10 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND.

tution. Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 466 (cf., dissenting opinion). Cf., Curtis
v. Mactier, 115 Md. 395.

The act of 1892, chapter 285, providing that every piece of land and
the improvements within the town of Hyattsville should be assessed, etc...
held to violate this article by reason of its exemption of personal property
from taxation; said act cannot be upheld as imposing a tax "with, a polit-
ical view"; the last clause of this article is not a qualification of the ante-
cedent clause, but an enlargement of the power to tax; the two clauses are-
not alternative but cumulative. Taxes for municipal purposes are im-
posed for the support of the government, and are subject to this article.
The power to exempt from taxation is not derived from the last clause of"
this article. History and theory of this article. Wells v. Hyattsville, 77
Md. 137.

The act of 1888, chapter 244, section 2, providing that the county com-
missioners of Prince George's county should authorize the county treasurer
to pay the commissioners of Laurel the taxes levied upon the real property
within said city, same to be used in repairing the streets, etc., of said town,
and for smell other purposes as said commissioners of Laurel determined,
held to be in violation of this article, since it practically exempted the'
owners of real estate in Laurel pro tanto from the expenses of the county-
government. Prince George's County v. Laurel, 70 Md. 443. And see
Curtis v. Mactier, 115 Md. 396.

Section 19 of the act of 1870, chapter 260, incorporating the town of
Laurel, provided that certain labor or money levied or taxed upon the
owners of property or residents within said town should be turned over-
to the commissioners of Laurel and be spent by them for the improvement
of roads, etc.; this article held not to have been violated since no inequality
of taxation is provided for. Prince George's County v. Commissioners of
Laurel, 51 Md. 460. And see Curtis v. Mactier, 1.15 Md. 396; Prince
George's county v. Laurel, 70 Md. 445.

The act of 1904, chapter 263, exempting a wharf owned by a church from
municipal taxation, held to violate this article. Under what conditions
exemptions may be made. Object and theory of this article. Baltimore v.
Starr Church, 106 Md. 281.

The act of 1874, chapter 514, exempting all property in the state, except
certain property particularly mentioned, from taxation for state or local
purposes, held to violate this article. Maxwell v. State. 40 Md. 294.

For a case involving the power of the state to exempt property from,
taxation, and when it has been exercised, see Tax Cases, 12 G. & ,T. 117.

Double taxation.

A double tax is not invalid unless it destroys equality; taxes are levied
upon the individual and not upon the property, though the value of the
property is the standard by which the extent of liability is measured. When,
the same property represents distinct values belonging to different persons,
natural or artificial, both persons may be taxed according to the values:
which the property represents in the hands of each respectively. The tax
upon corporate stock is not a tax upon the stock or corporation, but upon
the owners of the stock—see notes to article 81, section 162, of the Anno-
tated Code. U. S. Electric Power, etc., Co. v. State, 79 Md. 71. Cf. Fred-
erick County v. Farmers, etc., Bank, 48 Md. 119.

This article is a bar to double taxation; tax laws should be so construed
aw to avoid that result. Intent of this article. How the deposits in a
savings bank, bearing interest, should be taxed—see notes to article 81
sections 90 and 91, of the Annotated Code. State v. Sterling, 20 Md. 516.
And see Westminster, v. Westminster Savings Bank. 63 Md. 64.

Both the property of a bank and its shares of stock-may not be taxed;:
this would be double taxation. Frederick County v. Farmers, etc., Bank,.
48 Md. 119. Cf. U. S. Electric, etc., Co. v. State, 79 Md. 71.

This article does not prohibit the legislature from taxing mortgages to-
the mortgagees, although the property mortgaged is taxed to the mort-
gagors. Appeal Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md. 319. And see Baltimore v. Can-
ton Co., 63 Md. 237; Alien v. Harford County. 74 Md. 295.