Generally, exemption to schools on their vacant lands does not extend to such assess ments when the improvement is beneficial to their property ; State v. Macalester College, 87 Minn. 165, 91 N. W. 484; Boston Asylum v. Street Com'rs of Boston, 180 Mass. 485, 62 N. E. 961. So of a cemetery company ; Phila delphia v. Burial Ground Society of Philadel phia, 178 Pa. 533, 36 Atl. 172, 36 L. R. A. 263; and the property of a county; Edwards & W. Const. Co. v. Jasper Co., 117 Ia. 365, 90 N. W. 1006, 94 Am. St. Rep. 301; but it is held that the exemption does extend to as sessments; Dist. of Columbia v. Sisters of Visitation of Washington, 15 App. D. C. 300; Cooper Hospital v. Camden, 68 N. J. L. 208, 52 Atl. 210.
The omission of the legislature for one year, or for a series of years, to tax certain classes of property, does not destroy the pow er of the state to tax them when it sees fit ; New York v. State Board of Tax Com'rs, 199 U. S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. 705, 50 L. Ed. 65, 4 Ann. Cas. 381.
Where a charter provides that all earnings above a specified rate of dividends shall go to the territory of Hawaii, this is not taxa tion and does not exempt from other taxes; Honolulu R. T. & L. Co. v. Wilder, 211 U. S. 137, 29 Sup. Ct. 44, 53 L. Ed. 121.
A tax may be levied upon the owner of mineral rights in lands while the surface is taxed to the owner of the fee ; Downman v. Texas, 231 U. S. 353, 34 •Sup. Ct. 62, 58 L. Ed. -.
Lands in a harbor under water, but form ing part of the limits of a municipality, are taxable; Leary v. Jersey City, 189 Fed. 419.
The right to lay taxes cannot be delegated by the legislature to any other department of the government ; St. Louis v. Clemens, 52 Mo. 133; Hydes v. Joyes, 4 Bush (Ky.) 464, 96 Am. Dec. 311; except that municipal cor porations may be authorized to levy local tax es; Cooley, Tax. 62; St. Louis v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; St. Louis v. Bank, 49 Mo. 574; Appeal of Butler, 73 Pa. 448.
The state may undoubtedly require the payment of taxes in kind, that is, in products, or in gold or silver bullion, etc. ; Cooley, Tax. 12. See Perry v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 318 ; Lane Co. v. Oregon, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 71, 19 L. Ed. 101.
The constitutional guaranty which declares that no person shall be deprived of property, etc., except by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land does not necessarily apply to the collection of taxes ; Harper v. Elber ton, 23 Ga. 566; Cooley, Tax. 37; Miller, Coust. 105; taxes have been said to be re coverable, not only without a jury, but with out a judge ; Harris v. Wood, 6 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 641. Though differing from procedure in courts of justice, the general system of procedure for the levy and collection of tax es established in this country is due process of law; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78, 26 L. Ed. 658.
"It has frequently been held by this court, when asked to review tax proceedings in state courts, that due process of law is afford ed litigants if they have an opportunity to question the validity or the amount of an assessment or charge before the amount is determined, or at any subsequent proceed ings to enforce its collection, or at any time before final judgment is entered. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 23 L. Ed. 678; David son v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 24 L. Ed. 616; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 8 Sup. Ct. 921, 31 L. Ed. 763; Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138, 17 Sup. Ct. 525, 41 L. Ed. 949 ; Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 22 Sup. Ct. 213, 46 L. Ed. 196." Gallup v. Schmidt, 183 U. S. 300, 22 Sup. Ct. 162, 46 L. Ed. 207.
The power to tax is vested entirely in the legislative department. No matter how op pressive taxation may be, the judiciary can not interfere on that account ; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 533, 19 L. Ed. 482; Daily v. Swope, 47 Miss. 367.
The courts are without authority to avoid an act of congress lawfully exerting the tax ing power, though it might appear to be exer cised unwisely or oppressively, nor can they inquire into the levying of a tax within its constitutional power; McCray v. U. S., 195 U. S. 27, 24 Sup. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78, 1 Ann. Cas. 561. Equity can only correct abuses in assessing taxes by invidious assessments when injury has been'done; Tacoma R. & P. Co. v. Pierce Co., 193 Fed. 90.
In order to invoke the powers of a court of equity to restrain the collection of illegal taxes, the case must be brought within the well recognized foundations of equitable ju risdiction, and the mere error or excess in valuation, or hardship or injustice of the law, or any grievance which can be remedied by a suit at law, either before or after pay ment of taxation, will not justify such inter position ; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 663; Arkansas B. & L. Ass'n v. Madden, 175 U. S. 269, 20 Sup. Ct. 119, 44 L. Ed. 159; and it must clearly appear not only that the tax is illegal, but that the prop erty owner has no adequate remedy at law, and that there are special circumstances bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction; Pittsburgh, C.„ C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Board of Pub. Works, 172 U. S. 32, 19 Sup. Ct 90, 43 L. Ed. 354. An apparent exception to this rule has been said to have been established by certain cases, but this exception is only recognized when there is a state statute authorizing an injunction or when inequality of valuation is the result of a statute designed to discrim inate injuriously against any particular class of persons or species of property; German Nat. Bank v. Kimball, 103 U. S. 732, 26 L. Ed. 469, where the cases are analyzed.