968 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 20,

reach me until yesterday, in consequence of illness, and the
interdiction by my physician of the communication to me of
any business matter.

The order requests my official opinion, whether it is com-
petent for the General Assembly to levy a tax upon the
banks known as National Banks, organized under the Act of
Congress, or to levy any other tax than such as is laid
equally upon all the property liable to taxation in this State.

In reply, 1 have to state, that the Banks referred to,
located in this State are banks of deposit, discount and cir-
culation, engaged in what is known as the banking business,
especially the loaning of money upon interest, whereby large
profits are realized. I do not consider these banks were
fiscal agents of the Federal Government, and as such exempt
from State taxation. They are rather foreign corporations
carrying on the banking business in this State, enjoying the
benefit of State laws for the enforcement of contracts. And
I am therefore of opinion that they are liable to State taxa-
tion. In what form this taxation is to be imposed, whether
a per cent, on dividends or a tax upon the amount of capital
employed in banking purposes will be for the wisdom of the
Legislature to determine. Of course the tax must be so
adjusted as not to be double upon any part of the property
of those banks.

The Declaration of Rights declares the principle of equality
of taxation of all property under the regular State and
county assessment, but to show that the taxing power was
left otherwise unfettered, the same Article declares, "yet
fines, duties or taxes may properly and justly be imposed or
laid, with a political view for the good government and
benefit of the community," These words I take to mean,
"for all governmental purposes consistent with the spirit of
republican institutions."

The tax in question upon the privilege of carrying on the
banking business in this State belongs to the same class as
licenses, stamp duties, &c.

Respectfully submitted,

ISAAC D. JONES,
Attorney General of Maryland.
Which was read.

Also,

The report of the joint committee from the two Houses
of the last General Assembly, to meet a similar committee
appointed by the Legislature of Virginia, in February, 1867,

Which was read and referred to a joint select committee
as hereafter appointed.

Mr. Mitchell, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,
reported favorably