permitted by the act of Congress.58 A state may also, under a penalty for his non-performance of the duty, require a cashier of a national bank to furnish to the state authorities a list of the names and respective holdings of the shareholders of his bank.59 State taxation as affected by the prohibition of the impairment of the obligation of contracts. 27. The constitutional prohibition of the enactment by the states of laws impairing the obligation of contracts affects to some extent the exercise by the states of the power of taxation. While, as a general rule, the states may, in the exercise of legislative discretion, either tax property or exempt it from taxation, yet contracts of exemption from state taxation, not in terms contravening federal 60 or state 61 constitutional prohibitions, and contained in corporate charters 62 or stipulated by express agreement,63 if supported by an adequate consideration, constitute contracts so binding upon the state, that their obligation is not to be permitted to be impaired by a subsequent legislative repeal of the charter, or by an imposition of a rate of taxation inconsistent with the state's contract.64 But there cannot be implied from the 58 Aberdeen Bank v. Chehalis County, 166 U. S. 440; Merchants & Manufacturers' Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 id. 461. 5 Waite v. Dowley, 94 U. S. 527. People v. Commissioners of Taxes, 94 U. S. 415. 61 R. Cos. v. Gaines, 97 U. S. 697; Trask v. Maguire, 18 Wall. 391; Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217; Shields v. Ohio, 95 id. 319; P. I. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 id. 193; Stearns v. Minnesota,, 179 id. 223, 241. 02 Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Bl. 436; M. & O. R. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 486; Citizens' Bk. v. Parker, 192 id. 73. New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cr. 164; New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 104; Wells v. Savannah, 181 id. 531. "Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Bl. 436; W. & R. R. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264; R. & G. R. v. Reid, ibid. 269; Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 id. 50; P. R. v. Maguire, 20 id. 36; University v. People, 99 U. S. 309; Asylum v. New Orleans, 105 id. 362; W. & W. R. v. Alsbrook, 146 id. 279; M. & O. grant of a charter an exemption of the corporate franchise or property from state taxation,65 and the imposition in a charter of a specific form or rate of taxation is not, in the absence of an express contract of exemption from other taxation, to be construed as an implied exemption from such other taxation,66 and contracts of exemption from state taxation, when expressly made, are to be strictly construed.67 Immunity from taxation is a personal privilege which does not extend beyond the immediate grantee unless it is otherwise so declared in express terms.68 A municipal corporation cannot, by the exercise of a statutory power of taxation, diminish the interest payable to the holder of a funded obligation of the municipality under the terms of the bond.69 The subject of exemption R. v. Tennessee, 153 id. 486; New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 id. 371; Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 id. 223. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527; M. G. Co. v. Shelby County, 109 U. S. 398. *The Delaware R. Tax, 18 Wall. 206; Erie Ry. v. Penna., 21 id. 492; The License Tax Cases, 5 id. 462; Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U. S. 116; S. C. S. Ry. v. Sioux City, 138 id. 98; N. O. C. & L. R. v. New Orleans, 143 id. 192; W. & W. R. v. Alsbrook, 146 id. 279; Shelby County v. Union & Planters' Bank, 161 id. 149; New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 id. 371. "Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527; W. F. Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365; Ry. Co. v. Philadelphia, 101 id. 528; Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall. 460; R. Cos. v. Gaines, 97 U. S. 697; Picard v. E. T., V. & G. R., 130 id. 637; Y. & M. V. R. v. Thomas, 132 id. 174; N. O. C. & L. R. v. New Orleans, 143 id. 192; W. & W. R. v. Alsbrook, 146 id. 279; W. & St. P. L. Co. v. Minnesota, 159 id. 526; P. F. & M. I. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 id. 174; C. R. & B. Co. v. Wright, 164 id. 327; C. & L. T. R. Co. v. Sandford, ibid. 578; Ford v. D. & P. L. Co., ibid. 662; Citizens' Savings Bank v. Owensboro, 173 id. 636; Wells v. Savannah, 181 id. 531; Orr v. Gilman, 183 id. 278; Chicago Theological Seminary v. Illinois, 188 id. 662. "Picard v. E. T., V. & G. R., 130 U. S. 637; People v. Cook, 148 id. 397; K. & W. R. v. Missouri, 152 id. 301; St. L. & S. F. Ry. v. Gill, 156 id. 649; N. & W. R. v. Pendleton, ibid. 667; P. F. & M. I. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 id. 174; Memphis Bank v. Tennessee, ibid. 186; P. I. Co. v. Tennessee, ibid. 193; C. & L. T. Co. v. Sandford, 164 id. 578; G. & S. I. R. v. Hewes, 183 id. 66; N. C. Ry. v. Maryland, 187 id. 258. "Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432. by contract from state taxation is more fully discussed in Chapter V. State taxation as affected by the grant to Congress of the power of regulating commerce. 28. The constitutional grant to Congress of the power of regulating "commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" also affects to some extent the exercise by the states of the power of taxation, but the states are not prohibited from taxing either the instrumentalities, or the subjects, of foreign or interstate commerce, provided that such taxation be imposed on those instrumentalities and subjects as component parts of the mass of property in the state, or by reason of the citizenship of their owners as subjects of the sovereignty of the state, and provided also, that that which is in form taxation, be not in substance a regulation of, or a restraint upon, foreign or interstate commerce." 70 In accordance with this distinction, a state may tax ships and ferry boats as the personal property of their owners, where either the owner, by reason of his residence, or the property because of its situs is subject to the taxing power of the state; 71 and a state may tax goods brought from another state and mingled with the mass of property in the taxing state,72 and goods within 70 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 201; The Passenger Cases, 7 How. 479; Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 280; W. F. Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 id. 374; California v. C. P. R., 127 id. 1; Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 id. 78; Massachusetts v. W. U. T. Co., 141 id. 40; P. T. C. Co. v. Adams, 155 id. 688; P. & S. C. Co. v. Louisiana, 156 id. 590; W. U. T. Co. v. Taggart, 163 id. 1; A. Ex. Co. v. Ohio, 165 id. 194, 166 id. 185; New York v. Roberts, 171 id. 658; P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Board of Pub. Works, 172 id. 32; K. & H. Bridge Co. v. Illinois, 175 id. 626; U. R. T. Co. v. Lynch, 177 id. 149. W. F. Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365; T. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 id. 273. 72 Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622; 74 the state intended for transportation to another state but not actually stated on their voyage; 73 provided, that the taxation is not so imposed as to discriminate against either the natural products of, or goods manufactured in, another state. A state may require a foreign corporation which is engaged in interstate commerce to pay for the privilege of exercising the franchises of a corporation,75 though not for the right of transporting interstate passengers,76 within its borders. It may tax its own citizens for the prosecution of any particular business or profession within the state, unless that business be directly concerned with interstate commerce; thus, while a state may not tax drummers of goods made in other states," it may tax persons who sell goods shipped to them from outside points,78 and it may tax exchange brokers, despite the fact that bills of exchange are instruments of foreign and interstate commerce.79 It may tax agents engaged in hiring labour P. & S. C. Co. v. Bates, 156 id. 577; A. S. & W. Co. v. Speed, 192 id. 500; cf. Kelley v. Rhoads, 188 id. 1. 73 Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517; D. M. Co. v. Ontonagon, 188 id. 82. "Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 id. 434; Webber v. Virginia, 103 id. 344; Walling v. Michigan, 116 id. 446; Robbins v. Shelby Co., 120 id. 489; Corson v. Maryland, ibid. 502; Asher v. Texas, 128 id. 129; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 id. 289; Stockard v. Morgan, 185 id. 27; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 id. 622; N. & W. Ry. v. Sims, 191 id. 441. But see Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148; Downham v. Alexandria Council, 10 id. 173; Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 id. 123; Ficklen v. Shelby County, 145 id. 1; Emert v. Missouri, 156 id. 296; Rash v. Farley, 159 id. 263; A. S. & W. Co. v. Speed, 192 id. 500. Maine v. G. T. Ry., 142 U. S. 217. Bradley, Harlan, Lamar, and Brown, JJ., dissented. See also Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 id. 47; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 id. 436; N. Y., L. E. & W. R. v. Pennsylvania, 158 id. 431; New York v. Roberts, 171 id. 658. 76 Allen v. P. P. C. Co., 191 U. S. 171. "Robbins v. Shelby County, 120 U. S. 489; Asher v. Texas, 128 id. 129; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 id. 289; Stockard v. Morgan, 185 id. 27; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 id. 622. 78 Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676; Emert v. Missouri, 156 id. 296; Rash v. Farley, 159 id. 263; A. S. & W. Co. v. Speed, 192 id. 500. " Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73. ers to be employed beyond the limits of the state, even though transportation must eventually take place as the result of such contracts; 80 but an agent employed solely in promoting the use of his line in interstate transportation cannot be taxed, for the business is directly connected with commerce and consists wholly in carrying it on.81 It has the right to impose a license tax,82 or a tax on receipts,83 upon a company engaged in local commerce, although the company be also engaged in interstate business; 84 but it cannot impose such charges upon strictly interstate commerce.85 It may, however, tax so much of the gross receipts of an interstate railroad company as are earned within the state.86 If property within a state and otherwise liable to taxation be in money at the date of assessment for taxation, a subsequent investment thereof in a subject of commerce does not relieve that capital from liability to state taxation.87 While a state cannot tax the interstate transportation of passengers or goods, it may by its charter of a railway charge a toll payable to the state for the use of the improved facilities of travel furnished by the railway,88 and it may tax its railway companies upon the cash value of their capital stock.89 It may tax an inter So Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270. 81 McCall v. California, 136 U. S. 104. See also N. & W. R. v. Pennsylvania, ibid. 114; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 id. 47. 82 P. T. C. Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S. 692; Osborne v. Florida, 164 id. 650; P. Co. v. Adams, 189 id. 420; Allen v. P. P. C. Co., 191 id. 171. * Ratterman v. W. U. T. Co., 127 U. S. 411; W. U. T. Co. v. Alabama, 132 id. 472; P. Ex. Co. v. Seibert, 142 id. 339. A company which carries to or from a ferry passengers intending to go to another state, and which makes a separate charge for such service, is not engaged in interstate commerce, and a license tax upon such company is constitutional: New York v. Knight, 192 U. S. 21. 85 Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 id. 47. 8 Maine v. G. T. Ry., 142 U. S. 217. 87 People v. Commissioners, 104 U. S. 466. |