains in the states no authority to legislate on the same
matter. It is not necessary to dispute that proposition, nor, when
stated in this general language, can it be controverted. It is
nonetheless true, however, that the line which divides what is
occupied exclusively by any legislation of Congress from what is
left open to the action of the states is not always well defined
and is often distinguished by such nice shades of difference on
each side as to require the closest scrutiny when the principle is
invoked, as it is in this case.
We have more than once held in this Court that the national
banks organized under the acts of Congress are subject to state
legislation, except where such legislation is in conflict with some
act of Congress or where it tends to impair or destroy the utility
of such banks as agents or instrumentalities of the United States
or interferes with the purposes of their creation.
This doctrine was clearly and distinctly announced in
National Bank v.
Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353, and that case has been
often referred to since, with approval, in this Court.
The statute of Kentucky required
"the cashier of a bank whose stock is taxed to pay into the
treasury the amount of the tax due. If not, he was to be liable for
the same, with twenty percent upon the amount."
The stock thus to be taxed was, as in the present case, the
stock of the shareholders, as authorized by the act of Congress,
and that statute went a step further than to require a list of the
names of these shareholders and the amount of their stock, and
obliged the cashier to collect the tax out of the dividends and pay
it over to the state.
The precise point raised here was taken there and overruled by
this Court -- namely that the laws of the state could impose no
such duty on the banks organized under the laws of the United
States. The case is directly and conclusively in point.
It seems to have been supposed that because Congress has
required of each national bank that a list of its stockholders
shall be kept posted up in some place in their business office,
Page 94 U. S. 534
this covers the same ground as that covered by the Vermont
statute.
The act of Congress, however, was merely designed to furnish to
the public dealing with the bank a knowledge of the names of its
corporators, and to what extent they might be relied on as giving
safety to dealing with the bank. It had no such purpose as the
Vermont statute, and was wholly deficient in the information needed
for the purposes of taxation by the state, as conceded to it by the
act of Congress itself.
Some legislation of Vermont was therefore necessary to the
proper exercise of the rightful powers of the state, and, so far as
it required this list, was not in conflict with any provision of
the act of Congress.
This leads to the second objection to the validity of the state
statute -- namely that its purpose was to tax bank shares at other
places than those where the bank was located.
This case does not raise that question.
1. Because the bank whose cashier is the plaintiff in error was
located in the town of Brattleboro', and the judgment against him
is for refusing to deliver the list of shareholders to the clerk of
that town, and not for his refusal to deliver such a list to any
other town. The delivery to this clerk of a list of the
shareholders in that town would have been in aid of the taxation of
the shares at the place where the bank was organized and did
business, and such taxation is legal within the narrowest
definition of the act of Congress.
2. But if it be true that so much of this statute as is supposed
to authorize other towns in which shareholders reside to tax such
shares is unconstitutional, that does not invalidate the part of it
we have been considering. It will be time enough to decide the
provision of the state law authorizing such taxation
unconstitutional when an attempt is made to collect such a tax and
the party resisting it shall bring the question here. His rights
are not affected by the acts demanded of the cashier, and the
latter has no right to make a case for him in advance. This Court
does not sit here to try moot cases to solve a question which may
never be raised by any party entitled to raise it.
Judgment affirmed.