A tax on the property and business of a railroad operated within the state may be estimated prima facie by gross income com puted by adding to the income derived from business within the state the proportion of interstate business equal to the proportion between the road over which the business was carried within the state to the total length of the road over which it *as car ried; Wisconsin & M. R. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379, 24 Sup. Ct. 107, 48 L. Ed. 229. In Maine v. R. Co., 142 U. S. 217, 12 Sup. Ct 121, 163, 35 L. Ed. 994, an annual excise tax for the privilege of exercising its franchise was levied upon any one operating a rail road in the state, fixed by percentages vary ing up to a certain limit, upon the average gross receipts per mile multiplied by the number of miles within the state, when the road extended outside. The tax was upheld. The estimated gross receipts per mile were said to be made a measure of the value of the property per mile. That the effort of the state was to reach that value and not to fasten on the receipts from transportation, as such, was said to be shown by the fact that the scheme of the statute was to estab lish a system. The buildings of the railroad and its lands and fixtures outside of its right of way were to be taxed and this ex cise, with the local tax, were to be in lieu of all taxes. The local tax was not expect ed to include the additional value gained by the property's being part of a going concern. The excise was an attempt to reach that additional value. The two taxes together may be fairly called a commutation tax ; Gal veston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 28 Sup. Ct. 638, 52 L. Ed. 1031.
The requirement that a sleeping car company, as a condition of its right to do intrastate business, shall, in the form of a fee, pay to the state a specified per cent. of its authorized capital, is a violation of the constitution of the United States, in that such a single fee, based on all the prop erty, interests, and business of the company, in and out of that state, is, in effect, a tax both on the interstate business of that com pany and on its property outside of that state, and compels the company, in order that it may do local business in connection with its interstate business, to waive its constitutional exemption from state taxation on its interstate business and on its property outside of the state; Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56, 30 Sup. Ct. 232, 54 L. Ed. 378 ; to the same effect; Ludwig v. Telegraph Co., 216 U. S. 146, 30 Sup. Ct. 280, 54 L. Ed. 423.
Rolling stock continuously used in a state acquires a situs therein for taxation, and even though it is used exclusively in inter state commerce, it may be subjected in the state to an equal property tax; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Twombly, 29 Fed. 658 ; Union P. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 5, 21 L. Ed. 787. It is within the legisla tive power to establish a aitus for person al property elsewhere than at the place in which it is found, and rolling stock used continuously in two states may have a aitus in each, but can be taxed in each only upon a fair proportion of the value; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Twombly, 29 Fed. 658. The continuous use in one state necessary for taxation is not prevented by frequent change of cars from one road to another and the fact that the identical cars are not con tinuously used in one state; id. It has also been held that its situs for the purpose of taxation is the place where the manager or agent would be taxed in contemplation of law ; Dubuque v. R. Co., 39 Ia. 56. Rolling stock is taxable only at the home office of the company; Appeal Tax Court v. R. Co.,
50 Md. 274.
The valuation of rolling stock may be ap portioned by the court for taxation among the counties through which the road runs,, with an assignment to each county of a share proportionate to the length of the road therein; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Alamance, 84 N. C. 504. Rolling stock held under a car trust company is taxable where the car trust association has its place of business; 24 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 626.
The Adams Express Company owned four million dollars of tangible assets in different states. By combining with that its con tracts, franchises and privileges, it created a corporate property of sixteen million dol lars. Its intangible property is therefore twelve million dollars; this must be consider ed as being distributed wherever its tangible property is located and its work done, and to be proportionally taxable there; American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70, 19 Sup. Ct. 599, 43 L. Ed. 899. Pullman cars employed in Pennsylvania are not ex empt from taxation there because, while in use, they may pass across the boundary of the state and return ; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18, 11 Sup. Ct. 876, 35 L. Ed. 613.
An excise tax on foreign corporations, for the right to do business, of one-fiftieth of one per cent. of the par value of its stock (but not to exceed *2,000), is valid; Keystone Watch Case Co. v. Com., 212 Mass. 50, 98 N. E. 1063.
Vessels, though engaged in interstate com merce and employed in such commerce whol ly within the limits of a state, are subject to taxation therein, although they may have been registered or enrolled at a port outside its limits ; Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Virginia, 198 U. S. 299, 25 Sup. Ct. 686, 49 L. Ed. 1059, 3 Ann. Cas. 1100; but in Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Kentucky, 202 U. S. 409, 26 Sup. Ct. 679, 50 L. Ed. 1082, 6 Ann. Cas. 205, it was held that the general rule as to vessels plying between states and in the coastwise trade, is that the domicil of the owner is the situs of the vessel for taxation, subject to the exception that where such a vessel has ,acquired an actual situs in a state other than the owner's domicil, it may be taxed there ; and this was followed in Southern P. Co. v. Kentucky, 222 U. S. 64, 32 Sup. Ct. 13, 56 L. Ed. 96, where Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Virginia, 198 U. S. 299, 25 Sup. Ct. 686, 49 L. Ed. 1059, 3 Ann. Cas. 1100, was distinguished, because there the ves sels had for years been continuously and exclusively engaged in navigating Virginia waters, which state had thereby acquired jurisdiction. The owner of a vessel cannot arbitrarily select the place in which it shall be taxed ; Southern P. Co. v. Kentucky, 222 U. S. 63, 82 Sup. Ct. 13, 56 L. Ed. 96. A poll or capitation tax is so called be cause it is a tax on the poll or person mere ly, Without regard to property or other circumstances; The Head-Money Cases, 18 Fed. 135; Gardner v. Hall, 61 N. C. 21. It is used in some states, as Pennsylvania, to es tablish a qualification for voting. It was abolished in Massachusetts and in Delaware (by the constitution of 1898) and a regis tration fee adopted in its stead. It is a di rect tax within the meaning of the federal constitution; Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 433, 19 L. Ed. 95; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 533, 19 L. Ed. 482; and cannot be laid by the United States ex cept in proportion to population ; Springer v. U. S., 102 U. S. 587, 26 • L. Ed. 253. The domicil of the taxable is the place of the imposition of the poll tax; State v. Ross, 23 N. J. L. 517.