disposing of this contention, after reviewing the previous decisions of this court bearing upon the subject, proceeded to expound the true intent and meaning of § 5219 of the Revised Statutes as follows (p. 153):

"It follows, as a deduction from these decisions, that 'moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens' does not necessarily embrace shares of stock held by them in all corporations whose capital is employed, according to their respective corporate powers and privileges, in business carried on for the pecuniary profit of shareholders, although shares in some corporations, according to the nature of their business, may be such moneyed capital. The key to the proper interpretation of the act of Congress is its policy and purpose. The object of the law was to establish a system of national banking institutions, in order to provide a uniform and secure currency for the people, and to facilitate the operations of the Treasury of the United States. The capital of each of the banks in this system was to be furnished entirely by private individuals; but, for the protection of the government and the people, it was required that this capital, so far as it was the security for its circulating notes, should be invested in the bonds of the United States. These bonds were not subjects of taxation; and neither the banks themselves, nor their capital, however invested, nor the shares of stock therein held by individuals, could be taxed by the States in which they were located without the consent of Congress, being exempted from the power of the States in this respect, because these banks were means and agencies established by Congress in execution of the powers of the government of the United States. It was deemed consistent, however, with these national uses, and otherwise expedient, to grant to the States the authority to tax them within the limits of a rule prescribed by the law. In fixing those limits it became necessary to prohibit the States from imposing such a burden as would prevent

the capital of individuals from freely seeking investment in institutions which it was the express object of the law to establish and promote. The business of banking, including all the operations which distinguish it, might be carried on under state laws, either by corporations or private persons, and capital in the form of money might be invested and employed by individual citizens in many single and separate operations forming substantial parts of the business of banking. A tax upon the money of individuals, invested in the form of shares of stock in national banks, would diminish their value as an investment and drive the capital so invested from this employment, if at the same time similar investments and similar employments under the authority of state laws were exempt from an equal burden. The main purpose, therefore, of Congress, in fixing limits to state taxation on investments in the shares of national banks, was to render it impossible for the State, in levying such a tax, 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. The language of the act of Congress is to be read in the light of this policy."

And again (p. 157): "The terms of the act of Congress, therefore, include shares of stock or other interests owned by individuals in all enterprises in which the capital employed in carrying on its business is money, where the object of the business is the making of profit by its use as money. The moneyed capital thus employed is invested for that purpose in securities by way of loan, discount, or otherwise, which are from time to time, according to the rules of the business, reduced again to money and reinvested. It includes money in the hands of individuals employed in a similar way, invested in loans, or in securities for the payment of money, either as an investment of a permanent character, or temporarily with a view to sale

or repayment and reinvestment. In this way the moneyed capital in the hands of individuals is distinguished from what is known generally as personal property. Accordingly, it was said in Evansville Bank v. Britton, 105 U. S. 322: 'The act of Congress does not make the tax on personal property the measure of the tax on the bank shares in the State, but the tax on moneyed capital in the hands of the individual citizens. Credits, money loaned at interest, and demands against persons or corporations are more purely representative of moneyed capital than personal property, so far as they can be said to differ. Undoubtedly there may be said to be much personal property exempt from taxation without giving bank shares a right to similar exemption, because personal property is not necessarily moneyed capital. But the rights, credits, demands, and money at interest mentioned in the Indiana statute, from which bona fide debts may be deducted, all mean moneyed capital invested in that way.' This definition of moneyed capital in the hands of individuals seems to us to be the idea of the law, and ample enough to embrace and secure its whole purpose and policy."

The rule of construction thus laid down has been since consistently adhered to by this court; Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U. S. 660, 667; Aberdeen Bank v. Chehalis County, 166 U. S. 440, 454; National Bank of Wellington v. Chapman, 173 U. S. 205, 214; Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 182 U. S. 556, 560; Jenkins v. Neff, 186 U. S. 230.

According to this practical test, it seems to us that the scheme adopted by the State of New York for taxing shares in national banks cannot upon this record be denounced as violative of the limitations prescribed by § 5219, Rev. Stat. The holders of shares in state banks are subjected to precisely the same taxation, and with respect to other competitive institutions, such as trust companies, the franchise taxes imposed upon them apparently result in a substantially similar burden upon the

shareholder. Nor is there any discrimination in favor of savings banks. With respect to individual bankers, there is a difference, they being apparently subject to the local rate of taxation and entitled to the privilege of deduction for personal debts; but as they are taxable upon the amount of the capital invested in the banking business, which is normally only such as remains after the deduction of debts, it is not plain that they possess any valuable privilege of reducing the tax assessment by deducting debts. Foreign bankers are separately treated, for reasons sufficiently obvious; but no criticism is made of this. If there be other forms of "moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens" of the State employed in a banking or quasi-banking business in competition with the national banks, and which are subjected to a more favorable rule of taxation, our attention is not called to them. Moreover, we agree with what was said by the Court of Appeals of New York in the Feitner Case, 191 N. Y. 88, 96, that "The State is not obliged to apply the same system to the taxation of national banks that it uses in the taxation of other property, provided no injustice, inequality or unfriendly discrimination is inflicted upon them." The court there took note of the fact that the flat rate of one per centum assessed upon national bank shares was more favorable to the relator than the general tax rate for the same year in the Borough of Manhattan, where the banks were located. That local rate (for the year 1901), was 2.31733 per centum. In the present case it is stipulated that the general tax rate locally applicable for the year 1908 to personal property, not including bank shares, was 1.61407 per centum. There are other considerations to be weighed in determining the actual burden of the tax, one of which is the mode of valuing bank shares-by adopting "book values"- which may be more or less favorable than the method adopted in valuing other kinds of personal property. As against the owner of bank shares

who, by alleging discrimination, assumes the burden of proving it, and who fails to show that the method of valuation is unfavorable to him, it may be assumed to be advantageous.

Plaintiff in error contends that the statement of the New York court that "When all things are considered, the rate, even without the privilege of deducting debts, is not greater than that applied to other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of the state," is based upon no facts of experience or investigation, and amounts to a pure surmise. We do not think it is to be so lightly treated; but, if it were, it still remains to be said that it was incumbent upon plaintiff in error to show affirmatively that the New York taxation system discriminates in fact against the holders of shares in the national banks, before calling upon the courts to overthrow it; and no such showing has been made.

Nor can we say that the taxing scheme contravenes the limits prescribed by § 5219, Rev. Stat., merely because in individual cases it may result that an owner of shares of national bank stock, who is indebted, may sustain a heavier tax than another, likewise indebted, who has invested his money otherwise. Such is, in effect, the objection urged by plaintiff in error to the position taken by the Court of Appeals of New York. In other words, it is insisted that § 5219 deals with the burden of the tax upon the individual shareholder, rather than upon shareholders as a class. We think this argument is sufficiently answered by reference to the language of § 5219. The declaration is that "the taxation shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of such State." And this restriction is imposed upon a grant of authority to tax "all the shares of National banking associations located within the State." The language clearly prohibits discrimination against shareholders in national banks and in favor of the share