CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND.

tax go into a fund not raised to pay for improvements specifically benefit-
ing the property assessed. Where the legislature fixes the amount of the
tax, no notice is necessary, and in the absence of clear evidence that the
tax is arbitrary or oppressive, the legislative action is conclusive upon the
courts. Leser v. Wagner, 120 Md. 673.

Article 81, section 218, et seq., of the Annotated Code, do not violate
this article, although under this article taxes are levied in personam, and
not in rem; the tax upon distilled spirits is not on the property but upon
the owner—see article 81, section 218, et seq., and notes thereto. Hannis
Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 114 Md. 678. And see Hannis Distilling Co. v.
Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285; Carstairs v. Cochran, 95 Md. 500 (affirmed in 193
U. S. 10) ; Monticello Co. v. Baltimore, 90 Md. 425.

The act of 1910, chapter 413—see article 72, section 70, of the Anno-
tated Code—imposing a tax of one cent a bushel upon oysters unloaded
from vessels at the place where the oysters are to be no further shipped
in vessels, held not to violate this article; an inspection charge laid in the
honest exercise of the police power is within the terms of this article.
Foote v. Stanley, 117 Md. 338. (Reversed by the supreme court of the
United States on the ground that the act of 1910 violated the federal con-
stitution—see Daily Record, March 7, 1914.)

An act taxing coal mining companies in Maryland, held to be in con-
flict with this article, since the tax provided for was a direct and specific
tax on coal. Although the state may tax either the capital stock or the
real and personal property of a corporation, it cannot tax both, and there
must be no discrimination as between different species of property. State
v. C. & P. R. R. Co., 40 Md. 49 (cf., dissenting opinions, page 62, et seq.).
And see Maxwell v. State, 40 Md. 294. Cf., State v. Applegartb, 81 Md.
302; Rohr v. Gray, SO Md. 277.

A tax imposed on collateral inheritances—see article 81. section 120. et
seq., of the Annotated Code—held not to violate this article. History of
this article. Tyson v. State, 28 Md. 586.

The state may tax the amusements of the people either for revenue or
as a police regulation, and the courts have nothing to do' with the judi-
cious exercise of this power. Germania v. State, 7 Md. 8.

A tax to be used for deporting negroes, held not to violate this article.
In the absence of evidence that persons taxable were not to contribute
according to their actual worth, etc., the presumption is that the tax is
constitutional. The foregoing tax held not to have been laid for the
support of the government, but with a political view for the good govern-
ment and benefit of the community. Waters v. State, 1 Gili, 308.

Corporate taxation.

All taxes levied upon property should be equal and uniform according
to its actual value; one person should not be taxed at one rate and another
person at another rate; beyond this it was not the purpose of the constitu-
tion to limit taxation. A tax upon the gross receipts of railroad compa-
nies, in lieu of all other taxes, is valid; it is not a direct tax upon prop-
erty, but upon the franchises of railroad companies, measured by the
extent of their business. There is a wide distinction between a tax upon
the franchises of a corporation and a tax on its property. Nature of
"franchises"; they are not property as that term is used in this article.
State v. P., W. & B. R. Co., 45 Md. 376 (cf., dissenting opinion). And see
State v. Applegarth, 81 Md. 302; Rohr v. Gray, 80 Md. 277.

The gross receipts earned in this state and derived from properties
and investments held and owned by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company under franchises granted subsequent to its charter and upon
which no exemption from taxation was engrafted, held taxable. Where
franchises of a corporation are exempt from taxation, the gross receipts
derived from the exercise of such franchises are also exempt. State v.
B. & O. R. R. Co., 48 Md. 80 (cf., concurring and dissenting opinions). And
see State v. Northern Central Ry., 40 Md. 169.

The act of 1872, chapter 234, taxing the gross receipts of certain cor-
porations, held to be valid, since there was no'thing to show that such
lax was unequal or unjust or that it subjected the property of the appellee