52 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND.

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, 115 Md. 396;
Prince George's County v. Laurel, 70 Md. 445; Carroll County v. Westminster,
123 Md. 202 (involving act 1890, ch. 508).

The act of 1904, ch. 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, ch. 514, exempting all property in the state, except certain prop-
erty 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. & J. 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 stand-
ard by which the extent of liability is measured. When the same property repre-
sents distinct values belonging to different persons, natural or artificial, both per-
sons 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 art. 81, sec.
166, of the An. 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 as to
avoid that result. Intent of this article. How the deposits in a savings bank, bear-
ing interest, should be taxed—see notes to art. 81, secs. 95 and 96, of the An. 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 mort-
gagees, although the property mortgaged is taxed to the mortgagors. Appeal Tax
Court v. Rice, 50 Md. 319. And see Baltimore v. Canton Co., 63 Md. 237; Alien
v. Harford County, 74 Md. 285.

Situs of property.

The act of 1902, ch. 486, fixing the situs for taxation of personal property held in
trust at the residence of the cestui que trust, held not to conflict with this article
so far as stocks and bonds are concerned. When the property held in trust, is
stock in corporations of this state, the act of 1902, being in pari materia with the
existing laws requiring the corporation to pay the taxes on its stock, the two laws
should be construed together and the residence of the cestui que trust treated as the
situs for taxation. Baltimore v. Safe Deposit, etc., Co., 97 Md. 662.

A trustee holding the legal title, held, to be the proper person to be assessed with
taxes under this article. The portion of this article providing that each person
ought to contribute his portion of public taxes, etc., means a legal obligation. (See,
however, art. 81, sec. 226, An. Code. ) Latrobe v. Baltimore, 19 Md. 13. Cf. State
Tax Commission v. Baltimore County, 138 Md. 678. And see notes to art. 81, sec.
166, An. Code.

The policy of the law of Maryland to give to Baltimore city and to each of the
counties the full benefit of all taxable property having actual or constructive situs
within their respective limits, is founded on this article. See notes to art. 3, sec. 51,
of the Constitution. Baltimore v. Allegany County, 99 Md. 8.

License Tax.

A license tax is not a direct tax on property within meaning of first clause of this
article, but is a tax on the business or occupation of the licensee under its last clause.
There can be no question of the right to require the payment of license fees for the
privilege of carrying on a business. Professional chauffeurs. Persons taking oysters.
Ruggles v. State, 120 Md. 562; State v. Applegarth, 81 Md. 297. And see Rohr v.
Gray, 80 Md. 275.

An ordinance of the city of Cumberland, held to be a legitimate exercise of the
power to require licenses for wheeled vehicles. Mason v. Cumberland, 92 Md. 461.
And see Vansant v. Harlem Co., 59 Md. 333.