—has entirely disappeared from the law and was not retained in chap. 220, a very potent fact, as it demonstrates that the legislature knew that this character of stock and money and credits were assessed and taxed under chap. 230, and therefore could not be classified under chap. 220. It further shows that the legislature knew that they were taxed at 3 per cent. of the value; it shows further that bank stock was subject to the general tax to be assessed and levied on its value and collected in, the county, city, town, or district where the bank is located, just in the same manner as a similar tax is assessed and collected against flour mills, elevators, warehouses, or land. It throws much light upon the intent of the legislature in passing chap. 62; it reasonably shows that bank stock is in a class by itself, and that other stocks, bonds, moneys, and credits are those which are included in chap. 230, and in § 3 of chap. 59. It must be kept in mind that at the time chap. 220 was passed chap. 230 was still in force. We think chap. 220 clearly indicates the legislative intent as to what kind of stocks were dealt with in chap. 230 and in chap. 62. As to the specifically repealing clause of chap. 62, it seems certain that refers to chap. 230 and 255, and, if bank stock is not of the class of stocks mentioned in either of those chapters, it could not have been affected by the repeal of them, nor by the exemption from taxation of the character of stock mentioned in them.
The majority opinion lays much stress on the decision of the United State Supreme Court in the case of Merchants’ National Bank of Richmond v. City of Richmond and other decisions of that court which are to the same effect, and all cited in their opinion. The principal point determined in that case is that a state cannot place a rate of taxation on national bank stock which is higher than that placed upon moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens invested in loans on securities for a permanent or temporary purpose, where such moneyed capital is in competition with national banks, or the money of national banks, and this for the reason that the imposition of the tax in such a manner would be contrary to the provisions of § 5219, Revised Statutes U. S. We agree with those decisions, and by reason of them the taxing officers of this state can impose no tax upon the stock of national banks. This, however, does not determine one of the material questions presented in this case, viz. the validity of the tax imposed upon state bank stock. We have no hesitancy in stating that the fact that state bank stock is taxed, and that national bank stock will be untaxed is immaterial here. It is not
