taxation, if it be a restraint, is of moral, and not of legal, sanction. 16. Section 9 of article I of the Constitution declares that, "no capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken." "Direct" taxes are capitation taxes, and taxes on real property, as, for instance, the tax imposed on land by the Act of 6 February, 1863.1 Neither taxes laid on "carriages for the conveyance of persons,' nor on personal incomes,3 nor on distilled spirits, nor succession duties on the "devolution of title to real estate," nor taxes on the notes of state banks paid out by national banking associations, nor taxes on the receipts of insurance companies from premiums and assessments, are direct taxes, but all such taxes are imposts or excises. The requirement that direct taxes must be laid "in proportion to the census or enumeration" is not violated by the statutory imposition of a penalty for non-payment of the tax.8 17. The only constitutional requirement with regard to imposts and excises is, that they "shall be uniform throughout the United States," and that requirement is satisfied, when the tax operates with the same effect in all places where the subject of taxation is found, though that subject be not equally distributed in all parts of the United States.9 18. The United States cannot, however, tax the 1 12. Stat. 640. 2 Hylton v. U. S., 3 Dall. 171. 4U. S. v. Singer, 15 Wall. 111. 5 Scholey v. Reed, 23 Wall. 331. 6 Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533; National Bank v. U. S., 101 U. S. 1. 7 Pacific Insurance Company v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433. De Treville v. Smalls, 98 U. S 517. The Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580. agencies of a state, as, for instance, the salary of a judicial officer of a state1 nor the revenue of a municipal corporation derived from its loan of capital to a railway.2 19. The duty on the transportation of passengers by sea from foreign countries imposed by the United States in the exercise of the power of regulating commerce, not being in its nature a tax, is not subject to the constitutional restrictions on the exercise of the power of taxation,3 and the same view has been taken of the tax imposed by the United States on the circulating notes of state banks for the purpose of preventing the circulation of any other than national bank notes.1 20. A state may, so far as it is not restrained by the Constitution, tax all persons, natural or corporate, and all property, real or personal, within its territory and subject to its sovereignty, and may regulate, in the exercise of legislative discretion, the manner of levying and collecting its taxes, and the United States cannot, either by legislative or judicial action, afford any relief against "state taxation, however unjust, oppressive, or onerous," so long as that taxation "does not entrench upon the legitimate authority of the Union, or violate any right recognized or secured by the Constitution of the United States." Under the general rule which permits a government to tax all persons and property within its jurisdiction, the states may impose a succession duty on the devolu The Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113. 2 U. S. v. B. & O. R. R., 17 Wall. 322. • Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 563; St. Louis v. Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423; The State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 15 id. 300; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss 100 U. S. 491, 498; Memphis Gas Co. v. Shelby County, 109 id. 398; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456. tion of title to real estate from their citizens to alien non-residents;1 they may tax goods and chattels which are actually within the state, when assessed for taxation, though owned by a non-resident; 2 and, for purposes of taxation, the situs of a debt being the residence of the creditor, the state may include in the taxable property of a resident so much of the registered public debt of another state as such resident may hold, although the debtor state may either exempt it froin taxation or actually tax it.3 On the same principle a state may tax her resident citizens for debts due to them by a non-resident and secured by his bond and also by his deed of trust or mortgage of real estate situated in another state.1 As until the period of distribution arrives, the law of a decedent's domicile attaches to his personal property, that property is subject to a state collateral inheritance tax, though bequeathed by his will to non-resident legatees." But the laws of a state can have no extra territorial effect, and, therefore, a state cannot, as a means of taxing corporate bonds held by non-residents, authorize the corporation to retain from the interest due on its bonds the amount of the tax. Nor can a state tax in the hands of a nonresident holder corporate bonds issued under a mortgage of a railway formed by the consolidation of corporations, incorporated by the state, and other corporations incorporated by another state, and encumbering by a consolidated and non-severable lien property which is not within the jurisdiction of the taxing state." 6 1 Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490. 2 Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517. 3 Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491. Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456. 6 Case of the State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 301. 7 R. R. v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262. 21. Section 10 of article I of the Constitution declares, that "no state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any duty of tonnage." The nature and effect of the restrictions upon the taxing power of the states imposed by these constitutional provisions are more fully discussed in Chapter IV, and it is sufficient to say in this connection that a state cannot require importers of foreign goods by the bale or package and wholesale vendors of such goods to pay a license fee; nor can a state impose an ad valorem tax on imported goods remaining in their original cases in the hands of the importer;2 nor can a state tax an auctioneers' sales of imported goods for account of the importers; but a state may prohibit the exportation of tobacco grown within its territory, save after inspection and on payment of a tax. state cannot tax ships upon their tonnage.5 A 22. The supremacy of the United States under the Constitution impliedly limits to some extent the exercise by the states of the power of taxation. Thus, a state can not tax the official salary of an officer of the United States, as, for instance, an officer in the revenue marine 1 Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419. 2 Low v. Austin, 13 Wall 29. 3 Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566. Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38. 5 State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 212; Steamship Co. v. Board of Wardens, 6 Wall. 31; Pectev. Morgan, 19 id. 581; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 id. 577; I. S. S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238. tion of title to real estate from their citizens to alien non-residents; they may tax goods and chattels which are actually within the state, when assessed for taxation, though owned by a non-resident; and, for purposes of taxation, the situs of a debt being the residence of the creditor, the state may include in the taxable property of a resident so much of the registered public debt of another state as such resident may hold, although the debtor state may either exempt it from taxation or actually tax it.3 On the same principle a state may tax her resident citizens for debts due to them by a non-resident and secured by his bond and also by his deed of trust or mortgage of real estate situated in another state.1 As until the period of distribution arrives, the law of a decedent's domicile attaches to his personal property, that property is subject to a state collateral inheritance tax, though bequeathed by his will to non-resident legatees." But the laws of a state can have no extra territorial effect, and, therefore, a state cannot, as a means of taxing corporate bonds held by non-residents, authorize the corporation to retain from the interest due on its bonds the amount of the tax. Nor can a state tax in the hands of a nonresident holder corporate bonds issued under a mortgage of a railway formed by the consolidation of corporations, incorporated by the state, and other corporations incorporated by another state, and encumbering by a consolidated and non-severable lien property which is not within the jurisdiction of the taxing state." 6 1 Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490. 2 Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517. 3 Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491. Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456. 6 Case of the State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 301. 7 R. R. v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262. |