taxable in both States, on the principle that one-half appertains to each State, -deducting, of course, such portion as may be found to have been invested in securities of the United States. Upon the same principle of equitable apportionment, if either State were to lay a tax upon the franchise, each State would lay the tax upon no more than one-half of the estimated value of the whole franchise of the corporation; though it is to be conceded that there is no rule, beyond the discretion of the legislature, for the valuation of a corporate franchise for the purposes of taxation.2

§ 8129. Methods of Assessment of Interstate Bridges. In regard to the methods of assessment and taxation, it has been held that an interstate railroad bridge company, owned by a domestic railroad corporation and constituting a part of its road, is taxable as a part of its road, and not as a separate structure, even though it is used in part as a toll-bridge for ordinary travel. And the rule is the same in Illinois, where it is held that such a bridge comes within the denomination of a "railroad track," and is therefore to be assessed only by the State Board of Equalization.

tion, the number of miles of railroad in each organized county, and the total number of miles in the State, "including roadbed, right of way, and superstructure thereon," etc., does not require a return of the bridges constructed over the Missouri River; that river being a navigable stream, the right to bridge which can be obtained only by an act of Congress, and such bridge, when constructed, not being a part of the road bed or superstructure thereon. But such bridge, not being within the definition of "roadbed, right of way, or superstructure thereon," any part of it within the body of a county, is assessable for taxation by the local taxing officers of the county. Cass v. Chicago &c.R.Co., 25 Neb. 348; s. c. 41 N. W. Rep. 246; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. School District

§ 8130. Taxation of Property of Railroads Consolidated with Foreign Railroad Companies.-The taxation of the property of a consolidated railroad company created by the concurrent action of two States, whose railway property crosses the interstate boundary and lies within each State, should proceed on substantially the same principles as the taxation of the property of interstate bridges, already considered. Such a corporation is a domestic corporation within each State;' and, on principles of justice, its franchise is taxable in each State, because each State has granted it. Its capital is also taxable in each State, because its capital stock has been created under the authority of each State. Its property is also taxable in each State to the extent that it has a situs within each State. But in taxing its capital stock, its franchises, or its property, each State should, if it desires to do justice and avoid double taxation, apportion the tax in the proportion that the value of the property of the corporation, having its situs within the taxing State, bears to the value of its property having its situs outside the taxing State.

No. 1, 25 Neb. 359; s. c. 41 N. W. Rep. 249; 2 L. R. A. 188; 5 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 304; distinguishing Anderson v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 117 Ill. 26; s. c. 7 N. E. Rep. 129. Under a statute of Iowa relating to the taxation of railroads, bridges over the Mississippi or Missouri rivers are not taxed as portions of the railroads to which they belong, but are assessed and taxed on the same basis as the property of individuals, by the local assessors of the districts in which they are situated; nor does this violate a constitutional provision against unequal taxation. Missouri Valley &c. R. Co. v. Harrison County, 74 Iowa, 283; s. c. 37 N. W. Rep. 372.

1 Ante, §§ 8128, 8129.

Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 206; ante, §§ 47, 319, 320, 688, 7438, 7452, 7472, 7490, 7799, 7817, 7891, 8012, 8020, 8128.

The

• Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. (U.S.) 206.

This principle is clearly brought out by Judge Pearson in an opinion which was adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Pittsburg &c. R. Co. v. Com., 66 Pa. St. 73; 8. c. 5 Am. Rep. 344; 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 355. In Com. v. Cleveland &c. R. Co., 29 Pa. St. 370, it was also said, speaking with reference to a tax laid upon the dividends declared by such a corporation: "So far as it has existence as a railroad company in our State, it is a company incorporated by our law, and subject to the same taxes as other like companies, and on plain principles of justice it ought to be so regarded." Ibid. 373. So it was held that the property of an interstate bridge company, consisting of a fund of money accumulated in a bank in the taxing State, for the purposes of

fact that a railroad company, created under the laws of the domestic State, becomes, by permission of the domestic State, and through the concurrent assent of another State, consolidated with a corporation created in such other State, does not change the principle of taxation which had previously been applicable to the property of the domestic railroad company situated within the State; but, in the absence of any statutory change taking place with a special reference to such a consolidation, the taxing officers should apply the same principle of taxation as heretofore.1

§ 8131. Exemption of Foreign Corporations from Taxation. On the principle that exemptions from taxation are to be strictly construed, it has been held that a statute authorizing a railroad company, created under the laws of another State, to extend its line through the domestic State, on condition of the payment of the annual sum of $10,000, does not operate to exempt the company from a general tax imposed upon all railroads within the State. In like manner, a statute of Delaware, under which a railroad company chartered by that State had consolidated with a railroad company chartered by another State, requiring the new company to pay annually into the treasury of the State a tax of one-quarter of one per cent of $400,000, did not prevent a subsequent legislature from imposing a further or different tax upon the company. The amount designated was regarded as merely a declaration of the tax which should be annually payable until a different rate should be established by the legislature."

rebuilding and repairing the property and providing against decay, was taxable in that State, -the principle being that "this State can tax all that is within its bounds, and which receives protection from its laws, unless exempted by the Constitution of the United States, or of this State." Easton Bridge v. County, 9 Pa. St. 415. See also Com. v. Trenton Delaware Bridge Co., 9 Am. Law Reg. (o. s.) 298.

1 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. AuditorGeneral, 53 Mich. 79, 92; Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 206.

Erie R. Co. v. Com., 66 Pa. St. 84; 8. c. 5 Am. Rep. 351; affirmed, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 492.

Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 206. A statute exempting from taxation foreign capital transmitted to agents within the domestic State for the purposes of investment or otherwise, operated in such a way

§ 8132. Retaliatory Taxation of Foreign Corporations.— We have already noticed the existence of statutes in some of the States imposing, by way of retaliation, the same conditions upon foreign corporations entering to do business within their limits, as are imposed by the laws of the State creating the particular corporation upon similar corporations of the domestic State doing business therein.' We now have another and similar principle of retaliation in the statutes of some of the States relating to taxation. Such statutes generally prescribe a rule or basis of taxation in regard to all corporations, domestic and foreign, or in regard to all foreign corporations doing business within the State, and then, in a separate section, add, by way of qualification, the provision which is to be applied against foreign corporations in cases where a more onerous principle of taxation is applied, in the State creating such corporations, against corporations created by the domestic State and doing business in the other State."

that a foreign banking corporation, having an agency permanently established in the city of New York, to which it transmitted its surplus funds to be employed in temporary loans, subject at all times to its control and drafts, was not liable to taxation on the funds so employed. People v. Commissioners, 59 N. Y. 40; reversing s. c. 1 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 630.

1 Ante, §§ 7930, 7931.

The following, from the statute books of Ohio, will suffice for an ex

State or nation doing business within this State, and upon their agents here." Rev. Stat. Ohio, § 282. The construction put upon this statute is that it is "protective in its character, its purpose being to protect Ohio insurance companies from impositions which might be put upon them by other States, and not retaliatory in the sense of first imposing upon foreign companies such taxes as are imposed upon other foreign corporations under like circumstances, and then, in addition, a sum equal to what other States may impose upon our companies doing business there. And the Superintendent of Insurance performs his whole duty in the matter when he requires companies organized out of this State to pay, in addition to the amount paid as taxes in the several counties, a sum sufficient to make the total equal to the amount that would be realized were the rule of taxation of the State under whose

§ 8133. Taxes or Tolls for the Use of Improved Facilities of Navigation.—It is competent for a State to improve the navigation of rivers wholly within its boundaries, by removing obstructions, deepening their channels, etc., provided the free navigation of such rivers is not thereby impaired, and provided that any system for the improvement of their navigation devised by the general government is not thereby defeated. To meet the cost of such improvements the States may levy a general tax, or may lay a toll upon all those who use the rivers and harbors thus improved. The improvements are in this respect like wharves and docks, constructed to facilitate commerce in loading and unloading vessels. The tolls or charges levied upon vessels in such a case can hardly be called a tax: they are rather in the nature of compensation exacted by the State, of the owners of vessels, domestic or foreign, in return for the special facilities which the efforts of the State have afforded them. The regulation of such tolls or charges is mere matter of domestic administration, entirely under the control of the State."

§ 8134. Excise Taxes upon Foreign Corporations in Massachusetts. - The Constitution of Massachusetts confers upon the General Court the power "to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises upon any produce, goods, wares, and merchandise, and com

laws the foreign company is organized, applied to such company's business transacted in this State." State v. Reinmund, 45 Ohio St. 214, 217. When, therefore, a foreign insurance company has furnished to the Superintendent of Insurance a certificate of the valuation of its policies in force on the 31st day of December preceding, upon the lives of citizens of this State, made by the proper State officer of the State under whose laws such company is organized, and such valuation is according to the standard provided in section 279 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, such superintendent is not authorized to require compen

sation for valuation of such policies, notwithstanding such company has paid a like charge in former years, and has furnished to such superintendent, at his request, the data from which such valuation was made. State v. Reinmund, 45 Ohio St. 214; 8. c. 2 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 422; 16 Ins. L. J. 626.

1 Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 699; Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., 123 U. S. 288, 295.

2 Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543; Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., 123 U. S. 288, 295.

Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., 123 U. S. 288, 295.