taxable; neither can an officer's salary be taxed. These rules do not apply, however, to the taxation of the income of a mere employé of the government in common with other incomes, and persons licensed under the revenue laws of the United States are not such officers as are withdrawn from the operation of the taxing powers of a state.3 c. PROPERTY USED AS A MEANS OF GOVERNMENT.-Property used as a means of government, the title to which is vested in a state or in the United States, is within the rule exempting the instrumentality of one government from taxation by the other; 4 and public moneys,5 treasury notes and national bank notes,6 structures, ships, munitions of war, and other property devoted to public purposes, customhouses, post offices, arsenals, and other public buildings are within the rule.8 The property of an agent of the government, however, is taxable, with other like property, in the jurisdiction in which it is situated, unless Congress has interposed to protect it from such taxation.10 Though private property is employed by the government for governmental purposes, it is not thereby exempted from ordinary taxation in the absence of legislation declaring it to be exempt.11 Nor is the fact that the property was acquired or constructed, under the direction of Congress, for the uses and purposes of the government where the ownership is not in the government, sufficient in itself to exempt 1. First Nat. Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 353; Dobbins v. Érie County, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 435. Nor can a tax be imposed upon a valuation of the income of the office. Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 435 2. Melcher v. Boston, 9 Met. (Mass.) 73. And see Cherry County v. Thacher, 32 Neb. 350. The office of president judge is taxable under the Pennsylvania Act of April 11, 1799. Northumberland County z. Chapman, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 73 3. State . Bell, 1 Phil. (N. Car.) 76. 4. People v. U. S., 93 Ill. 30; Fagan v. Chicago, 84 Ill. 227; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316; Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273; Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. (U. S.) 82. 5. But the rule is otherwise where the state diverts her funds from their proper destination, and applies them to traffic, or stock jobbing, within a state. Com. v. Morrison, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 75 6. Horne v. Green, 52 Miss. 452; Mitchell v. Leavenworth County, 91 U. S. 206. In Montgomery County v. Elston, 32 Ind. 27; 2 Am. Rep. 327, the treasury, but not national bank notes, were held exempt. 7. Desty on Taxation 68, citing Utica . Churchill, 33 N. Y. 161; 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 550; Anonymous, 9 Op. Atty. Gen'l 291. And see Baltimore County v. Maryland Insane Hospital, 62 Md. 127. 8. Utica v. Churchill, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 550; 33 N. Y. 161; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316; Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 738. 9. Thomson v. Union Pac. R. Co., 9 Wall. (U.S.) 579; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Pemston, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 5. Shares of a national bank are not exempt from taxation because owned by other national banks. National Bank of Redemption v. Boston, 125 U. S. 60. 10. Thomson v. Union Pac. R. Co., 9 Wall. (U. S.) 579; First Nat. Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 35311. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 385. The franchise of a railroad company is property subject to taxation, and is not exempt from taxation by reason of its being a means or instrumentality employed by Congress to carry into it, though a state cannot tax a bank chartered by Congress as the fiscal agent of the government; 2 and a tax upon telegraphic messages sent by officers of the government, falls within the prohibition.3 d. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.-The rule of exemption from taxation by a different government, extends to all other governmental agencies through which a government executes its constitutional powers, functions and duties.4 Thus a tax upon loans of the federal government is a tax upon the exercise of the power of Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States.5 And a tax upon the stocks, bonds, or securities issued by the United States, or upon the income derived from such securities,7 is subject to the same objection. Even though property is otherwise taxable, if invested in securities of the federal government, a tax imposed upon it would be deemed an indirect tax upon such securities; though the exemption will not be allowed where money or property is exchanged for, or converted into, nontaxable notes or securities for the sole purpose of avoiding taxation.9 operation the powers of the general government. Central Pac. R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35. While the federal government cannot interfere with navigation upon canals or inland lakes or rivers, it may tax canal boats or any other property in the state. North River Steam boat Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 713. 1. Thomson v. Union Pac. R. Co., 9 Wall. (U. S.) 579; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Lincoln County, Dill. (U. S.) 314. 2. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316. The state cannot tax franchises of a corporation granted by the government of the United States. California 7. Central Pac. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1. In Hylton . U. S., 3 Dall. (U. S.) 171, however, it was said that franchises granted by a state are not necessarily exempt from federal taxation. 3. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 466. 4. See National Commercial Bank v. Mobile, 62 Ala. 284; 34 Am. Rep. 15; Bulow v. Charleston, 1 Nott & M. (S. Car.) 527. 5. People v. Tax Com'rs, 2 Black (U. S.) 620; Banks v. New York, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 16; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 449; Utica v. Churchill, 33 N. Y. 161; Newark City Bank v. Assessors, 30 N. J. L. 13. And see Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 200; Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 573. 6. People v. Tax Com'rs, 2 Black (U. S.) 620; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 449; Carroll v. Perry, 4 McLean (U. S.) 25; Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 200; Banks v. New York, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 16; Provident Inst. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 611; Campbell v. Centerville, 69 Iowa 439; Utica v. Churchill, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 550; 33 N. Y. 161; State v. Haight, 34 N. J. L. 128; Newark City Bank v. Assessors, 30 N. J. L. 13; People v. Bradley, 39 Ill. 130. And see Newark City Bank v. Assessors, 30 N. J. L. 13; New York v. Tax Com'rs, 4 Wall. (Ü. S.) 244; Bradley v. Illinois, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 459. It is immaterial that the tax is on the aggregate of the taxpayer's property, and the stock is not taxed by name. New York v. Tax Com'rs, 2 Black (U. S.) 620. 7. Bank of Kentucky v. Com., 9 Bush (Ky.) 46. But see State v. Tax Collector, 2 Bailey (S. Car.) 654. 8. State v. Newark, 39 N. J. L. 380; State v. Rogers, 79 Mo. 283; St. Louis, etc., Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Lightner, 42 Mo. 421; Chicago v. Lunt, 52 Ill. 414; German American Sav. Bank v. Burlington, 54 Iowa 609; Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 200; Provident Inst. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 611. But see St. Louis Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Lightner, 47 Mo. 393. 9. Mitchell v. Leavenworth County, 9 Kan. 344; Ogden v. Walker, 59 Ind. 460; State v. Assessor, 37 La. Ann. The public debt of a state and the obligations given therefor are taxable in the hands of a resident of another state, whether exempted by the indebted state or not. A tax upon a corporate franchise is valid even though some or all of the capital stock of the corporation is invested in national securites.2 State banks cannot be regarded as instrumentalities or agencies of state government.3 e. PUBLIC PROPERTY.-A state or other sovereign government may, if it sees fit, subject its property, and the property owned by its municipal divisions, to taxation in common with other property within its territory. But public property, without any express statutory exemption, is not within the general laws imposing taxation, the term "property" being confined to private property;" the rule being the same whether the title to the property be in the state, or held in trust for and subject to the control of the 850; Shotwell v. Moore, 129 U. S. 590. And see Griffin v. Heard, 78 Tex. 607. 1. Appeal Tax Court v. Patterson, 50 Md. 354; Appeal Tax Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 377; People v. Home Ins. Co., 29 Cal. 533; Bonaparte v. Appeal Tax Court (U. S.), 21 Am. Law Reg. 290; Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432; Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 150. 2. Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594; Philadelphia Contributorship, etc. v. Com., 98 Pa. St. 48. And see St. Louis Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Lightner, 47 Mo. 393. 3. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. (Ŭ. S.) 548. And see Hylton v. U. S., 3 Dall. (U. S.) 171. But see Com. v. Morrison, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 75. 4. Trustees of Public Schools v. Trenton, 30 N. J. Eq. 667; Louisville 7. Com., 1 Duv. (Ky.) 295; 85 Am. Dec. 624. And see Pittsburgh's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 374.; Chadwick v. Maginnis, 94 Pa. St. 117; Louisville Bridge Co. v. Louisville, 81 Ky. 189. Congress may subject the public domain to state taxation upon such conditions as it sees fit, and if taxed, it must be done subject to such conditions. State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 21 Nev. 247. 5. Trustees of Public Schools v. Trenton, 30 N. J. Eq. 667; People v. Doe, 36 Cal. 220; People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 433; West Hartford v. Board of Water Com'rs, 44 Conn. 360; Pittsburgh's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 374; Fagan 7. Chicago, 84 Ill. 227; Rochester v. Rush, So N. Y. 302; Camden v. Cam den Village, 77 Me. 530; Baltimore County 7. Maryland Insane Hospital, 62 Md. 127; Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U. S. 292; Directors of Poor v. School Directors, 42 Pa. St. 25; Miller v. Wilson, 60 Ga. 505; State v. Board of Assessors, 35 La. Ann. 651; Nashville v. Bank of Tennessee, I Swan (Tenn.) 269; Athens City Water Works Co. v. Athens, 74 Ga. 413; Colored Orphans' Assoc. v. New York, 38 Hun (Ñ. Y.) 593; Wayland v. Middlesex County, 4 Gray (Mass.) 500; Worcester County v. Worcester, 116 Mass. 193; Cumru Tp. v. Berks County, 112 Pa. St. 264; People v. Donnelly, 58 Cal. 144; Durkee v. Greenwood County, 29 Kan. 697; Louisville v. Com., 1 Duv. (Ky.) 295; 85 Am. Dec. 624; People v. Board of Assessors, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 383; State v. Gaffney, 34 N. J. L. 133; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Davenport, 51 Iowa 451; Erie County v. Erie, 113 Pa. St. 360. But see Chadwick v. Maginnis, 94 Pa. St. 117. Lands on tide-waters below highwater mark, and entirely separate from fast land, the title being in the state, cannot be assessed for taxes. State v. Jersey City, 42 N. J. L. 349. A city is not subject to a county tax on its engine-house. Erie County v. Erie, 113 Pa. St. 360. A water company which supplies a city with water, whose rates are regulated by the city council, and which, by the terms of the ordinance conferring its powers, may be purchased at a fixed price by the city, is, nevertheless, a private corporation, and its property is subject to taxation. Des Moines Water Co.'s Appeal, 48 Iowa 324. And state.1 The moment the title vests in the government, the property ceases to be taxable,2 and so long as it remains a part of the public domain it is not subject to taxation, but as soon as the ownership is changed and it becomes private property, the right to tax attaches.4 3 Where the absolute title to property remains in the United States, no matter for what purpose it is acquired or held, it is not subject to state or municipal taxation, nor can it be taxed when held in trust for the United States while the trust remains unexecuted; but it may be taxed as soon as the ownership is changed, even though no actual transfer has been made by the issue of a patent." see Athens City Water Works Co. v. Athens, 74 Ga. 413. 1. Illinois Industrial University v. Champaign County, 76 Ill. 184; Chicago v. People, 80 Ill. 384; Tulane Education Fund v. Board of Assessors, 38 La. Ann. 292; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 527. But see Mitchelville v. Polk County, 64 Iowa 554. In Ryan v. Gallatin County, 14 Ill. 78, it was held that it is only property which the state owns that is not subject to taxation, not that in the avails of which the state may or may not ultimately be entitled to share. 2. People v. U. S., 93 Ill. 30; 34 Am. Rep. 155; Sully v. Poorbaugh, 45 Iowa 453; Flint v. Jackson County, 43 Kan. 656. And see Missouri River, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 13 Kan. 302; Williams v. New York (Supreme Čt.), 12 N. Y. Supp. 501; Quirt v. Reg., 19 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 510. In Sherwin v. Wigglesworth, 129 Mass. 64, it was held that the owner of lands taken for a post office under the laws of the United States is not chargeable with taxes assessed upon the land pending proceedings upon the petition for the acquisition of the land. 3. Ross v. Outagamie County, 12 Wis. 38; Wisconsin Cent. R. Čo. v. Taylor County, 52 Wis. 37; Central Pac. R. Co. v. Howard, 51 Cal. 229; Durkee v. Greenwood County, 29 Kan. 697; Dixon v. Porter, 23 Miss. 84; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151. And see Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Denel, 3 Dakota 1. 4. West Wisconsin R. Co. v. Trempealeau County, 35 Wis. 257; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor County, 52 Wis. 37; Oswalt v. Hallowell, 15 Kan. 154; Morrison County v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 42 Minn. 451; State v. Platt, 24 N. J. L. 108. When the property is conveyed be fore the date of assessment for any particular year, it is taxable for that year. Martin County v. Drake, 40 Minn. 137. 5. People v. U. S., 93 Ill. 30; 34 Am. Rep. 155; Bonner v. Phillips, 77 Ala. 427; Doe v. Hearick, 14 Ind. 242; Hall v. Dowling, 18 Cal. 619; People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645; Central Pac. R. Co. v. Howard, 52 Cal. 227; People v. Morrison, 22 Cal. 73; Quivey v. Lawrence, Idaho N. S. 313; McGoon v. Scales, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 23; Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Prescott, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 603; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 572; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151; Wright v. Cradlebaugh, 3 Nev. 341; Neiswanger v. Gwynne, 13 Ohio 74; Treat v. Lawrence, 42 Wis. 330; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor County, 52 Wis. 37; Ivinson v. Hance, 1 Wyoming Ter. 270; Dixon v. Porter, 23 Miss. 84. Neither can improvements placed upon the lands of the United States be taxed until title has passed or the lands themselves have become taxable. Parker v. Winsor, 5 Kan. 362. see Ivinson v. Hance, 1 Wyoming Ter. 270, holding that they may be taxed upon failure of title. But United States lands to which the occupant's right to a patent is not complete, are not taxable. Diver v. Friedheim, 43 Ark. 203; Douglas County v. Union Pac. R. Co., 5 Kan. 615. When state lands are purchased by the United States, the fact that the lands were not expressly ceded by the state to the United States does not affect the case. Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151. 6. Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 532; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor County, 52 Wis. 37. 7. Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 210; Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Where the land has been sold and the right to the patent is complete, and the equitable title is fully vested in the purchaser,1 or where it has been donated and the entry made and certificate given, it is segregated from the mass of public lands and becomes private property and taxable as such. A homestead becomes liable to taxation as soon as the owner has the right to make his final proof and complete his title.3 The grantee cannot be required to pay taxes, however, until the land has been identified and determined to be covered by the grant, and where the title has been withheld by competent authority for the purpose of Prescott, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 603; Carroll v. Safford, 3 How. (U. S.) 441; Astrom 7. Hammond, 3 McLean (Ü. S.) 107; Carroll v. Perry, 4 McLean (U. S.) 25; Union Pac. R. Co. v. McShane, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 444; Hunnewell v. Cass County, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 464; State v. Miami County, 63 Ind. 497; Burcham v. Terry, 55 Ark. 398; People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645; Robinson v. Gaar, 6 Cal. 273; Hall v. Dowling, 18 Cal. 619; Dubuque, etc., R. Co. v. Webster County, 21 Iowa 235; Logan v. Clark County (Kan. 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 603; Missouri River, etc., R. Co. . Morris, 13 Kan. 302; Prescott v. Beebe, 17 Kan. 320; McMahon v. Welsh, 11 Kan. 280; Saline County v. Irving, 18 Kan. 440; Puget Sound Agricultural Co. v. Pierce County, 1 Wash. Ter. 159; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Comstock, 71 Wis. 88. And see In re St. Paul, etc., R. Co. (Minn. 1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 72; Wheeler v. Merriman, 30 Minn. 372; Smith v. Hollis, 46 Ark. 17; Diver v. Friedheim, 43 Ark. 203; Stryker v. Polk County, 22 Iowa 131; Stockdale v. Webster County, 12 Iowa 536; Vinton v. Cerro Gordo County, 72 Iowa 155. 1. Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Prescott, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 603; Carroll v. Safford, 3 How. (U. S.) 441; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Price County, 133 U. S. 496; Carroll v. Perry, 4 McLean (U. S.) 25; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Walker, 47 Fed. Rep. 681; Oswalt v. Hallowell, 15 Kan. 154; Moriarty v. Boone County, 39 Iowa 634; People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645; Central Pac. R. Co. v. Howard, 52 Cal. 227; St. Paul, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 40 Minn. 360; St. Paul, etc., R. Co. v. Shanks, 40 Minn. 386; Puget Sound Agricultural Co. v. Pierce County, Wash. Ter. 159; Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. Lane County (Oregon, 1892), 31 Pac. Rep. 964; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Comstock, 71 Wis. 88; Ross v. Outagamie County, 12 Wis. 26; Farnham v. Sherry, 71 Wis. 568. 2. Townsen v. Wilson, 9 Pa. St. 270. Donation lands are chargeable with state taxes under the doctrine of relation from the date of the first entry. Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. (Ŭ. S.) 210; Vinton v. Cerro Gordo County, 72 Iowa 155. But this doctrine cannot be invoked to burden the holder of a title and to require him, in violation of justice, to pay taxes when he holds neither the equity nor the title to the lands. Reynolds v. Plymouth County, 55 Iowa 90; Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 92. And see Churchill v. Sowards, 78 Iowa 472. 3. Bellinger v. White, 5 Neb. 399; Burcham v. Terry, 55 Ark. 398. And see Chase County v. Shipman, 14 Kan. 532. This is the case even though proceedings are suspended and further proofs demanded, which demand is not complied with. State v. Hunter (Minn. 1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 201. And see Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Walker, 47 Fed. Rep. 681; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Wright, 51 Fed. Rep. 68. No right to a patent for a homestead exists until after five years of continuous possession, and lands taken under the homestead act are not liable to taxation until the right to the patent exists. Long v. Culp, 14 Kan. 412; Moriarty v. Boone County, 39 Iowa 634. And see Diver v. Friedheim, 43 Ark. 203. 4. Grant v. Iowa R. Land Co., 54 Iowa 673; Iowa R. Land Co. v. Fitchpatrick, 52 Iowa 244; Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Carroll County, 41 Iowa 153; Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Woodbury County, 29 Iowa 247; Iowa R. Land Co. v. Story County, 36 Iowa 48; Jackson v. La Moure County, 1 N. Dak. 238; Whitney v. Gunderson, 31 Wis. 359; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. |