A corporation chartered as a bank by the national government cannot be controlled in any way by state laws in the exercise of the rights granted by congress.1 It is wholly exempt from state control or state taxation, except as to the taxing of its real estate or the shares of individual stockholders, or as such right is granted by congress.2 Congress may grant to the states the right to tax such banks.3 Congress has granted to the states the right to tax the shares of individual stockholders and the right to tax the real estate of the bank. The power granted is limited by the two restrictions, first, that the taxation shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens; and second, that the shares of non-residents shall be taxed in the city or town where the bank is located and not elsewhere.4 Under this law the bank may be required to pay the tax on its shares and charge the same against its stockholders,5 even though state banks are not required to do the same thing for their shareholders.6 A deduction allowed from some moneyed capital, but not apparently directed against national banks, is not an unlawful discrimination.7 The release from taxation of certain kinds of moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens is an unfair discrimination only when the particular kind of moneyed capital exempted comes into competition with that of national banks.8 A discrimination among national banks is permissible where the discrimination affects all banks, state and national alike, and is not directed against national banks as such.9 A state cannot tax the franchises or intan-

11 HcCormick v. Market Nat. Bank 165 U. S. 538; but in this case there was no proof of user or of doing business beyond the contract sued upon.

12 See Sec. 33, post.

1 Bowman v. Cecil Bank, 3 Grant Cas. 33.

2 People v. Oakland Co. Bank, 1 Doug. 282. See Atterbury v. Knox, 4 B. Mon. 90.

3 State v. Ashley. 1 Ark. 513; Elliot v. Branch Bank, 4 Ark. 424; Bower v. State, 5 Ark. 234; Farmers' Bank v. Calk, 4 Ky. Law R. 617; Union Bank v. Denere, 17 La.

234; Trezevant v. Bank of Tennessee, 1 Rob. (La.) 465; Branch Bank v. Rhew, 37 Miss. 110; Bank v. Smith, 33 Mo. 364; Merchants' Bank v. Farmer, 43 Mo. 214; Bank v. Goddard, 5 Mason, 366; Fed. Cas. No. 917; Mason v. Farmers' Bank, 12 Leigh, 84.

4 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 588.

5 Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369. A state statute as to service upon foreign corporations gives the same right of service to United States courts.

1 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Dearing,

91 U. S. 29; National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 333; Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5; Doty v. First Nat. Bank, 3 N. Dak. 9; Pittsburgh v. First Nat. Bank, 55 Pa. 45. The limitation is suggested that the control may be good if it does not impair the efficiency of the national banks in Thomas v. Farmers' Bank, 46 Md. 43. Compare In re Braden, 165 Pa. 184; Newman v. Wait, 46 Vt 689.

2 Cases cited in preceding note.

3 Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573

4 Sec 5219, Rev. Stat U. S.

5 Aberdeen Bank v. Chehalis Co., 166 U. S. 440; National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 WalL 35a crimination prohibited will be found clearly stated by Matthews, J., in Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138. The object of the statute is stated to be the prevention of the state from levying "a tax on such shares to create and foster an unequal and unfriendly competition by favoring institutions or individuals carrying on a similar business and operations and investments of a like character." In other words, the phrase "moneyed capital" in the statute by construction becomes "moneyed capital engaged in banking."

6 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S 461.

7 First Nat, Bank v. Ayers, 160 U. S. 660. State banks were treated as were national banks.

8 Aberdeen Bank v. Chehalis Co., supra; Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Seattle, 166 U. S. 463.

9 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Pennsylvania, supra. The meaning and purpose of the statute and the disgible property of the national banks, and a tax upon the corporation or its property is not the legal equivalent of a tax on the shares of stock in the names of shareholders.10

10 Owensboro Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 636, reviewing former cases.