The effect of these provisions upon the taxation of foreign corporations has been dealt with elsewhere. The federal constitution does not exempt the citizens of other states, or of the United States, from any condition which the law of the state imposes upon its own citizens. And state taxes upon the property or business of a non-resident within the state,3 and license impositions for the privilege of carrying on business within the state, may be imposed upon him to the same extent as upon citizens of the state; it is only where a greater burden is imposed that the prohibition applies.5 Nor is a tax upon a business ex TAXATION 1. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, vol. 8, P. 329; (CORPORATE), vol. 25. 2. Com. v. Milton, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 212; Jackson v. Bulloch, 12 Conn. 38; Harrison v. Vicksburg, 3 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 581; Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 607; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 122; Ex p. Thornton, 12 Fed. Rep. 538. And see Cole v. Randolph, 31 La. Ann. 535; Sledd v. Com., 19 Gratt. (Ga.) 819. Statutes requiring the taxation of certain property, without allowing for mortgage or other liens thereon, do not conflict with the provisions of the federal constitution forbidding states to pass laws abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Central Pac. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35. 3. Howe Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676; Duer v. Small, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 263; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 33 Fed. Rep. 124; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 148; .Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. (U.S.) 232; Nathan v. Louis iana, 8 How. (U. S.) 73; Battle v. Mobile, 9 Ala. 234; Osborne v. Mobile, 44 Ala. 493; Fargo v. Auditor Gen'l, 57 Mich. 598; 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 217; Weaver v. State, 89 Ga. 639; Ex p. Robinson, 12 Nev. 263; Com. v. Milton, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 218; Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 55 Tex. 314; Pullman Southern Car Co. v. Gaines, 3 Tenn. Ch. 587; People v. Brooks, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 469. In Padelford v. Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, it was held that an ordinance imposing a tax of a certain sum upon every hundred dollars of the amount of sales of all negroes, goods, wares and merchandise, or other commodity, within the corporate limits of the city, is not unconstitutional, even though a large number of such sales are of goods brought from without the state. 4. District of Columbia v. Humason, 2 McArthur (D. C.) 162; Ex p. Hanson, 28 Fed. Rep. 127; In re Rudolph, 2 Fed. Rep. 65; Sears v. Warren Co., 36 Ind. 267; McLaughlin v. South Bend, 126 Ind. 471; Mt. Pleasant v. Clutch, 6 Iowa 546; Sacramento v. California Stage Co., 12 Cal. 134; Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Atty. Gen'l, 46 N. J. Eq. 270; Lunt's Case, 6 Me. 412; State v. French, 109 N. Car. 722; State v. Stevenson, 109 N. Car. 730; Corson v. State, 57 Md. 251; Brown v. Houston, 33 La. Ann. 843; State v. Fosdick, 21 La. Ann. 434; Ex p. Burton, 28 Tex. App. 304; Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. Rep. 468; License Cases, 5 How. (U. S.) 504; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 33 Fed. Rep. 124; American Fertilizing Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 43 Fed. Rep. 609; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 148; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123; Howe Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676. And see Com. v. Maury, 82 Va. 882; Cuthburt v. Com., 85 Va. 99; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365; Harrison v. Vicksburg, 3 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 581; State v. Long. 95 N. Car. 582; Titusville v. Brennan, 143 Pa. St. 642; Territory v. Farnsworth, 5 Mont. 303. 5. See Howe Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676; In re Watson, 15 Fed. Rep. 511; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 385; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123; Bliss' Petition, 63 N. H. 135; State v. Lancaster, 63 N. H. 267; Gould v. Atlanta, 55 Ga. 678; State v. Furbush, 72 Me. 493; State v. North, 27 Mo. 464; Crow v. State, 14 Mo. 237; State v. Wiggins, 64 N. H. 508; Fire Department v. Wright, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 478; Simrall v. Covington (Ky. 1890), 34 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 190. tending beyond the state unconstitutional,1 nor a mere municipal charge for the use of the streets or other accommodations of a city. These restrictions do not prevent the states from exempting property from taxation when it is devoted to public uses in which all the people are alike interested.3 Nor does the requirement of a different mode of assessment of the property of nonresidents from that required for the assessment of the property of residents, necessarily amount to an unlawful discrimination. The prohibition of the federal constitution was not intended to secure the citizen of a state against discriminations made by his own state in favor of the citizens of other states, nor to secure one class of citizens against discriminations made between them and another class of citizens of the same state.6 (d) Duties of Tonnage. The states are prohibited from levying any duty of tonnage without the consent of Congress. Duties of tonnage are taxes or duties charged upon vessels for the privilege of entering, or loading, or lying in a port or harbor;8 and are usually 1. Osborn v. Mobile, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 479; Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U. S. 116; Southern Express Co. v. Mobile, 45 Ala. 404. In Sears v. Warren County, 36 Ind. 267, a license required to vend foreign merchandise was held to be valid. See also People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46; Seymour v. State, 51 Ala. 52. 2. St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 148 U. S. 92; Philadelphia v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 67 Hun (N. Y.) 21. And see Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Riedsville, 101 N. Car. 404. But see St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 59. In Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 615, it was held that a city cannot tax a telegraph company occupying its streets, without legislative authority, and cannot, even if authorized, tax a company engaged in interstate commerce. 3. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Carland, 5 Mont. 146; 17 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 364. And see State v. French, 109 N. Car. 722; State v. Stevenson, 109 N. Car. 730; Exp. Brown, 48 Fed. Rep. 435; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Barnes, 2 N. Dak. 310, 395; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Brewer, 2 N. Dak. 396. 4. Redd 7. St. Francis County, 17 Ark. 416; McGuire v. Parker, 32 La. Ann. 832; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 148; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 115 U. S. 321; Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. Rep. 310; Kentucky R. Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321. And see State Board of Assessors v. Central R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 146; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 115 U. S. 321. If the rate of taxation is the same in both cases, it is sufficient. Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 148. See also infra, this title, Equality and Uniformity; The Assessment. 5. Com. v. Griffin, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 208; Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 136; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36. And see Downham v. Alexandria, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 173. 6. Com. v. Griffin, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 208; Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 136. The local policy of a state government as to its own citizens is not interfered with. Kincaid v. Francis, Cooke (Tenn.) 49. 7. U. S. Const., art. 1, § 10, par. 2; Cox v. Lott (State Tonnage Tax Cases), 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204; Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691; Booth v. Lloyd, 33 Fed. Rep. 593; Ex p. Insley, 33 Fed. Rep. 680; People v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 131; North River Steamboat Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 743; Johnson v. Drummond, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 419. The consent of Congress may be implied from legislation. Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 Ŭ. S. 284. 8. Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691; Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238; Southern Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 31; Cannon v. estimated by the entire internal cubic capacity or contents of the vessel, expressed in tons, as estimated and ascertained by rules of admeasurement and computation established by law. But any imposition, whatever its form and whatever it may be called, if really and substantially a duty of tonnage, is equally within the prohibition.2 New Orleans, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 577; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 4 Dill. (U. S.) 10; Aiken v. Leathers, 9 Fed. Rep. 679; Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 581; Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 1; Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 39; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Paul, 3 Dill. (U. S.) 454; Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 280; The North Cape, 6 Biss. (U. S.) 505; Alexander v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 3 Strobh. (S. Car.) 594. And see Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U. S. 69; Cole v. Johnson, 10 Daly (N. Y.) 258. The duty of tonnage which the constitution prohibits the states from levying,is a duty or tax on a ship, as such, without regard to the residence of her owner, whether it be a fixed sum upon its whole tonnage, or a sum to be ascertained by comparing the amount of tonnage with the rate of duty, when a ship, as an instrument of commerce, is required to pay a duty as a condition to her being allowed to enter or depart from a port, or load or unload a cargo, either upon her tonnage, her property, or as a license to her officers or crew. The North Cape, 6 Biss. (U. S.) 505. 1. Cox v. Lott (State Tonnage Tax Cases), 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204; Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 581; Passenger Cases, 7 How. (U. S.) 283; Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238; The North Cape, 6 Biss. (U. S.) 505; Sheffield v. Parsons, 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 302; Alexander v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 3 Strobh. (S. Car.) 598; State v. Charleston, 4 Rich. (S. Car.) 289; Hackley v. Geraghty, 34 N. J. L. 332. And see John Kyle Steamboat Co. v. New Orleans, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 19. Duties, the amount of which is determined by comparison with the tonnage, are within the prohibition. Johnson v. Drummond, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 419. So are taxes according to towage. Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 9 W. Va. 178. An imposition imposed by harbor commissioners to defray expenses on vessels entering the port according to the "length over all" in feet, is a tonnage duty within the prohibition of the federal constitution. Harbor Com'rs v. Pashley, 19 S. Car. 315. 2. Johnson v. Drummond, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 419; Alexander v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 3 Strobh. (S. Car.) 598; Passenger Cases, 7 How. (U. S.) 447; Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. (U. S.) 299; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Paul, 3 Dill. (U. S.) 454. In Southern Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 31, it was held that a statute which entitles the master and wardens of a port to receive certain fees, whether called upon to perform any service or not, for each vessel arriving in the port, is repugnant to the prohibition in the federal constitution against the imposition of duties of tonnage. Wharfage fees exacted from vessels carrying products of other states, cannot be regarded as compensation for the use of property owned by the city requiring the fees; they are a mere expedient or device to build up the domestic commerce by means of unequal and oppressive burdens upon the industry and business of other states. Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434. A tax upon a vessel in another state than that which contains its home port, which is lawfully engaged in interstate trade over public waters, is an interference with the commerce of the country, which is not permitted to the states. Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 471. In Hackley v. Geraghty, 34 N. J. L. 332, it was held that a fixed sum required to be paid by each vessel, without regard to its tonnage, is within the constitutional prohibition against duties of tonnage. See also Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273; Cox v. Lott (State Tonnage Tax Cases), 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204; Booth v. Lloyd, 33 Fed. Rep. 593; Ex p. Insley, 33 Fed. Rep. 680; The North Cape, 6 Biss. (U. S.) 505; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 577; Gibbons v. Ogden, Duties of tonnage differ from wharfage, and from pilotage.2 The fact that such impositions are graduated by the size or tonnage of the vessel, does not necessarily make them a duty of tonnage,3 the mode of making a charge in either case, whether according to the size or capacity of the vessel, or otherwise, having nothing to do with its essential nature, the test question being whether the charge is a reasonable compensation for services rendered or facilities furnished.5 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 1; Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 328. 1. Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691; Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. (U. S.) 299; Ouachita, etc., Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S. 444; 16 Fed. Rep. 890; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 577; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 84; The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. (U. S.) 20; Pelham v. Woolsey, 16 Fed. Rep. 418; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423; First Municipality v. Pease, 2 La. Ann. 538; Sweeney v. Otis, 37 La. Ann. 520; Wharf Case, 3 Bland (Md.) 361; State v. Charleston, 4 Rich. (S. Car.) 286; Sterrett v. Houston, 14 Tex. 153. Although wharves are related to commerce and navigation as aids and conveniences, yet, being local in their nature, requiring state regulation for particular purposes, the regulation thereof properly belongs to the state in which they are situated, in the absence of congressional legislation on the subject. Parkersburg Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691; Ouachita, etc., Packet Co. v. Aiken, 16 Fed. Rep. 890; The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. (U. S.) 20; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 577; Worsley v. Second Municipality, 9 Rob. (La.) 324. 2. Southern Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 31; Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 450; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 577; Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. (U. S.) 299; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80; The Charles A. Sparks, 16 Fed. Rep. 480. And see State v. Penny, 19 S. Car. 218. 3. Parkersburg Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434; Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 577; Vicksburg v. Tobin, 100 U. S. 430; Lott v. Mobile Trade Co., 43 Ala. 578; Lott v. Cox, 43 Ala. 697. But see Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Paul, 3 Dill. (U. S.) 454. 4. Parkersburg Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423; Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. (U. S.) 299; Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 84; The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. (U. S.) 20; Wharf Case, 3 Bland (Md.) 361; Sterrett v. Houston, 14 Tex. 153. Penalties imposed for a refusal to obey rules with reference to places of landing, and orders of wharf masters on the subject, are not taxes on tonnage. Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559. 5. See Southern Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 31; Freeman v. The Undaunted, 37 Fed. Rep. 662; Ouachita, etc., Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S. 444; 11 Fed. Rep. 862; Leathers v. Aiken, 9 Fed. Rep. 679; Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90; Webb v. Dunn, 18 Fla. 721; Hackley v. Geraghty, 34 N. J. L. 332. And see The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. (U. S.) 20. Question of Law and Fact.-Whether a charge is wharfage, or a duty on tonnage, is a question, not of intent, but of fact and law; of fact, whether it is imposed for the use of a wharf or for the privilege of entering a port; and of law, whether, according as the fact is, it is wharfage or a duty on tonnage. Parkersburg Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691. Burden of Proof.-In Ouachita, etc., Packet Co. v. Aiken, 11 Fed. Rep. 662, it was held that in order to establish that a rate of wharfage is greater than a fair and reasonable compensation for the use of the facilities offered, the evi That an imposition is not for revenue purposes, or that its proceeds do not go into the public treasury, does not prevent it from being a duty of tonnage; and a tonnage tax cannot be employed, even for the purpose of carrying into effect regulations which the state has power to make.2 But the imposition of a reasonable charge in the execution of health and inspection laws is not a duty of tonnage.3 The prohibition extends to vessels employed in commercial intercourse between the ports of different states as well as between different ports in the same state, and to vessels employed in the coasting trade as well as to those engaged in internal commerce; and it is immaterial whether the vessel belongs to the citizens of the state which levies the tax or to citizens of another state.7 The constitutional prohibition does not affect the right of the state to tax as property, and according to value, vessels owned by its citizens, even though such vessels are registered or dence submitted must enable the courts to say as a matter of fact, that such greater charge is made against the particular vessels of the complainant. See also Leathers v. Aiken, 9 Fed. Rep. 679; Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691. 1. Sheffield v. Parsons, 3 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 302; Lott v. Morgan, 41 Ala. 250; Alexander v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 3 Strobh. (S. Car.) 594; Leathers v. Aiken, 9 Fed. Rep. 679; Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543. 2. Johnson v. Drummond, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 419; People v. Brooks, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 469; Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 581. 3. Morgan Steamship Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S. 445, affirming 36 La. Ann. 666; Benedict v. Vanderbilt, 1 Robt. (N. Y.) 200. 4. Cox v. Lott (State Tonnage Tax Cases), 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204; People v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 131; North River Steamboat Co. 7. Livingston, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 743; Alexander v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 3 Strobh. (S. Car.) 598. In Lott v. Morgan, 41 Ala. 250, it was held that vessels engaged exclusively in the towage and lighterage business, carrying passengers and freight from a harbor to vessels far outside, are within the protection of the constitution. 5. Cox 7'. Lott (State Tonnage Tax Cases), 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204; Lott v. Morgan, 41 Ala. 246; Howell v. State, 3 Gill (Md.) 14. Steamboats are included as well as sailing vessels. Cox v. Lott (State Tonnage Tax Cases), 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204. And see Alexander v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 3 Strobh. (S. Car.) 598. 6. Congress does not possess the power to regulate purely internal commerce of the states, but it may enroll licensed ships and vessels to sail from one port to another in the same state,. and vessels thus enrolled and licensed are entitled to the same privileges as vessels employed in the coasting trade. Cox v. Lott (State Tonnage Tax Cases), 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204. 7. Cox v. Lott (State Tonnage Tax Cases), 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 202; Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. (U. S.) 238; Foster v. Davenport, 22 How (U. S.) 245; Perry v. Torrence, 8 Ohio 524. 8. Cox v. Lott (State Tonnage Tax Case), 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204; Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. (U. S.) 82; Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273; Passenger Cases, 7 How. (U. S.) 402; Lott v. Mobile Trade Co., 43 Ala. 578; Lott v. Cox, 43 Ala. 697; Irvin v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 94 Ill. 105; People v. Roberts, 92 Cal. 659; Howell v. State, 3 Gill (Md.) 14; Guenther v. Baltimore, 55 Md. 459; Perry v. Torrence, 8 Ohio 522; People v. Com'r of Taxes, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 157; affirmed 58 N. Y. 542. And see Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 472; Hays v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 17 How. (U. S.) 596. |