1874 [Stats. p. 376], to assess migratory stock and for distribution of taxes derived therefrom was unconstitutional. People v. Townsend, 56 Cal. 633.

Property of a municipality is not taxable for municipal purposes. Low v. Lewis, 46 Cal. 550. People v. Doe, G., 36 Cal. 220.

A solvent debt secured by mortgage is property and cannot be exempted from taxation. [Approving People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 433; People v. Gerke, 35 Id. 677; People v. Black Diamond C. M. Co., 37 Id. 54; People v. Whartenby, 38 Id. 461.] The first section of the acts of April 1 and April 4, 1870 [Stats. pp. 584, 710]. exempting such debts, is contrary to the general law respecting the assessment of solvent debts in attempting to exempt a single class of such debts, and violates the constitution which requires taxation to be uniform. People v. Eddy, 43 Cal. 331. It was held in Koch v. Briggs, 14 Cal. 257, that to tax such debts was double taxation.

In order to cover this subject thoroughly see Emery v. S. F. Gas Co., 28 Cal. 346 and cases there cited, and People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46. The latter case and also High . Shoemacher, are practically overruled People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 458, so far as they hold that any property may be exempted from taxation.

in

The act of March 19, 1878 [Stats. p. 338], to legalize certain assessments in San Francisco was not unconstitutional. It did not purport to be a general law, and was not

therefore required to have a uniform operation. It simply attempts to deal with the collection of taxes levied and delinquent within a particular municipality. [People v. C. P. R. R. Co., 43 Cal. 433.] S. F. v. S. V. W. W. Co., 54 Cal. 571. Capital stock of a corporation, if possessing any value, is taxable property. Id.

Under the acts of April 4, 1870 [Stats. p. 693] and February 12, 1872 [Stats. p. 83], for the purpose of constructing a bridge over San Antonio creek, and a road leading thereto, creating a district upon which taxes should be assessed for said purposes, and authorizing the county assessor to assess said taxes, Held, the assessment was unconstitutional, the assessor not being one elected by the people of the district or districts in which the taxes were assessed. The assessment was a tax. [People v. Whyler, 41 Cal. 351.] Smith v. Farrelly, 52 Cal. 77.

The value of property is not required to be ascertained before being assessed, nor after the passage of the act fixing the rate. The legislature may levy the tax either before or after the ascertainment of value. People v. Latham, 52 Cal. 598.

The constitution is not a grant but a limitation of power, and when any one challenges. a legislative enactment as unconstitutional, it is incumbent upon them to designate the particular provision claimed to be violated. The legislature has power to compel local improvements, such as abating nuisances, drain

age, irrigation, levees, etc., and provide for assessments to pay for the same; designate the mode of assessment and the officers to make the assessment. And those clauses of the constitution which provide that taxation shall be equal and uniform, the mode of assessment, by whom assessments shall be made, and that all property shall be taxed, have no application to assessments for local improvements. Hagar v. Sup. Yolo Co., 47 Cal. 223.

The legislature cannot authorize the board. of supervisors to remit a tax or part of a tax within a specified district, even if the tax is for a local purpose and is to be expended within the district. All property must be taxed, and taxation must be equal and uniform. Wilson . Supervisors of Sutter Co., 47 Cal. 91.

The property of the United States, of this state, and of municipal corporations is exempt from taxation for revenue purposes. Doyle v. Austin, 47 Cal. 354, citing People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 34; Brady v. King, 53 Id. 44, and Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Id. 252. Held, the act of March 6, 1876 [Stats. p. 140], providing that the trustees of Swamp Land Reclamation District No. 118 should make up a sworn statement of the cost of the reclamation work, based upon the books and vouchers thereof, and that the amount so reported should be assessed upon the lands, was at best an attempt by the legislature to levy an assessment for a local improvement without reference to

the character or nature of the charges in the books, and irrespective of whether the law had been complied with, and that the constitution admitted of no such legislation. People v. Houston, 54 Cal 536.

That the legislature cannot levy tax or assessment in municipalities see the later case of Schumacker v. Toberman, 56 Cal. 511.

A superintendent of irrigation who collects water rates in, and whose duties only relate to, such particular localities as may become organized as irrigation districts, although referred to as a county officer, is not such, and an act of the legislature directing him to be compensated from the county treasury is unconstitutional. Knox v. Los Angeles County, 58 Cal. 59.

Section 3696 of the Political Code, as it then stood, was declared unconstitutional in so far as it authorized the state board, in determining the rate of state tax, to make allowance for delinquency in the collection of taxes in Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646, but the constitutionality of the entire section was not decided. The logical result of that decision is that the entire section is unconstitutional, since the power to fix the rate is to be exercised only upon the condition of making the allowance for deficiency, and the condition having failed on constitutional grounds, the power to determine the rate fell with it. Wills v. Austin, 53 Cal. 152; Harper v. Rowe, Id. 233.

That the act creating a state board of

equalization is not unconstitutional see Sav. ings and Loan Society v. Austin, 46 Cal. 416.

In construing the act of March 4, 1864 [Stats. p. 140], in relation to improvement and protection of wharves, docks and water front of San Francisco it is held that it was not the intention of the legislature to exempt from to any part of the commerce passing over the same, and that leases of docks and wharves to private corporations or companies by which the latter were given certain privileges and control did not exempt from toll the merchandise transported by them. The toll required to be collected for the purpose of keeping in repair and building docks and wharves is a tax, and the legislature had no power to exempt therefrom commerce handled by its lessees it must tax all or none. [Approving French v. Teschemacher, 24 Cal. 544.] People v. S. F. & A. R. R. Co., 35 Cal. 606.

The only restriction upon the legislature in the matter of taxation is that it must be equal and uniform. The legislature can impose a general tax upon all the property in the state, or a local tax upon property of particular subdivisions, as counties, cities or towns. And, except as specially restricted, its power of appropriation of the money raised is coextensive with its power of taxation. [Sustaining People v. Amador County, 26 Cal. 641; Napa Valley R. R. Co. v. Napa County, 30 Cal. 435.] Beale v. Amador County, 35 Cal. 624;