Where an assessment was made upon the capital stock of a Pennsylvania corporation, and a part of such stock was represented by certain coal, mined in Pennsylvania, but stor ed in New York and there awaiting sale, it was held that, however temporary the stay of the coal might be in the particular foreign states where it was resting at the time of the appraisement, it was definitely and forever beyond the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania and could not be taxed there, even though it was conceded that a tax on the corporate stock is a tax on the assets of the corporation issuing such stock ; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U. S. 341, 25 Sup. Ct. 669, 49 L. Ed. 1077.
A tax on the seller is a tax on the goods; Kehrer v. Stewart, 197 U. S. 60, 25 Sup. Ct. 403, 49 L. Ed. 663. A state cannot impose a privilege tax on the agent of a packing house as to goods shipped to him from anoth er state merely to distribute to purchasers from his principal; but it can on his domes tic business ; nor is it void because it is laid on the agent, so that it cannot be apportioned between the two periods of business ; id.
No state can compel an individual or cor poration to pay for the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce; this does not prrent a state from imposing ordinary property taxes upon property having a sites within its territory and so employed, and the franchise of a corporation so employed is, as a part of its property, subject to state taxation, pro viding, at least, that it was not derived from the United States. Telegraph companies en gaged in interstate commerce are subject to police supervision, and the municipality may, in addition to ordinary property taxation, subject such corporations to reasonable charges for the expenses thereof. Reason ableness will depend on all the circumstances of the case; Atlantic & P. Tel. Co. v. Phila delphia, 190 U. S. 160, 23 Sup. Ct. 817, 47 L. Ed. 995.
There is a presumption that the state leg islature intended to tax only that which it had the power to tax, and a state license tax, if void in part, may be sustained so far as it relates to business intrastate ; Singer Sew ing Machine Co. v. Alabama, 233 U. S. 304, 34 Sup. Ct. 493, 58 L. Ed. -.
A railroad, bridge across a navigable river forming the boundary line between two states Is not, by reason of being an instrument of interstate commerce, exempt from taxation by either state upon the part within its boundaries ; Pittsburgh; C., C. & St. L. R.
Co. v. Board of Public Works, 172 U. S. 32, 19 Sup. Ct. 90, 43 L. Ed. 354 ; so of a bridge over the Ohio river; Henderson B. Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S. 620, 19 Sup. Ct. 553, 43 L. Ed. 823.
The federal constitution provides that no state shall, without consent of congress, (1) lay any imposts or duties on exports or im ports, except what may be necessary for ex ecuting its inspection laws. See Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123, 19 L. Ed. 382 ; (2) lay any duties of tonnage. Under this clause a tax on vessels at a certain sum per ton is forbidden ; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 577, 22 L. Ed. 417.
The constitution of the United States does not profess in all cases to protect property from unjust and oppressive taxation by the states. That is left to the state constitu tions and state laws; New Orleans C. & L. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 143 U. S. 192, 12 Sup. Ct. 406, 36 L. Ed. 121.
The United States cannot tax the salary of a state officer ; Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 20 L. Ed. 122 ; or the income of a mu nicipal corporation ; Pollock v. Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759 ; or bonds issued by a state, or by one of its municipal bodies under its authority, and held by private corporations; Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138, 162, 7 Sup. Ct. 826, 30 L. Ed. 895 ; Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 20 Sup. Ct. 829, 44 L. Ed. 998; or impose a stamp tax upon a bond which a state required as a prerequisite to the right to sell liquor; Ambrosini v. U. S., 187 U. S. 1, 23 Sup. Ct. 1, 47 L. Ed. 49. But when South Carolina went into the liquor busi ness, it did so as a private undertaking and was subject to the internal revenue tax thereon; South Carolina •v. II. S., 199 U. S. 437, 26 Sup. Ct. 110, 50 L. Ed. 261, 4 Ann. Cas. 737 (White, Peckham and McKenna, JJ., dissenting).
For a letter from Taney, C. J., to Secre tary Chase protesting against a tax on the salaries of judges, see 157 U. S. 701.
As to exemptions from taxation: In the ab sence of any constitutional provision, the right to make exemptions is included in the right to apportion taxes; City of Indianapolis v. Sturdevant, 24 Ind. 391; the federal con stitution does not prohibit them ; New York v. Tax Com'rs, 199 U. S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. 705, 50 L. Ed. 65, 4 Ann. Cas. 381.