partial application of the same methods to all constituents of each class, it is not obnoxious to the requirement of equal protection of the laws to all persons, within the provisions of the Federal Constitution. Id.

This doctrine was applied to the treatment of railroad property as a separate class, for the purposes of taxation. Id.

See, also, Albany City Nat. Bank v. Maher, 6 Fed. Repr. 417 (1881); S. C., 9 id. 884 (1882); People v. Fire Association of Philadelphia, 92 N. Y. 311 (1883); People v. The Gold and Stock Tel. Co., 98 id. 67 (1885). Laws 1881, chap. 361, relating to the State tax on corporations, does not violate the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. People v. Gold and Stock Tel. Co., 98 N. Y. 67 (1885).

A State statute making water rents a charge on the land, with a lien prior to all other incumbrances, in the same manner as taxes and assessments, held, not to deprive a mortgagee of his property without due process of law. Provident Institution v. Jersey City, 113 U. S. 506 (1885). A statute of New Jersey relating to an assessment,- held not to violate the fourteenth amendment. Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606 (1885). A statute classifying property for taxation, but requiring the same reans and methods to be applied impartially to all the constituents of cach class, and that the law shall operate equally and upon all persons in similar circumstances, does not deny the equal protection of the law. Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321 (1885).

A suit by a State against a domestic corporation to recover taxes is removable to the United States courts, where the right of the State to recover is made by the pleadings to depend on the power of the State to tax the franchises of the company, derived from acts of Congress specially referred to and the property used in connection with such franchises, and on the effect of the fourteenth amendment on the validity of the taxing statute. Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. California, 118 U. S. 109 (1886).

Certain corporations held to be persons within the intent of the fourteenth amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 394 (1886). See, also, San Bernardino County v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., id. 417 (1886).

The fourteenth amendment,- held, inapplicable to a foreign fire insurance company, on the ground that although a "person," it was not within the jurisdiction of the State until it paid the license fee, or tax, as a prerequisite to admission within the jurisdiction. The power to exclude a foreign corporation does not extend to an interference with the transaction of commerce between States. Laws of New York, Laws 1865, chap, 694; Laws 1875, chap. 60,— considered. Philadelphia Fire Association v. New York, 119 U. S. 110 (1886).

This provision of the Constitution of the United States,- held, not applicable to the action of a board of railroad commissioners in respect to the taxation of a railroad. Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U. S. 97 (1887). The power of the legislature to classify subjects of taxation is not limited, and a tax on "sewing machine companies," held, not to be re

pugnant to the fourteenth amendment. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 33 Fed. Repr. 12 (1887).

The provision as to the equal protection of the laws is not violated by any diversity in the jurisdiction of the several courts as to subjectmatter, amount, or finality of decis.on, if all persons within the territorial limits of their respective jurisdictions have an equal right in like cases and under like circumstances to resort to them for redress. Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 30 (1879).

This amendment does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the subject to which it is directed, or by the territory within wh'ch it is to operate. Ít merely requires that all persons subjected to such legislation shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 71 (1886).

The provision that no State shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, does not prevent a State from adjusting its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways, or compel the States to adopt an iron rule of al taxation. Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232.

An assessment of a tax of three mills upon the nominal or face value of corporate securities, instead of the actual value, is not a discrimination which the State is not competent to make, where all corporate securities are subject to the same regulation, and does not violate United States Constitution, fourteenth amendment. Chester v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 240; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, id. 232; Jennings v. Coal Ridge Imp. & C. C., 147 id. 147.

The fourteenth amendment does not prevent the classification of property for taxation, subjecting one kind of property to one rate of taxation, and another kind of property to a different rate, or distinguishing between franchises and privileges, and visible and tangible property, and between real and personal property. Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594. Constitutional provisions as to equality of taxation are not violated by a tax on the business of express companies which does not apply to railroad or steamboat companies which carry express matter. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339.

Legislative and constitutional provisions that taxation of property shall be equal and uniform and in proportion to its value are not violated by exacting from railroad corporations in a State, a contribution, according to their gross income in proportion to the number of miles of railroad in the State, to meet the expense of a railroad commission. Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386.

The fourteenth amendment was not intended to compel the States to adopt an iron rule of equality as to taxation, or to prevent the classification of property for taxation at different rates, or to prohibit legislation in that regard, special either in the extent to which it operates or the objects sought to be attained by it. It is enough that there is no discrimi

nation in favor of one as against another of the same class. Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657.

A State tax upon the business of express companies does not deny them the equal protection of the laws because it does not impose a like tax upon railroad or steamboat companies which carry express matter. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339.

A State railroad iaw authorizing assessment and tax upon the railroad companies to meet the expenses and salaries of the State railroad commissioners does not deny the companies the equal protection of the laws. Charlotte, C. & A. R Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386.

A State statute apportioning the transitory and unlocated property of railroad companies among the several counties through which the road runs, for taxing purposes, instead of taxing it at principal office of the company, does not deny to such companies the equal protection of the laws because such property of other persons is taxed at the owner's domicile. Columbus S. R. Co. v. Wright, 151 U. S. 470.

Allowing railroads but one hearing before the State board in respect to taxes, while ordinary taxpayers are allowed one hearing before county officials, with a second hearing before the State board on appeal, does not deny railroad the equal protection of the laws. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421.

The legislative power to grant exemptions from taxation in charters of incorporations, notwithstanding a constitutional provision for equality and uniformity of taxation, extends to an exemption from taxes which would reduce dividendɛ below a specified per cent. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 480.

Provisions of the Constitution of the State of

New York, Relative to Taxation.

Guaranty of privileges.- Art. I, § 1: "No member of this State shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers."

Due process of law. Art. I, § 6: "No person shall

be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Due process of law requires that a party shall be properly brought into court and shall there have an opportunity to be heard. The legislature has the right to take away a particular form of remedy and to give a new one. People ex rel. v. Supervisors, 70 N. Y. 228.

"Due process of law" cannot mean less than a prosecution or suit instituted and conducted according to the prescribed forms and solemnities for ascertaining guilt or determining the title to property. Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 140.

Such summary proceedings as were recognized at common law and such as were authorized by statute prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights may be regarded as due process of law." Rockwell v. Nearing, 35 N. Y.

302.

The guaranty that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law may be violated without a physical taking; it may be destroyed or its value annihilated. Matter of Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 105; citing Wynehamer v. People, 13 id. 378, and People v. Otis, 90 id. 48.

All property is protected by this provision without reference as to whether its abuse engenders mischief. Wynchamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378.

As to meaning of word "liberty" in this provision, see People v. Gillson, 100 N. Y. 389.

The meaning of the word " deprived" is the same as "taken" in the came section; and when property is not seized and directly appropriated

to public use, though it be subjected to greater burdens than before, it is not taken without due process of law. Grant v. Courter, 24 Barb. 232. This provision is not confined to judicial proceedings, but extends to every case which may deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property, whethr the proceeding be judicial, administrative or executive. Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183, containing collation of authorities as to meaning of due process of law."

66

Taxation is not taking property without due process of jaw. People ex rel. v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419; Town of Guilford v. Supervisors, 13 id. 145; People v. Supervisors of Ulster County, 36 Hun, 491.

A hearing or an opportunity to be heard in an assessment for local improvement is, however, absolutely essential. Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183.

A statute directing an assessment for street improvement must contain some provision giving notice to property owners. McLaughlin v. Miller, 124 N. Y. 510; Remsen v. Wheeler, 105 id. 573. Laws 1871, chapter 464, title 10, relating to assessments of water rates in Long Island City, are unconstitutional for want of provision for notice and hearing. Matter of Trustees of Union College, 129 N. Y. 308.

A "grievance day "- an opportunity to be heard in respect to the justice and correctness of a proposed assessment - is a necessary part of the due process of law for the levying of assessments or property. People ex rel. v. Henion, 64 Hun, 475.

As to distinction between taxation and taking private property without compensation. People ex rel. v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419; Sun Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mayor, etc., 8 id. 241; Brewster v. City of Syracuse, 19 id. 116.

An assessment for benefit to pay the expense of a local improvement falls within legitimate use of taxing power. Stryker v. Kelly, 7 Hill, 9; People ex rel. v. Lawrence, 41 N. Y. 123, 137.

Act authorizing town to raise money by taxation for purchase of stock of railroad company is for a public improvement and is in no sense depriving a resident of his property without compensation. Grant v. Courter, 24 Barb. 232; Bank of Rome v. Rome, 18 N. Y. 38.

Assessments for repaving streets, a species of taxation not covered by the constitutional prohibition. Moran v. City of Troy, 9 Hun, 540. Legislature may impose a local tax for construction of canal. Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend. 65.

Confirmation of an irregular and invalid assessment is not taking private property without compensation. Mann v. City of Utica, 44 How. Pr. 334.

A law authorizing assessments without reference to benefits would be unconstitutional as taking private property without compensation. Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183.

An act curing defects in a tax sale, where such defects exist as mere Irregularities and do not extend to matters of jurisdiction, is constitutional