DECLARATION OF BIGHTS. 9

to taxation not equally borne by other property in the state. State v.
Northern Central Ry., 44 Md. 169 (cf., dissenting opinion). And see State
v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 48 Md. 80.

Under this article, it is the duty of the state tax commissioner in fixing
the taxable value of shares of stock to pursue a method which results in
the ascertainment of the actual value of such shares; how such value is
to be determined—see notes to article 81, sections 162 and 165, of the
Annotated Code. Schley v. Montgomery County, 106 Md. 410.

Article 81, section 162, et seq., of the Annotated Code, taxing shares of
stock in a Maryland corporation held and owned by a non-resident of
this state, held not to violate this article—see notes to article 81, sections
162 and 165. Corry v. Baltimore, 96 Md. 320 (affirmed in 196 U. S. 466).

The state of Maryland may tax stocks, bonds, etc., issued by other
states or by municipalities, owned by citizens or residents of Maryland,
and which are exempt from taxation by the states or municipalities issu-
ing them. Comity cannot sustain claims which are contrary to our con-
stitution. Appeal Tax Court v. Patterson, 50 Md. 372.

If the supreme court of the United States, in speaking of a banking
franchise when bought, means when it says that "the price is paid for the
use of the privilege whilst it lasts, and any tax upon it would substantially
be an addition to the price," a special legislative charge upon the franchise,
the principle is correct; if, however, it meant a special .tax, technically
speaking, for the support of the state of Maryland, it would be void
under this article. Under this article, it. cannot be presumed that a
franchise, if the subject of taxation, may by its excessive exercise be
destroyed or rendered valueless. Baltimore v. B. & O. K. R. Co., 6 Gill, 291.

Equality of taxation. Exemptions.

This article prohibits the discrimination between the liability of Balti-
more city stock and like securities to taxation when held by a private
person and when held by a corporation; the equality of taxation cannot
be destroyed—see notes to article 81, sections 162 and 163, of the Anno-
tated Code. Schley v. Lee, 106 Md. 402.

Article 81, section 94, of the Annotated Code, providing that corporate
bonds bearing interest secured by mortgage upon property in this state are
taxable in the hands of resident holders, while similar mortgages and
mortgage debts made by individuals, building association mortgages and
nou-interest-bearing corporate bonds were exempt from taxation, held not
to violate this article. See notes to article 81. section 94, and see article
81, section 187, et seq., and article 23, section 138, of the Annotated Code.
Simpson v. Hopkins, 82 Md. 488.

The legislature may create separate taxing districts, provided the rate
is equal and uniform as to all property within the district. The act of
1906, chapter 794, providing for the taxation of mortgages in certain
counties, held not to violate this article. Miller v. Wicomico County, 107
Md. 441.

The act of 1910, chapter 382, denying the authorities of Chevy Chase
the power to tax property in a certain district and giving the power to
the county commissioners to tax up to a fixed rate, provided they were
requested to do so by fifteen or more of the resident tax payers of the
district, is void under this article; a taxing district implies a district which
cannot escape the payment of some legally imposed tax. Curtis v. Mactier,
115 Md. 395.

Section 19 of the act of 1888, chapter 98 (annexing certain portions of
Baltimore county to Baltimore city), which provided that until the year
1900 the rate of taxation for city purposes within the annexed districts
should not exceed the existing rate in Baltimore county, held not to
violate this article. The principle of equality in taxation is gratified by
making local taxation equal and uniform as to all property in the taxing
district. The legislature may exempt from taxation such property as in
its judgment a sound policy requires. The legislature may either levy
taxes itself for local purposes or it may delegate this power to local
authorities, but it cannot delegate a power prohibited to it by the consti-