WILLIAMS' CASE.—3 BLAND. 269

c. 1; Gilbert's Cowrt of Exchequer, ch. 14; Brewster v. Kitchin, 1 Ld.
Raym. 318; S. C. 2 Salk. 615; Whitfield v. Brandtcood, 3 Com. Lair
Rep. 421. But whatever may be within the uncontrolled power of
Parliament in this respect, it is laid down, that where any such
equal contribution has been required, the king cannot, by any ex-
ercise ol his limited sovereignty, grant an exemption to any one;
because it would increase the charge upon all the lands of those who
were not exempted; for the king has not the power to lessen a tax im-
posed upon one man and charge it upon another. Sloan v. Pawlett,
8 Mod. 18. The non obstante power of the crown in this, and in all
other respects, having been totally abolished. 1 W. & M. sens. 2,
c. 2.

Here, however, it has been at different times declared, not
merely that all public property belonging to the United States, to
this State, to a county, to colleges and county schools, houses
of worship, and burying grounds, should be exempted from taxa-
tion; but that the property of foreigners coming here to settle
should, for a time, be exempted; that the crop and produce of the
land, in the hands of the person whose land produced the same;
plantation utensils; the working tools of mechanics and manufac-
turers actually and constantly employed in their respective occupa-
tions; goods, wares and merchandise imported; all home manu-
factures in the hands of the manufacturers; all stills; ready money,
grain, tobacco, riding carriages, and all licensed vessels whatever,
should be exempted from taxation. July, 1779, ch. 6, &. 6 and 8;
1780, ch. 25, s. 2; 1792, ch. 71, s. 1; 1797, ch 89, s. 1; 1803. ch. 92, s.
1; 1812, ch. 191, s. 1. And a similar exemption from taxation has
been extended to, and attempted to be made perpetual in favor of
lands held by an ecclesiastical body politic; 1821, ch. 91; and of the
property of some incorporated joint stock companies. 1799, ch. 16,
s. 11; May, 1788, ch. 7; 1824, 'ch. 79, s. 9; 1826, ch. 249; 1828, ch.
113 and 177; Gibbon's Decl. and Fall Bom. Emp. ch. 20.

Are not exemptions from taxation, like these, of private pro-
perty violations of the constitutional rule directing that each per-
son shall be made to contribute his proportion of public taxes
* according to his actual worth in property? Or can the
granting of any such exemption be within the delegated and 259
limited authority of the General Assembly of Maryland, any more
than within the scope of the limited prerogative of a king of Eng-
land?

In the Roman empire, under the reign of Augustus, a tax of five
per cent, was imposed upon all legacies and inheritances of a
certain value, which were not given to the nearest of kin on the
father's side; so that, when the rights of nature and poverty were
thus secured, it seemed reasonable that a stranger, or a distant re-
lation, who acquired an unexpected accession of fortune, should
cheerfully resign a twentieth part of it for the benefit of the