250 FEDERAL EBPOBTEP.. �plus funds of savings banks." This act, as construed by th& highest court of the state, in view of previous legislation, and upon consideration of the variouB provisions and directions of the act itself, established a System of taxation for bank shares "peculiar to itself and independant of the general System of taxation in existence in the state," and upon this ground it was decided by the court of appeals (Dotan v. People, 36 N. Y. 59,) that a bank shareholder, who had been assessed upon the value of his shares, was not entitled to any deduction on account of his debts, although the general laws of the state, and the local law relating to assessments in the ciiy of Albany, contained provisions whereby, in the assessment of Personal property, a deduction should be made for the debts owing by the person assessed, �So far as this act contravenes the law of congress by im- posing a tax upon shares of national banking associations at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individuals, concededly it cannot stand ; but the point in controversy is whether an assessment made under the act is void for vrant of power in the assessora to make any assessment, or is only erroneous when made without granting the deductions allowed by the general laws of the state. If the assessors have no power to make a valid assessment of the shares eo nomine, or against the owners for the value of their shares, the whole foundation of the taxation fails. On the other hand, if the assessors have authority to assess under the statute in question or under the other statutes of the state, then the inquiry arises whether the assessment is er- roneous, because the proper deductions were denied, or because a ruie of valuation which discriminated unfairly against the stockholders was adopted; and, this being so, whether there is any remedy except in a direct proceeding to review the assessment. Obviously, if the first theory of the complainant is sound, it is of no importance whether the shareholders of the complainant were, in fact, owing debts which should have been deducted from the assessment or not, because there was no jurisdietion for any action on the part of the assessors. ����
