The Southwark Bank v. The Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Citation | 26 Pa. 446 |
| Parties | The Southwark Bank versus The Commonwealth. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Fisher and McCormick, for plaintiff in error.
Kunkel, Alricks, and Casey, for the Commonwealth.
This is a writ of error to the decision of the Common Pleas, upon an appeal from the settlement by the auditor-general, charging certain taxes on dividends. The question is whether the Act of 15th March, 1849, or that of 16th of the same month, furnishes the rule of decision in ascertaining the amount of taxes to be charged against the bank. The general rule is conceded to be that where two statutes contain repugnant provisions, the one last signed by the governor is a repeal of one previously signed. But this is so merely because it is presumed to be so intended by the law-making power. Where the intention is otherwise, and that intention is manifest from the face of either enactment, the plain meaning of the legislative power, thus manifested, is the paramount rule of construction. It is no part of the duty of the judiciary to resort to technical subtleties to defeat the obvious purposes of the legislative power in a matter over which that power has a constitutional right to control. The circumstances of this case are somewhat peculiar. On the 9th March, 1849, a bill passed both houses of the legislature, entitled An Act to re-instate the capital and extend the charter of the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank, of Philadelphia. By the 13th section of this act the banks of the Commonwealth were subjected to a tax on dividends of 15 per cent. in all cases where these dividends exceeded twelve per cent. This bill was in the hands of the governor when an act passed both branches of the legislature entitled "An Act to provide a more effectual and economical mode of collecting state and county taxes in the counties of Chester, Franklin, and Adams, for increasing and regulating the tax on dividends of banks and savings institutions," &c. By the 7th section of the last-mentioned act, the tax on bank dividends was increased to 20 per cent. where the dividends exceeded 12 and did not exceed 15 per cent. And by the 8th section it was declared "that the 13th section of An Act entitled An Act to reinstate the capital and extend the charter of the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank of Philadelphia, passed by the legislature in March, A. D. 1849, be and the same is hereby repealed; and that henceforth said section, with the proviso thereto, shall not be deemed and taken as a part or portion of said act." The intention of the legislature is too plain to admit of a doubt. That they intended to strike out the 17th section of the bill then in the hands of the governor is conclusively shown by the description of the bill, the number of the section, and the statement of the fact that it had passed the legislature in March, 1849, without stating that it had become a law or that it had been signed by the governor. No other bill or section could answer the description here given. To doubt the object of the legislature would be to disregard the most conclusive evidence. With that intention plainly manifest on the face of the second bill passed by the legislature, the governor approved and signed it, and it became a law, on the day he did so, which was the 15th March, 1849. But it is said that the legislative power cannot nullify or revoke a bill until it has gone through all the forms necessary to give it the effect of a law. There is neither principle, convenience, nor authority to support this position. We may concede, without however deciding the point, that the two Houses could not withdraw a bill from the hands of the governor without his consent. But here he did consent by affixing his signature to the act which withdrew the 17th section from his further consideration. By so doing, he vetoed it as effectually as if he had sent it to the house in which it originated, with his objections. The veto was more effective because it was done with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ritchie v. Richards
... ... secretary of state, it is the law of this commonwealth, even ... though, in its enactment, express limitations [14 Utah 362] ... of the constitution ... 466; State v ... McBride , 4 Mo. 303; State v. Mead , ... 71 Mo. 266; Southwark Bank v. Com. , 26 Pa ... 446; City of Watertown v. Cady , 20 Wis ... 501; State v ... ...
-
Loring v. Loring
...247 U. S. 310, 318, 38 Sup. Ct. 525, 62 L. Ed. 1130;Duplex Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 41 Sup. Ct. 172, 65 L. Ed. 349;Southwark Bank v. Commonwealth, 26 Pa. 446, 450;Newell v. People, 7 N. Y. 9;State ex rel. v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 268 Mo. 598, 188 S. W. 128;Taylo......
-
Koehler v. Hill
...by the majority which I have not included in any one of the classes for the reason that they support my views of the case. Southwark Bank v. Commonwealth, 26 Pa. 446, that the journals were properly admitted to show that a bill had not been passed by either house which had been signed by th......
-
The State ex rel. Aull v. Field
... ... 578; State v. Matthews, 44 Mo. 523; State v ... Miller, 45 Mo. 495; State v. Bank, 45 Mo. 508; ... Inre Burris, 66 Mo. 442; Hannibal v. Marion Co., 69 ... Mo. 571; State v ... 1 Sutherland ... on Constr. of Const. & Stat. Law, sec. 136; Southwark v ... Com., 26 Pa. St. 446; Railroad v. Brick Co., 85 ... Mo. 307; Miller v. Dunn, 72 Cal ... progress before it becomes a law. Bank v ... Commonwealth , 26 Pa. 446 ... But we ... agree with the learned circuit judge who heard ... ...