Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/503

 CHAP. VIII.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 480. by the consolidation of corporations created by it and by an- other state. 1 § 480. The power of a state to tax is expressly restricted by section 10, article I. of the Federal constitution : viz. : " No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, 2 .... nor lay any duty on tonnage." 3 And the taxing power of a state is also restricted by the clause in Amendment XIV. to the Federal constitution, which forbids any state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 1 Thus, when a state allows individuals to deduct the amount of the mortgages on their property in estimating its tax valuation, it is unconstitutional for the state to provide that in assessing the property of railroad companies the amount of the mortgages therein shall not be deducted. 5 And further, to make no pro- vision for giving the company notice of the assessment, and to allow it no chance to be heard in respect thereof, deprive it of its property without due process of law. 6 On the other hand, as corporations are held not to be citi- zens within the meaning of the clause in the constitution which secures to the citizens of each state the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several states, 7 a state may of its property are sold from time to time. It is not essential that all its business be clone in the state. Peo- ple v. Horn Silver Mining Co., 105 N. Y. 76. i Keokuk Bdg. Co. v. People, 161 111. 132; ace. Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 437. 2 See Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Turner o. Maryland, 107 IT. S. 38; People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59 ; Wood- ruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; Pace ». Burgess, 92 U. S. 372; Guy v. Balti- more, 100 TJ. S. 434; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 TJ. S. 123; Higgins ». Three Hundred Casks of Lime, 130 Mass. 1. 3 See Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. 581; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577; Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, 94 TJ. S. 238; State Tonnage Taxes, 12 Wall. 204. 4 This provision applies to and protects corporations. Santa Clara County o. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 118 TJ. S. 394; Hammond Beef Co. v. Best, 91 Me. 431. But does not pro- tect foreign corporations until they have entered the state. See § 400. 5 Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. Rep. 722. See People v. Fire Ass'n, 92 N. Y. 311. Contra, Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 35; San Francisco, etc., R. R. Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12. 6 lb. See People v. Supervisors, 70 N. Y. 228; post, § 492. 7 Cons., sec. 2, ar. IV.; Pyrolusite Manganese Co. v. Ward, 73 Ga. 491; 483