215 U.S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. As we are of opinion that the plaintiff in error has no such rights as it claims, even if we assume that it has all the rights of the original corporation created by the charter, it is unnecessary to consider other difficulties in the case. Judgment affirmed. FIRST NATIONAL BANK v. CITY COUNCIL OF ESTHERVILLE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 64. Argued December 10, 1909.-Decided January 3, 1910. Where the validity of the local statute under which national bank shares are assessed was not drawn in question, but the only objection in the state court was that the assessment was in excess of actual value, exorbitant, unjust and not in proportion with other like property, no Federal right was set up or denied and this court has no jurisdiction to review the judgment under § 709, Rev. Stat. Writ of error to review 136 Iowa, 203, dismissed. THE facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Charles A. Clark for plaintiff in error: The statutes of Iowa, §§ 1305-1322 of the Code, provide a scheme of taxation of banks by which the franchises, good will, good business management, dividend earning power, and United States bonds held as required by law are all included by force of the very statutes themselves, while all of these elements are excluded by force of the same statutes, as to moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens and invested in the very moneyed institutions which come in competition with national banks. This discrimination against national banks is clearly not warranted but forbidden by $5219, Rev. Stat., and renders Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 215 U.S. the Iowa system of taxing national banks utterly null and void. San Francisco Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 197 U. S. 70; Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 581; Bradley v. The People, 4 Wall. 462; People v. Commissioners, 94 U. S. 418; People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 543; Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 145, 152; Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 679, 683; Hubbard v. Board, 23 Iowa, 145. There is no power to tax the shares of national banks except as allowed by act of Congress, now § 5219, Rev. Stat. Home Savings Bank v. Des Moines, 205 U. S. 516; Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 668; People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539, 543; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449; Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738; McCullough v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Bank of Albia v. City Council, 86 Iowa, 36, 37. The assessor, the board of equalization, and the courts of Iowa, are no less bound to keep within the sole warrant of authority for taxing national bank shares than the legislature itself. The objections of plaintiffs in error before the board that the proposed taxation was "exorbitant and unjust," and that the valuation of shares could not exceed the value of assets, as in the case of state banks, moneyed institutions and private banks and bankers, raised, ex vi termini, questions as to the validity of the Iowa statutes under § 5219, Rev. Stat. These objections were all urged before the District and Supreme Courts. The courts were bound to take judicial notice of the Federal and state statutes, authorizing the taxation complained of, as "matters of which judicial notice is taken need not be stated in a pleading." Code, § 3632. The Supreme Court of Iowa knew perfectly well that the system of taxation of which plaintiffs in error complained was wholly void under § 5219, Rev. Stat. Hubbard v. Board, 23 Iowa, 145. And see Bank v. Dodge, 197 U. S. 70. The exercise of jurisdiction by this court to protect constitutional rights cannot be declined when it is plain that the 215 U.S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. fair result of a decision is to deny the rights. Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 230; Smithsonian Institution v. St. John, 214 U. S. 279. The same rule applies to rights arising under statutes of the United States enacted to protect constitutional rights as in the present instance. Chapman v. Goodnow, 123 U. S. 540, 548; Navigation Co. v. Homestead Co., 123 U. S. 552; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 117; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Elliott, 184 U. S. 530, 534; Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U. S. 194; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Needles, 113 U. S. 574; People v. Hoffman, 7 Wall. 16; Williams v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 547; Waite v. Dowley, 94 U. S. 527; Swope v. Leffingwell, 105 U. S. 3. The jurisdiction cannot be defeated by showing that the record does not in direct terms refer to statutory or constitutional provision, nor expressly state that a Federal question was presented. The true jurisdictional test is whether it appears that such a question was decided adversely to the Federal right claimed. Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432, 441; Crowell v. Randall, 10 Pet. 368; Eureka Co. v. Yuba County Court, 116 U. S. 410. The contention of plaintiffs in error arises under clause 2 of § 709, Rev. Stat., and hence need not be set up and claimed with the particularity required under clause 3. Water Power Co. v. Street Railway Co., 172 U. S. 487; Chapman v. Goodnow, 123 U. S. 527, 548. Where the Federal question arises upon the record, this court has jurisdiction to review, although the state court evades a decision of that question upon the ground that it was not argued either orally or in print as its decisions required, in order to have the Federal question there passed upon. Des Moines Nav. Co. v. Iowa Homestead Co., 123 U. S. 554; Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U. S. 518, 519. The Iowa scheme for taxation of national banks is null and void upon its face. Home Savings Bank v. City of Des Moines, 205 U. S. 503; San Francisco Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 197 U. S. 80. Under their general prayer for relief, plaintiffs in error are entitled to have the illegal assessments wholly annulled and set aside. Oteri v. Scalzo, 145 U. S. 578; Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79; Jones v. Van Doren, 130 U. S. 684. Iowa decisions are to same effect. Pond v. Waterloo &c. Works, 50 Iowa, 596; Hoskins v. Rowe, 61 Iowa, 180; Laverty v. Sexton, 41 Iowa, 435; Herring v. Neely, 43 Iowa, 157; Hait v. Ensign, 61 Iowa, 724. Mr. Byron M. Coon for defendant in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court. This was an appeal under § 1373 of the Code of Iowa from the action of the members of the city council of the city of Estherville, Iowa, sitting as a board of equalization and review, in fixing the assessed value of the shares of stock in the plaintiff bank for the year 1906. The shares of stock in the plaintiff bank were assessed by the assessor on the basis of the book or assessed value obtained by adding the capital, surplus and undivided profits of the bank and dividing the sum total by the number of shares of capital stock to ascertain the value of one share, a proper deduction having been made on account of real estate owned by the bank. The Board of Review and Equalization raised the assessed valuation of the shares to $130 per share. The bank and its shareholders appeared before the Board and objected to its action and to the valuation fixed by them as being in excess of the actual value, and exorbitant and unjust. The bank contended that the stock was not assessed and valued in proportion to other like personal property in the city of Estherville, but was grossly in excess thereof, and constituted unfair and unequal taxation, and that the taxable value of the shares of the stock in the bank should be found as the assessor had previously found it. But the Board adhering to its own judgment, plaintiffs perfected an appeal to the District Court of Emmett County, Iowa. In that court plaintiffs filed a pleading containing a recital of the facts and demanding relief, and reiterating the same contention as made below and the same claim as to the proper manner to arrive at the assessable valuation of said shares of stock. Answer was filed in behalf of the Board, wherein it was denied that the assessment as raised was unjust, and asserted that the market value was the proper criterion for valuation, and that the actual and market value of the stock in question was even greater than that fixed in the raised assessment. It was also denied that the assessment was unfair as related to the assessment on other like property. The District Court sustained the action of the Board of Review, whereupon the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Iowa, which affirmed the decree of the District Court. First Nat. Bank v. Estherville, 136 Iowa, 203. In the Supreme Court it was contended for the first time that the action of the Board worked a violation of § 5219 of the United States Revised Statutes, touching upon state taxation of National Bank shares. Because of the fact that such matter was not presented to the Board or suggested on the trial in the court below, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the question. What the court said was this (p. 206): "In doing so we shall first dispose of a matter of contention brought forward for the first time in argument in this court. This contention is through the action of the defendant board as complained of, there was worked a violation of § 5219 of U. S. Revised Statutes, having to do with the subject of state taxation of national shares. As confessedly such matter was not presented to the board, or suggested on the trial in the court below, we cannot give consideration thereto on merits in this court. And this is to follow our repeated decisions bearing on the subject. Railway Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 106 Iowa, 476; Trust Co. v. Fonda, 114 Iowa, 728.” And further (p. 208): "On appeal to the District Court the statute (Code, § 1373) provides for a hearing as in equity. This, however, is not to |