People v. Home Ins. Co., (1883) 92 N. Y. 328, affirmed 134 U. S. 594, 10 S. Ct. 593, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 1025; People v. Gilon, (1901) 66 App. Div. 25, 72 N. Y. S. 1041; People v. Roberts, (1898) 32 App. Div. 113, 52 N. Y. S. 859, affirmed (1898) 157 N. Y. 677, 51 N. E. 1093; People v. Campbell, (1893) 70 Hun 507, 24 N. Y. S. 208. "In performing the duty of levying taxes for the support of government, state legislatures may, in the exercise of their undoubted power, impose double taxes or lay burdens beyond the financial capacity of the classes taxed, and however impolitic or unwise such a course would be, the courts have no right to interfere with the exercise of the legislative discretion." People v. Home Ins. Co., (1883) 92 N. Y. 328, affirmed 134 U. S. 594, 10 S. Ct. 593, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 1025; People v. Gilon, (1901) 66 App. Div. 25, 72 N. Y. S. 1041.

5. Classification.

Generally. While the legislature has the power to classify as it sees fit by imposing a heavy burden on one class of persons or property and no burden at all upon others, all persons and property in the same situation or class must be treated alike and the tax must be imposed equally upon all such people or property. People v. Jenkins, (1911) 202 N. Y. 53, 94 N. E. 1065, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1079, reversing 140 App. Div. 786, 125 N. Y. S. 817; In re Keeney, (1909) 194 N. Y. 281, 87 N. E. 428, affirming 128 App. Div. 893, 112 N. Y. S. 1148; People v. Mensching, (1907) 187 N. Y. 8, 79 N. E. 884, 10 Ann. Cas. 101, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 625, affirming 115 App. Div. 893, 101 N. Y. S. 1138; People v. Reardon, (1906) 184 N. Y. 431, 77 N. E. 970, 112 A. S. R. 628, 6 Ann. Cas. 515, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 161, affirming 110 App. Div. 821, 97 N. Y. S. 535, affirmed 204 U. S. 152, 27 S. Ct. 188, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 415, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; In re New York, (1907) 190 N. Y. 350, 83 N. E. 299, 13 Ann. Cas. 598, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 335, modifying 120 App. Div. 849, 105 N. Y. S. 750; People v. Ronner, (1906) 185 N. Y. 285, 77 N. E. 1061, affirming 110 App. Div. 816, 97 N. Y. S. 550; In re Pell, (1902) 171 N. Y. 48, 63 N. E. 789, 89 A. S. R. 791, 57 L. R. A. 540, reversing 60 App. Div. 286, 70 N. Y. S. 196. See also In re McPherson, (1877) 104 N. Y. 306, 10 N. E. 685, 58 Am. Rep. 502; Stuart v. Palmer, (1878) 74 N. Y. 183, 30 Am. Rep. 289, affirming 10 Hun 23; Gordon v. Cornes, (1872) 47 N. Y. 608. Arbitrary selection cannot be justified by calling it classification. The equal protection commanded by the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution forbids it. In re Keeney, (1909) 194 N. Y. 281, 87 N. E. 428, affirming 128 App. Div. 893, 112 N. Y. S. 1148; In re New York, (1907) 190 N. Y. 350, 83 N. E. 299, 13 Ann. Cas. 598, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 335, modifying 120 App. Div. 849, 105 N. Y. S. 750; People v. Mensching, (1907) 187 N. Y. 8, 79 N. E. 884, 10 Ann. Cas. 101, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 625, affirming 115 App. Div. 893, 101 N. Y. S. 1138; People v. Reardon, (1906) 184 N. Y. 431, 77 N. E. 970, 112 A. S. R. 628, 6 Ann. Cas. 515, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 161, affirming 110 App. Div. 821, 97 N. Y. S. 535, affirmed 204 U. S. 152, 27 S. Ct. 188, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 415, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; In re Pell, (1902) 171 N. Y. 48, 63 N. E. 789, 89 A. S. R. 791, 57 L. R. A. 540, reversing 60 App. Div. 286, 70 N. Y. S. 196. See also Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183, 30 Am. Rep. 289, affirming 10 Hun 23.

Thus, while the legislature may impose the cost of an improvement upon the owners of property specially benefited thereby, all owners must be treated alike, and where it arbitrarily selects one or more and exempts the others, depending upon accidental circumstances which have no just relation to the liability or immunity of the parties, its act is void. In re New York, (1907) 190 N. Y. 350, 83 N. E. 299, 13 Ann. Cas. 598, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 335, modifying 120 App. Div. 849, 105 N. Y. S. 750. In People v. Reardon, supra, this was said: "The legislature has power to classify as it sees fit by imposing a heavy burden on one of property and no burden

at all upon others, the remedy for injudicious action being in the hands of the people, not of the courts. Arbitrary selection and discrimination characterize the history of legislation, both state and national, with reference to taxation, yet, when all persons and property in the same class are treated alike, it has uniformly been sustained both by the state and federal courts. The tax on tobacco, on oleomargarine and the like is not less arbitrary or discriminating than the tax in question. While a tax upon a particular house, or horse, or the houses or horses of a particular man, or on the sale thereof, would obviously invade a constitutional right, still a tax upon all houses, leaving barns and business buildings untaxed, or upon all horses or the sale. thereof, leaving sheep and cows untaxed, however unwise, would be within the power of the legislature. This is true of a tax on all houses with 'more than one chimney,' or 'with more than one hearth-stone,' or on all racehorses. The power of taxation necessarily involves the right of selection, which is without limitation, provided all persons in the same situation are treated alike and the tax imposed equally upon all property of the class to which it belongs." In People v. Mensching, (1907) 187 N. Y. 8, 79 N. E. 884, 10 Ann. Cas. 101, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 625, affirming 115 App. Div. 893, 101 N. Y. S. 1138, this was said: "While the legislature has wide latitude in classification its power in that regard is not without limitation, for the classification must have some basis, reasonable or unreasonable, other than mere accident, whim or caprice. There must be some support of taste, policy, difference of situation or the like, some reason for it even if it is a poor one. While the state can tax some occupations and omit others, can it tax only such members of a calling as have blue eyes or black hair? We have said that it could tax horses and leave sheep untaxed, but does not follow that it could tax white horses and omit all others, or tax the sale of certificates printed on white paper and not those on yellow and brown. While one class may be made of horses and another of sheep, or even a class made of race horses, owing to the use made of them, without a shock to common sense, a classification limited to white horses would be so arbitrary as to amount to tyranny, because there would be no semblance of reason for it. A reason might be advanced, although specious and unsound, for taxing Holstein bulls and no others, but could even a sophist argue in favor of taxing Holstein steers and no others, since they are incapable of reproduction?

Stock transfer tax.- The Stock Transfer Tax Act (Laws of 1905, ch. 241), which imposes a tax, not upon property, but upon its transfer, being uniform in its operation upon all transfers of the class named and upon all persons making such transfers within the state, is not obnoxious to the State or Federal Constitution as being so arbitrary, discriminating and unreasonable in taxing the transfer of one class of property only, as to deprive certain persons of their property without due process of law, and denying to them the equal protection of the laws. People v. Reardon, (1906) 184 N. Y. 431, 77 N. E. 970, 112 A. S. R. 628, 6 Ann. Cas. 515, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 161, affirming 110 App. Div. 821, 97 N. Y. S. 535, affirmed 204 U. S. 152, 27 S. Ct. 188, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 415, 9 Ann. Cas. 736. However, section 1 of chapter 414 of the Laws of 1906, which purports to amend the Stock Transfer Tax Act (§ 315 of the Tax Law, as amended by ch. 241 of the Laws of 1905), and imposes a tax of two cents "on each share of one hundred dollars of face value or fraction thereof," instead of “ on each hundred dollars of face value or fraction thereof," as provided by the Act of 1905, taxes the sale of all shares of the face value of any fraction of one hundred dollars. The tax is measured by the number of shares regardless of face value, instead of by the face value of the shares sold, i. e., the sale of one hundred shares of the face value of ten dollars is taxed two dollars, while the sale of ten shares of the face value of one hundred dollars is taxed twenty cents, the shares sold in each case being worth the same amount. All corporate shares are placed in a class, but all members of the class are not treated alike. Without method or order or reason the statute bears heavily uron some and lightly

Art. III, §§ 2, 3

66

Senate

upon others in the same situation. This is not classification but arbitrary or accidental selection, and the amendment is therefore void. People v. Mensching, (1907) 187 N. Y. 8, 79 N. E. 884, 10 Ann. Cas. 101, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 625, affirming 115 App. Div. 893, 101 N. Y. S. 1138. In the case last cited, the court said: Granting the almost unlimited power of the legislature to classify as it sees fit, still there is no plausible or possible reason why one hundred acres in a single field should not pay the same tax as one hundred acres of equal value in ten fields. It seems equally clear that no distinction in liability to taxation can be drawn between ten shares of the face value of one hundred dollars each and one hundred shares of the face value of ten dollars each."

Transfer tax on vested residuary estates.-- Chapter 76 of the Laws of 1899, providing for a tax upon remainders and reversions which had vested prior to June 30, 1885, upon their coming into actual possession or enjoyment is unconstitutional for the reason that it discriminates against a limited class of remaindermen and apportions the burden unequally among the owners of estates sought to be taxed. In re Pell, (1902) 171 N. Y. 48, 63 N. E. 789, 89 A. S. R. 791, 57 L. R. A. 540, reversing 60 App. Div. 286, 70 N. Y. S. 196.

Mortgage tax law. The statute (Laws of 1905, ch. 729) providing for the taxation of debts secured by mortgages, the proceeds of such tax to belong, one-half to the state and one-half to the particular locality in which the tax is collected, is not unconstitutional as violative of the provisions of section 1 of article 14 of the Constitution of the United States in that it denies to the holders of mortgages recorded after July 1, 1905, the equal protection of the law because a different rule of taxation applies thereunder to mortgages recorded after that date from that which applies to mortgages recorded before that date. The tax is laid as an equal burden upon all whose property has been brought into a designated class for the purpose of taxation and according to a common ratio; there is no discrimination and the exaction is equal; there is no arbitrary selection from a class of property holders for taxation, but there is a date fixed after which investments in mortgages, when made, constitute new subjects for taxation. People v. Ronner, (1906) 185 N. Y. 285, 77 N. E. 1061, affirming 110 App. Div. 816, 97 N. Y. S. 550.

§ 2. Senators and assemblymen; number and terms.

The Senate shall consist of fifty members, except as hereinafter provided. The senators elected in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five shall hold their offices for three years, and their successors shall be chosen for two years. The Assembly shall consist of one hundred and fifty members, who shall be chosen for one year.

Senate: Const. 1777, Art. X; amended 1801; amended, Const. 1821, Art. I, § 2; amended, Const. 1846, Art. III, § 2; amended, Const. 1894, Art. III, § 2. Assembly: Const. 1777, Art. IV; amended 1801; amended, Const. 1821, Art. 1, § 2; amended, Const. 1846, Art. III, § 2; amended, Const. 1894, Art. III, § 2.

§ 3. Senate districts.

The state shall be divided into fifty districts to be called senate districts, each of whom shall choose one senator. The districts shall be numbered from one to fifty, inclusive.

District number one (1) shall consist of the counties of Suffolk and Richmond.

District number two (2) shall consist of the county of Queens. District number three (3) shall consist of that part of the county of Kings comprising the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth wards of the city of Brooklyn.

District number four (4) shall consist of that part of the county of Kings comprising the seventh, thirteenth, nineteenth and twenty-first wards of the city of Brooklyn.

District number five (5) shall consist of that part of the county of Kings comprising the eighth, tenth, twelfth and thirtieth wards of the city of Brooklyn, and the ward of the city of Brooklyn which was formerly the town of Gravesend.

District number six (6) shall consist of that part of the county of Kings comprising the ninth, eleventh, twentieth and twentysecond wards of the city of Brooklyn..

District number seven (7) shall consist of that part of the county of Kings comprising the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth wards of the city of Brooklyn.

District number eight (8) shall consist of that part of the county of Kings comprising the twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-ninth wards of the city of Brooklyn, and the town of Flatlands.

District number nine (9) shall consist of that part of the county of Kings comprising the eighteenth, twenty-sixth, twentyseventh and twenty-eighth wards of the city of Brooklyn.

District number ten (10) shall consist of that part of the county of New York within and bounded by a line beginning at Canal street and the Hudson river, and running thence along Canal street, Hudson street, Dominick street, Varick street, Broome street, Sullivan street, Spring street, Broadway, Canal street, the Bowery, Division street, Grand street, and Jackson street, to the East river and thence around the southern end of Manhattan island, to the place of beginning, and also Governor's, Bedloe's and Ellis islands.

District number eleven (11) shall consist of that part of the county of New York lying north of district number ten, and within and bounded by a line beginning at the junction of Broadway and Canal street, and running thence along Broadway, Fourth street, the Bowery and Third avenue, St. Mark's place, Avenue A, Seventh street, Avenue B, Clinton street, Rivington

street, Norfolk street, Division street, Bowery and Canal street to the place of beginning.

District number twelve (12) shall consist of that part of the county of New York lying north of districts numbers ten and eleven, and within and bounded by a line beginning at Jackson street and the East river and running thence through Jackson street, Grand street, Division street, Norfolk street, Rivington street, Clinton street, Avenue B, Seventh street, Avenue A, St. Mark's place, Third avenue, East Fourteenth street to the East river, and along the East river, to the place of beginning.

District number thirteen (13) shall consist of that part of the county of New York lying north of district number ten, and within and bounded by a line beginning at the Hudson river at the foot of Canal street, and running thence along Canal street, Hudson street, Dominick street, Varick street, Broome street, Sullivan street, Spring street, Broadway, Fourth street, the Bowery and Third avenue Fourteenth street, Sixth avenue, West Fifteenth street, Seventh avenue, West Nineteenth street, Eighth avenue, West Twentieth street, and the Hudson river, to the place of beginning.

District number fourteen (14) shall consist of that part of the county of New York lying north of districts numbers twelve and thirteen, and within and bounded by a line beginning at East Fourteenth street and the East river, and running thence along East Fourteenth street, Irving place, East Nineteenth street, Third avenue, East Twenty-third street, Lexington avenue, East Fifty-third street, Third avenue, East Fifty-second street, and the East river, to the place of beginning.

District number fifteen (15) shall consist of that part of the county of New York lying north of district number thirteen, and within and bounded by a line beginning at the junction of West Fourteenth street and Sixth avenue, and running thence along Sixth avenue, West Fifteenth street, Seventh avenue, West Fortieth street, Eighth avenue, and the transverse road across Central park at Ninety-seventh street, Fifth avenue, East Ninetysixth street, Lexington avenue, East Twenty-third street, Third avenue, East Nineteenth street, Irving place, and Fourteenth street, to the place of beginning.

District number sixteen (16) shall consist of that part of the county of New York lying north of district number thirteen, and within and bounded by a line beginning at Seventh avenue and