156 FEDBBAIi BEPOBTEB. �ity is produced, more would result if ehareholders in national banks were wholly relieved from taxation. Precisely what is signified by the language of the act of congresa which de- clares that the taxation shall net be at a greater rate than is imposed by the laws of the state upon "moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens," has never been judicially deolared, although it has several times been determined what was not such moneyed capital. �In Limberger v. Bouse, 9 Wall. 468, it is stated that the enaetment was intended to place national banks on an equal- ity with state banks as to the taxation of their shares by the state. In Hepbum v. School Directors, 23 Wall. 484, it is said that moneyed capital, as used in the section, signifieB Bomething more than money lent out at interest, and com- prehends investments in stocks and securities. In Adarns v. Mayor of Nashville, 95 U. S. 19, the opinion is that "the act was not intended to curtail the state power on the subject of taxation. It simply required that capital invested in national banks should not be taxed at a greater rate than like property aimilarly invested." �It would seem that the term "moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens" more aptly describes ready money, or capital invested in private banking, than it does capital in- vested in manufacturing corporations, insurance companies, and the like. As originally used in the national banking act, (section 41,) it signified something different from capital invested in state banking corporations, beeause it was pro- vided originally that the taxation by the states should not exceed that imposed on moneyed capital in the hands of in- dividual citizens, or that imposed "upon the shares in any of the banks organized under authority of the state." 13 St. at Large, 112. It is hardly appropriate to call shares in man- ufacturing or insurance corporations "moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens;" and if it had been intended to include all capital thus invested, it would have been easy to do so under some such comprehensive term as personal prop- erty. It seems more reasonable to believe that while coiigress was legislating to place national bank shares on an equality ��� �
