The power of the legislature to make permanent exemptions, i. e., to relinquish the right to impose taxes on corporations or individuals so as to bind future legislatures, has been questioned. The subject is discussed in another division of this article.1 This power to make exemptions is not, however, inherent in such inferior political organizations as counties, municipalities, etc.2 2. Strictly Construeda. IN GENERAL. — Statutes or charters exempting property, persons, or corporations from the common burdens of taxation, are to be strictly construed.3 The intention of the legislature to grant the immunity claimed must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt. It cannot be inferred from uncertain nard, 34 La. Ann. 851; Louisiana Cotton Mfg. Co. v. New Orleans, 31 La. Ann. 440; Leicht v. Burlington, 73 Iowa 29; Mobile v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 53 Ala. 570; State v. Winnebago Lake, etc., R. Co., 11 Wis. 34; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Barnes (N. Dak. 1892), 51 N. W. Rep. 386, 786; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Brewer (N. Dak. 1892), 31 N. W. Rep. 787; Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U. S. 278; Wells v. Central Vermont R. Co., 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 426; Danville v. Shelton, 76 Va. 325; Ferns v. Vannier, 6 Dakota 186; State v. Hennepin County, 33 Minn. 235; Columbia, etc., R. Co. v. Chilberg (Wash. 1893), 34 Pac. Rep. 163. 1. See supra, this title, Power to Tax. 2. See infra, this title, Municipal Taxation. 3. State v. Crittenden County, 19 Ark. 360; McGehee v. Mathis, 21 Ark. 58; Hart v. Plum, 14 Cal. 148; Macon v. Central R., etc., Co., 50 Ga. 620; Wettig v. Bowman, 47 Ill. 17; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Irvin, 72 Ill. 452; Orr v. Baker, 4 Ind. 86; Indianapolis v. McLean, 8 Ind. 328; M. E. Church v. Ellis, 38 Ind. 3; South Bend v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac, 69 Ind. 344; Griswold College v. State, 46 Iowa 275; Sioux City v. Independent School Dist., 55 Iowa 150; Fort Des Moines Lodge v. Polk County, 56 Iowa 34; Washburn College v. Shawnee County, 8 Kan. 344; Miami County v. Brackenridge, 12 Kan. 114; Covington Gas Light Co. v. Covington, S4 Ky. 94; New Orleans v. Guth, 11 La. Ann. 405; Bishop v. Marks, 15 La. Ann. 147; Baton Rouge, etc., R. Co. v. Kirkland, 33 La. Ann. 622; Dennis v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 954; Ricks v. Board of Assessors, 43 La. Ann. 1075; Gast v. Board of Assessors, 43 La. Ann. 1104; Plaisted v. Lincoln, 62 Me. 91; Bangor v. Masonic Lodge, 73 Me. 428; 40 Am. Rep. 369; Buchanan v. Talbot County, 47 phrases or ambiguous terms. The power of taxation being an essential attribute of sovereignty, every presumption is against its surrender by the state, and to the state must be given the benefit of every doubt arising as to the legislative intention. Such a Silver Min. Co., 5 Sawy. (U. S.) 575; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gaines, 3 Fed. Rep. 266. Thus, an exemption of mining claims does not cover the flumes of machinery necessary to work them. Hart v. Plum, 14 Čal. 148. See also Gold Hill v. Caledonia Silver Min. Co., 5 Sawy. (U. S.) 575. So, a provision in the charter of a corporation, exempting from taxation its "assets which now are liable" to taxation, cannot be construed to cover assets afterwards acquired by the corporation. Union Canal Co. v. Dauphin County, 3 Brew. (Pa.) 124. A constitutional provision which declares that "the press shall be free," does not exempt capital invested in a newspaper from taxation. New Orleans v. Crescent Newspaper, 14 La. Ann. 816. The exemption of "an endowment or fund of any religious society," etc., will not embrace lands. State v. Krollman, 38 N. J. L. 323, 574; State v. Lyon, 32 N. J. L. 360. Collateral Inheritance Tax.-A general exemption of property from taxation will not exempt from a collateral inheritance tax. Miller v. Com., 27 Gratt. (Va.) 110. See also Barringer v. Cowan, 2 Jones Eq. (N. Car.) 436; Catlin v. Trinity College, 113 N. Y. 133; Wallace v. Myers, 38 Fed. Rep. 185; Strode v. Com., 52 Pa. St. 181. The tax is not upon the property, but upon the privilege of acquiring it by will or under the Intestate Acts. Foreign Corporations and Institutions. ---In general, an exemption of corporations, charitable institutions, etc., will not apply to foreign corporations, etc. In re Prime's Estate, 64 Hun (N. Y.) 50; People v. Western Seaman's Friend Soc., 87 Ill. 246. 1. North Missouri R. Co. V. Maguire, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 46; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 527; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 561; Bailey v. Magwire, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 226; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 132 U. S. 174; Hoge v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 99 U. S. 348; Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 666; Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. Dennis, 116 U. S. 665; Mem phis Gas Light Co. v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 109 U. S. 398; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 569; Erie R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 492; Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelley, i Black (U. S.) 436; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Maryland, 10 How. (U. S.) 376; Washington University v. Rouse, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 439; New Orleans City, etc., R. Co. v. New Orleans, 143 U. S. 192; State v. Brewer, 64 Ala. 287; McIver v. Robinson, 53 Ala. 456; Biscoe v. Coulter, 18 Ark. 423; Waller v. Hughes (Arizona, 1880), 11 Pac. Rep. 122; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Lesueur (Arizona, 1888), 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 368; Hart v. Plum, 14 Cal. 148; People v. Whyler, 41 Cal. 351; County Com'rs v. Colorado Seminary, 12 Colo. 497; Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Watertown (S. Dak. 1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 1072; State v. Bank of Smyrna, 2 Houst. (Del.) 99; 73 Am. Dec. 699; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 637; Wright v. Southwestern R. Co., 64 Ga. 783; Macon v. Central R., etc., Co., 50 Ga. 620; Orr v. Baker, 4 Ind. 86; Indianapolis v. McLean, 8 Ind. 328; Madison v. Fitch, 18 Ind. 33; M. E. Church v. Ellis, 38 Ind. 3; In re Swigert, 123 Ill. 267; People v. Chicago, 124 Ill. 636; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Decatur, 126 Ill. 92; 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 395; Griswold College v. State, 46 Iowa 275; Sioux City v. Independent School Dist., 55 Iowa 152; Washburn College v. Shawnee County, 8 Kan. 344; Vail v. Beach, 10 Kan. 214; St. Mary's College v. Crowl, 10 Kan. 442; Miami County v. Brackenridge, 12 Kan. 114; Louisville, etc., Canal Co. v. Com., 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 160; Covington Gas Light Co. v. Covington, 84 Ky. 94; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Bourbon County, 82 Ky. 497; Gast v. Board of Assessors, 43 La. Ann. 1104; Dennis v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 954; New Orleans v. People's Ins. Co., 27 La. Ann. 519; Portland, etc., R. Co. v. Saco, 60 Me. 196; Stetson v. Bangor, 56 Me. 274; Gordon v. Baltimore, 5 Gill (Md.) 231; Howell v. State, 3 Gill (Md.) 14; Baltimore v. State, 15 Md. 376; 74 Am Dec. 572; Buchanan v. Talbot County, 47 Md. 286; Portland Bank v. Apthorp, 12 Mass. 252; Harvard College v. Boston, 104 Mass. 470; statute is not to be given a retroactive effect.1 The burden of proof is upon the party claiming the exemption, to show that his case falls clearly within the exception to the general law. But it has been said that, where the legislature exempts a company from general taxation in return for a certain percentage of its Boston's Soc., etc. v. Boston, 129 Mass. 178; St. Peter's Church v. Scott County, 12 Minn. 395; Hennepin County v. Bell, 43 Minn. 344; Anderson v. State, 23 Miss. 459: Greenville Ice, etc., Co. v. Greenville, 69 Miss. 86; Frantz v. Debson, 64 Miss. 631; 60 Am. Rep. 68; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Shacklett, 30 Mo. 550; Washington University v. Rowse, 42 Mo. 308; St. Louis v. Boatmen's Ins., etc., Co., 47 Mo. 150; Pacific R. Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo. 17: St. Louis v. Marine Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 163; Hope Min. Co. v. Kennon, 3 Mont. 35; Bellinger v. White, 5 Neb. 401; Brewster v. Hough, 10 N. H. 146: Franklin St. Soc. v. Manchester, 60 N. H. 342; Souhegan Nail, etc., Factory v. McConihe, 7 N. H. 309; Phillips Exeter Academy v. Exeter, 58 N. H. 306; 42 Am. Rep. 589; Walker v. Walker, 63 N. H. 321; 56 Am. Rep. 514; State v. Newark, 26 N. J. L. 519; State v. Parker, 32 N. J. L. 426; State v. Woodruff, 37 Ñ. J. L. 139; State v. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. L. 330; People v. Roper, 35 N. Y. 629; People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 95 N. Y. 554; People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 82 N. Y. 459; People v. Long Island City, 76 N. Y. 20; Stewart v. Davis, 3 Murph. (N. Car.) 244; State v. Matthews, 3 Jones (N. Car.) 451; Lima v. Lima Cemetery Assoc., 42 Ohio St. 128; 5 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 547; 51 Am. Rep. 809; Crawford v. Burrell Tp., 53 Pa. St. 219; Platt v. Rice, 10 Watts (Pa.) 352; Bank of Pennsylvania v. Com., 19 Pa. St. 144; Union Pass. R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 83 Pa. St. 429; Jones, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Com., 69 Pa. St. 139; Easton Bank v. Com., 10 Pa. St. 442; Appeal of Com. (Pa. 1889), 18 Atl. Rep. 133; Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 134 Pa. St. 171; Mott v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 9; 72 Am. Dec. 664; Carpenter v. School Trustees, 12 R. I. 574; State v. New berry, 12 Rich. (S. Car.) 339; Martin v. Charleston, 13 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 50; Gilliland v. Citadel Square Baptist Church, 33 S. Car. 164; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. White (Tenn. 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 75; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Marion County, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 663; State v. Whitworth, 8 Lea (Tenn.) 606; State v. Union, etc., Bank (Tenn. 1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 758; State v. Phoenix F. & M. Ins. Co. (Tenn. 1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 1044; State v. Memphis City Bank (Tenn. 1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 1045; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bate, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 573; Morris v. Lone Star Chapter, 68 Tex. 702; Richmond v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 604; Com. v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 81 Va. 355; 24 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 482; Herrick v. Randolph, 13 Vt. 525; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Marshall County, 3 W. Va. 319; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Wheeling, 3 W. Va. 372; Puget Sound Agricultural Co. v. Pierce County, 1 Wash. Ter. 88; Weston v. Shawano County, 44 Wis. 257. 1. First Church v. Linn County, 70 Iowa 396; State v. New Orleans, 40 La. Ann. 697; Louisiana, etc., Ice Co. v. Parker, 42 La. Ann. 669; Welton v. Merrick County, 16 Neb. 83; Baugh v. Ryan, 51 Ala. 212; State v. Ewing, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 172. The act of Congress, exempting from state taxation United States securities, does not apply to such securities held before the passage of the act. People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 26 N. Y. 163. 2. People v. Ryan (Ill. 1891), 27 N. E. Rep. 694; Boston Soc., etc., v. Boston, 129 Mass. 178; Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Hayne, 19 Iowa 143; Appeal Tax Ct. v. Rice, 50 Md. 302; Buchanan v. Talbot County, 47 Md. 286; Greenville Ice, etc., Čo. v. Greenville, 69 Miss. 86; Morris v. Lone Star Chapter, 68 Tex. 702; People v. Graceland Cemetery Co., 86 Ill. 336. See also In re Swigert, 119 Ill. 83; 59 Am. Rep. 789; 24 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 494. One who claims exemption from an income tax on the ground that his income consists of property not liable to taxation, must affirmatively show that his income does so exist. New Orleans v. Fourchy, 30 La. Ann. 910. See also Ivens, etc., Machine Co. v. Parker, 42 La. Ann. 1103. Pleadings. A party alleging exemption of his lands from taxation, must set out in his pleadings the facts that income, or any other fair equivalent, the rule requiring statutes creating exemptions to be strictly construed, does not apply.1 b. LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.-A frequent illustration of the rule that exemption clauses are strictly construed, is where a local assessment is levied against property exempt generally from taxation-an exemption from general taxation not protecting property from special assessments for local improvements, such as for the repair of streets, laying of sewers, etc.2 By some courts this con exempt them. Cairo, etc., R. Co. v. Parks, 32 Ark. 131. 1. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Crawford County, 29 Wis. 116; Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Milwaukee, 34 Wis. 271; State v. Minton, 23 N. J. L. 529; St. Paul v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 23 Minn. 469. See also New York, etc., R. Co. v. Sabin, 26 Pa. St. 242. 2. Davis v. Gaines, 48 Ark. 370; Board of Improvements v. School Dist., 56 Ark. 354; 37 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 392; Emery v. San Francisco Gas Co., 28 Cal. 346; Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 240; People v. Austin, 47 Cal. 353; People v. Whyler, 41 Cal. 351; Williams v. Corcoran, 46 Cal. 553; Seymour v. Hartford, 21 Conn. 481; Bridgeport v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 Conn. 255; 4 Am. Rep. 63; New Haven v. Fair Haven, etc., R. Co., 38 Conn. 422; 9 Am. Rep. 399; Southwestern R. Co. v. Wright, 68 Ga. 311; Atlanta v. First Presbyterian Church, 86 Ga. 730, overruling First M. E. Church v. Atlanta, 76 Ga. 181; Illinois, etc., Canal v. Chicago, 12 Ill. 403; Chicago v. Colby, 20 Ill. 614; Bank of the Republic v. Hamilton County, 21 Ill. 53; McBride . Chicago, 22 Ill. 574; Peoria v. Kidder, 26 Ill. 351; Pleasant v. Kost, 29 Ill. 494; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Decatur, 126 Ill. 92; 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 395; McLean County v. Bloomington, 106 Ill. 209; Chicago v. Baptist Theological Union, 115 Ill. 245; Adams County v. Quincy, 130 Ill. 566; Bloomington Cemetery Assoc. v. People, 139 Ill. 16; Illinois Čent. R. Co. v. Mattoon, 141 Ill. 32; Palmer v. Stumph, 29 Ind. 329; First Presbyterian Church v. Fort Wayne, 36 Ind. 338; 10 Am. Rep. 35; M. E. Church v. Ellis, 38 Ind. 5; Sioux City v. Independent School Dist., 55 Iowa 150; Paine v. Spratley, 5 Kan. 525; Broadway Baptist Church v. McAtee, 8 Bush (Ky.) 508;8 Am. Rep. 480; Zable v. Louisville Baptist Orphans' Home, 92 Ky. 89; Kilgus v. Orphanage of the Good Shepherd (Ky. 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 750; Crowley v. Copley, 2 La. Ann. 329; Lafayette v. Male Orphan Asylum, 4 La. Ann. 1; Rooney v. Brown, 21 La. Ann. 51; Dolan v. Baltimore, 4 Gill (Md.) 394; Alexander v. Baltimore, 5 Gill (Md.) 396; Baltimore v. Green Mount Cemetery, 7 Md. 517; Boston Seaman's Friend Soc. v. Boston, 116 Mass. 181; 17 Am. Rep. 153; Worcester Agricultural Soc. v. Worcester, 116 Mass. 189; Lefevre v. Detroit, 2 Mich. 586; Grand Gulf, 'etc., R. Co. v. Buck, 53 Miss. 246; Lockwood v. St. Louis, 24 Mo. 20; St. Louis Public Schools v. St. Louis, 26 Mo. 468; State v. Dulle, 48 Mo. 282; Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo. 495; 72 Am. Dec. 276; Sheehan v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 50 Mo. 155; 11 Am. Rep. 412; Brewster v. Hough, 10 N. H. 138; State v. Robertson, 24 N. J. L. 504; Paterson v. Society, etc., 24 Ñ. J. L. 385; State v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185; State v. Mills, 34 N. J. L. 177; 10 Am. Rep. 223; State v. Newark, 35 N. J. L. 157; State v. Jersey City, 42 N. J. L. 97; Chegary v. Jenkins, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 409; Bleecker v. Ballou, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 263; In re New York, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 77; People v. Roper, 35 N. Y. 629; Buffalo City Cemetery v. Buffalo, 46 N. Y. 506; In re St. Joseph's Asylum, 69 N. Y. 353; Roosevelt Hospital v. New York, 84 N. Y. 108; Kendrick v. Farquhar, 8 Ohio 197; Armstrong v. Athens County, 10 Ohio 235; Cincinnati College v. State, 19 Ohio 110; Lima v. Lima Cemetery Assoc., 42 Ohio St. 128; 5 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 547; 51 Am. Rep. 809; Northern Liberties v. St. Johns' Church, 13 Pa. St. 104; Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa. St. 69; Črawford v. Burrell Tp., 53 Pa. St. 220; Harvey v. South Chester, 99 Pa. St. 565; Wilkinsburg v. Home for Aged Women, 131 Pa. St. 109; Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 143 Pa. St. 367; Second Universalist Soc. v. Providence, 6 R. I. 235; In re College St., 8 R. I. 474; Beals v. Prov idence Rubber Co., 11 R. I. 381; 23 Am. Rep. 472; Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Watertown (S. Dak. 1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 1072; Allen v. Galveston, 51 Tex. 302; Orange, etc., R. Co. v. Alexandria, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 176; Hale v. Kenosha, 29 Wis. 599; Johnson v. Milwaukee. 40 Wis. 315; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Decatur, 147 U. S. 190. Local Assessments Held Not to Be Included Within the Exemption. - The terms of the exemption in some of these cases, have been very broad indeed. The following general exemptions have been held not to exempt property from local assessments: "Exemption from taxation of every kind," Sheehan v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 50 Mo. 155; 11 Am. Rep. 412; so when a statute laid a tax on railroads "in lieu of all other taxes," Bridgeport v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 Conn. 255; 4 Am. Rep. 63; an exemption from taxes or assessments," State v. Newark, 35 N. J. L. 157; an exemption from "all taxes, charges, and impositions," Paterson v. Society, etc., 24 N. J. L. 385; an exemption of "all taxes of every kind except as herein provided for," Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Decatur, 126 Ill. 92; 36 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 395; an exemption from "any tax or public imposition whatever," Baltimore v. Green Mount Cemetery, 7 Md. 517; exemption from "all taxation," Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Watertown (S. Dak. 1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 1072; from "being taxed by any law of the state." In re New York, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 77. And in Buffalo City Cemetery v. Buffalo, 46 N. Y. 507, the exemption was in terms from "all public taxes, rates, and assessments," and yet this was held not to exempt from local assessment. General Exemptions Held to Exempt from Local Assessments. In other cases, general exemption clauses have been held broad enough to protect the property against a local assessment for improvements: thus, an exemption from "all civil imposition, taxes and rates," Harvard College v. Boston, 104 Mass. 407; Codman v. Johnson, 104 Mass. 491; "all public taxes," Mount Auburn Cemetery v. Cambridge, 150 Mass. 12; 66 taxes or assessments," State v. Newark, 36 N. J. L. 478; 13 Am. Rep. 464, overruling 35 N. J. L. 157 (Compare this case with the New Fersey cases cited supra, this note); "from taxation except for state purposes,' Olive Cemetery Co. v. Philadelphia, 93 Pa. St. 129; 39 Am. Rep. 732. See 25 C. of L.-11 161 also Erie County v. First Universalist Church, 105 Pa. St. 278; Philadelphia v. Church of St. James, 134 Pa. St. 207; Wilkinsburg v. Home for Aged Women, 131 Pa. St. 109 (Compare the Pennsylvania cases cited supra, this note); "all taxation and assessment whatever," St. Paul, etc., R. Co. v. St. Paul, 21 Minn. 526; St. Paul v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 23 Minn. 469; State v. St. Paul, 36 Minn. 529; "from taxation for any purpose whatever," Brightman v. Kirner, 22 Wis. 54. In Georgia, an exemption from taxation in favor of religious societies, was held to exempt from assessments for local improvements, on the ground that they were favored by the constitution and by the general policy of the state. First M. E. Church v. Atlanta, 76 Ga. 181. This, however, was overruled by Atlanta v. First Presbyterian Church, 86 Ga. 730. In Kentucky, it has been held that cemeteries exempt from taxation can not be subjected to local assessments. Louisville v. Nevin, 10 Bush (Ky.) 549; 19 Am. Rep. 78; Colston v. Eastern Cemetery Co. (Ky. 1891), 15 S. W. Rep. 245. In Illinois, school property held in trust has been held to be exempt from special assessments as well as general taxation. People v. Trustees of Schools, 118 Ill. 52. See also Adams County v. Quincy, 130 Ill. 566. But compare the Illinois cases cited supra, this note. Applicability of General Exemption Acts to Municipal Taxes.-Some courts, strictly construing exemption statutes, have held that a general exemption of the property of persons or corporations is to be confined to state taxes, and does not apply to burdens laid upon the property by a municipality. People v. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574; I Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 475; Orange, etc., R. Co. v. Alexandria, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 176; Dunlieth, etc., Bridge Co. v. Dubuque, 32 Iowa 427; Pacific R. Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo. 17; Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 1 Wood (U. S.) 85; State v. Robertson, 24 N. J. L. 504; Lexington v. Aull, 30 Mo. 486. Thus, in Bailey v. Maguire, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 227, where a railroad company sought exemption from county and municipal taxation under a provision in its charter exempting it from state taxation, the court held the company subject to county and municipal taxation. See also Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Bourbon County, 82 Ky. 497. |