sonal property for which he would be as much liable to taxation as though neither were, or had been, connected with the land of the lessor. But the duty to pay the taxes may be the subject of special covenant between the lessor and lessee, and such covenants will be enforced by the courts. Where the lessee covenants to pay the taxes on "all improvements," the increased taxes on the land, by reason of the annexations, are held within the covenant.1 A covenant that the lessor should pay "all taxes," will subject him only to the payment of assessments upon the surface and the ore in place; 2 but where his covenant binds him to pay upon the surface and the ore in place he will not be relieved therefrom, although the language of the lease transferred the absolute title to the lessee of the ore in place.3

§ 412. Mines on public land exempt in some States. The legislatures of the different States have the right, not only to determine upon what occupations and what property a tax may be imposed, but they also have the right, in the exercise of their discretion, either with or without laudable reasons, to exempt from the levy any occupation or any kind of property. There are provisions in the constititions of some of the mining States exempting mines from taxation that are located upon the public domain,5

effect of vesting title to mineral in lessee, it is error to assess same to owner of surface. Jones v. Wood, 2 Ohio Dec. 75.

1 Heckhear v. Sheafer, 17 W. N. C. 323.

2 Miles v. D. & H. Canal Co., 140 Pa. St. 623.

3 Woodward v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 121 Pa. St. 344.

4 Constitution and Statutes different States; State v. Gracey, 11 Nev. 235; 4 Id. 198-332; State v. Eureka Con. M. Co., 8 Nev. 14, under act Feb. 28, 1871, exempting mines, etc.; Wade Min. Laws, p. 247.

5 State v. Nor. Belle Co., 14 M. M. R. 211, where exemption of Nevada constitution is construed.

and as the object of the exemption is for the benefit of the general government, rather than the interest of the individual citizen, such provisions are not held in violation of the acts by which the different States were admitted into the Union. All exemptions from taxation, however, are construed strictly by the courts, for the reason that they are contrary to the ordinary rules of taxation; 2 but where mining property has been exempt from taxation the exemption cannot be avoided by a levy upon the same property under any other statute; 3 and where mining property and claims on public land are exempt by State constitution for a certain length of time, on the expiration of that period new legislation would be necessary in order to again subject that property to taxation. And a provision that at the expiration of such period the property "may" again be taxed does not necessarily mean that it shall be subject to taxation, and would not dispense with the necessity for legislation authorizing such a tax.5

§ 413. Same-Limits of exemption. The exemption in the constitutions of the Western States of mining claims upon the public land, does not extend to the proceeds from such mines, but when ore is dug and detached from the land upon a public land claim it becomes personal property and, as such, is subject to State taxation the same as other species of personalty. Nor do such exemptions extend to improvements made by the owner of a claim upon the land,

1 People v. Black Diamond C. M. Co., 37 Cal. 54.

2 Commonwealth's App. 127 Pa. St. 435.

3 Wade Amer. Min. Laws, § 157 and cases cited.

4 Re House Resolution, 21 Pac. Rep. 471.

5 P. & H., 12 Colo. 369.

6 Forbes v. Gracey, 14 M. M. R. 183. Silver bullion liable to taxation. Hope Min. Co. v. Kennon, 14 M. M. R. 189; State v. Northern Belle Co. (Nev.), 14 M. M. R. 211.

but all wells, furnaces and plants are as much subject to the burden of taxation as though erected on land not exempt.1 Nor is it held to be in violation of the organic provision exempting public mining land, for the State legislature to tax the possessory right of the claimant, for this is often a valuable right of property and is essentially the right of an individual as distinguished from the public or the general government; 2 so, though only a possessory title, such mining claims are held to be property and, as such, subject to taxation.3

§ 414. Exemption does not extend to mines on private lands. The evident reason for the exemption from State and Federal taxation of mines upon the public domain is the same as that which exempts the public land from taxation, for until severed from the land the mineral is a portion of it and for the government to tax its own lands would be indeed an inconsistency. This rule, however, which obtains in the case of mines upon the public land has no application to mines located on the land of individuals, for there is no reason why mining property should not be subject to taxation the same as any other property. Indeed, a law exempting such property from taxation would be violative of the organic law of the general government and the constitutions of the different States."

1 Gold Hill Co. v. Caledonia Co., 14 Mor. Min. Rep. 202; Hope Min. Co. v. Kennon, 14 Id. 189.

2 Hale Co. v. Storey County, 14 M. M. R. 115.

3 Forbes v. Gracey, 14 Idem, 183; People v. Black Diamond Co., 14 M. M. R. 162; State v. Moore, 14 Idem, 110; Hale Company v. Storey County, supra.

4 Con. U. S. and of several States. Forbes v. Gracy, 14 Mor. Min. Rep. 183. Mining land owned by a private person is not exempt under Idaho statute, Sec. 1401. Salisbury v. Lane, 63 Pac. Rep. 383.

§ 415. Taxation of mining corporations. The property of mining corporations, both real and personal, is subject to taxation by the State, the same as property belonging to the individual citizen. In many of the States the cost of the property is taken as the basis of the estimate of taxation, but in a greater number of the States the tax is assessed according to the present value of the corporate property.1 The rules and methods for the taxation of corporations vary in detail in the different States, but, as a general rule, a tax may be levied upon the shares of the different stockholders of a corporation irrespective of any tax assessed against the corporation itself. A franchise tax is generally based upon the amount of capital stock of the corporation, and is in the nature of a license fee charged by the State for the privilege of doing business as a corporation within the State. But where the method of taxation is a tax upon the capital stock, a tax cannot be assessed upon property exempt from taxation, or property otherwise taxed, although it may form a part of the capital stock, for the courts would not enforce a double taxation of any species of property, and where, under the law, the property is not liable for the taxes assessed against it, if the levy would interfere with the business of the corporation, a court of equity would interfere by injunction to restrain the enforcement of the tax.6

1 Beach on Cor., § 800 and note; State v. Randolph Township, 14 M. M. R. 103.

2 Beach, § 798.

3 Beach, § 798. Even though corporation is a foreign mining company. Atty.-Gen. v. Bay State Co. 14 Mor. Min. Rep. 158.

4 Kittany C. Co. v. Com, 79 Pa. 100; Oliver v. Cornwall Co., 12 Allan (Mass.), 298; People v. Aud. -Gen. 9 Mich. 144.

5 Commonwealth v. Pottsville Iron & Steel Co., 27 Atl. Rep. 371. But see, contra, Hope Mining Company v. Kennon, 14 M. M. R. 189.

6 Beach on Cor., § 830 et sub. A tonnage tax on ore has been held

§ 416. Same Taxation of corporate business. Under the right of the State to tax corporations according to the amount of business transacted,' many of the States have levied a tax upon the net earnings or dividends of mining and smelting corporations, which is generally assessed on the tonnage of the mineral which they are producing. It is not considered an interference with interstate commerce for a State to levy a tax against a foreign corporation, when the tax is limited to receipts for business done entirely within the State; nor is it contrary to the rule of uniformity required by the constitutions of the different States, and while a corporation may claim property exempt

3

void. Jackson Co. v. Auditor-Gen., 14 M. M. R. 182. As to basis of assessment, see Eureka Dist. Gold Min. Co. v. Feary County, 68 Pac. Rep. 727. "A corporation organized under the general law providing for manufacturing companies for the purpose of manufacturing iron and steel, and which is a manufacturing company and nothing else, is a corporation organized 'exclusively' for manufacturing purposes, and its capital stock is exempt from taxation, though it has the ancillary power, which it has never exercised, to own mineral lands, and mine ore therefrom." Commonwealth v. Pottsville Iron & Steel Co. (Penn.), 27 Atl. Rep. 371. "But a corporation whose business is to manufacture coke, but which has and continually exercises the power to mine its own coal to supply itself in part with the raw material for manufacturing coke, is not a corporation organized exclusively' for manufacturing purposes, within the meaning of act 1889, exempting such corporations from taxation on their capital stock." Commonwealth v. Juniata Coke Co. (Penn.), 27 Atl. Rep. 373. "A mining corporation may be lawfully required to pay a tax upon the market value of its stock in excess of the total value of its real and personal property. Oliver v. Cornwall Cop. Co., 12 Allen (Mass.), 298. "A mining corporation may be compelled to pay a tax on its stock although part of such stock be owned by citizens of other States." Idem; M. M. D. 368.

1 Beach on Cor., § 807.

2 Mich. Gen. Sta., §§ 1189, 1226, 1229; 5 Political Science Quarterly, 269, 307; Com. v. Penn. Co., 14 M. M. R. 163.

3 Com. v. Ocean Oil Co., 59 Pa. 61; 62 Id. 241; 14 M. M. R. 126. Tax on corporate net income here defined. But see, contra, Jackson Min. Co. v. Auditor-General, 32 Mich. 488; 14 M. M. R. 182.

4 Weber v. Reinhard, 14 M. M. R. 175.

"The return made by a cor