U. S. 651, 656. The only credits shown by the record to be possessed by railroad corporations are those arising in the railroad business; presumptively all the property of a corporation is engaged in its business. Adams Express Co. v. Ohio, 166 U. S. 223; S. C., 165 U. S. 227.

Act 173 makes no specific requirement of the taxation of credits without deduction for debts; if deduction be necessary to render the statute constitutional the statute must be construed in connection with the constitutional requirements as permitting the deduction. First Nat. Bank v. St. Joseph, 46 Michigan, 529.

The state board of assessors in making this assessment did not include credits. This, taken as a contemporaneous construction, is entitled to consideration. Attorney General v. Glaser, 102 Michigan, 405.

If the act could be construed as subjecting credits of the corporation, taxed thereunder, to taxation without deduction for indebtedness, and, so construed, invades rights of complainant, such provision could be eliminated without disturbing the statute. Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305; Evansville Bank v. Britton, 105 U. S. 322; Hill v. Exchange Bank, 105 U. S. 319, 322; Insurance Co. v. Board of Assessors, 95 Michigan, 468; State v. Smiley, 65 Kansas, 265; Pullman State Bank v. Manring, 18 Washington, 255; State v. Duluth Gas & Water Co., 78 N. W. Rep. (Minn.) 1032.

Complainant made no claim at the time of assessment or on review that it possessed, or that there was included in assessment, credits representing investments apart from the railroad business, nor is there any proof that it possessed such property. It made no complaint of the inclusion of its credits without deduction for debts owed by it, and made no application to the board of review for a deduction on account of indebtedness. It is not open to it now, to claim an unwarranted inclusion of credits. First Nat. Bank v. St. Joseph, 46 Michigan, 526; Central Pacific Ry. Co. v. California, 162 U. S. 128; Pittsburgh &c. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421; Town

Argument for Appellee.

201 U. S.

ship of Caledonia v. Rose, 94 Michigan, 216; State v. Clark, 79 N. W. Rep. (Minn.) 829; Stanley v. Supervisors of Albany, 121 U. S. 535; Hepburn v. School Directors, 23 Wall. 480. The deduction of debts from credits is nothing more or less than an exemption. It does not amount to a rule of valuation. The propriety of permitting a deduction of debts from credits to one and not to another class, and the effect of the resulting discrimination, has never, in an applicable case, been passed upon by this court. Mr. Justice Field, sitting in circuit in California, did pass upon a very similar proposition in the cases of San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific, 13 Fed. Rep. 722; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, 18 Fed. Rep. 385. These cases differ from that at bar. Here the deduction of debts from credits amounts simply to an exemption to one class which may not be permitted to another. Where the classes are properly formed, it is permissible to give exemptions to one not given to another class. The Michigan system is limited to taxing, by a special system, the property of railroad corporations engaged in their separate and peculiar business. In the California cases the effect was to cause the railroad corporation to bear the burden of taxation of the mortgagees or bondholders. The decisions of Mr. Justice Field are not in accord with the later decisions of this court which have made clear the character and extent of the application of the Fourteenth Amendment in matters of taxation.

Mr. Justice Field's decisions have never been followed in California. The constitutional provision, which he declared unconstitutional, is still followed, and taxes imposed in accordance therewith are paid without protest. Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. California, 162 U. S. 91, 117. The chronological history of the decisions of Mr. Justice Field, in the San Mateo and Santa Clara County cases in connection with the Albany Bank cases, shows that this court has expressly refused to recognize the decisions of Mr. Justice Field, in opposition to the rule declared in the Albany Bank cases. Supervisors v.

Stanley, 105 U. S. 305; Hills v. Exchange Bank, 105 U. S. 319, 322; Evansville Bank v. Britton, 105 U. S. 322; Supervisors v. Stanley, 121 U. S. 535.

If it is not permissible to grant deduction of debts from credits to one class, unless it is granted to all classes, the result is not the unconstitutionality of Act 173, but rather of the provision of the general tax law, permitting deduction from credits only, and not permitting similar deduction from other personal property. This invalidity might result under the provision of the state constitution requiring uniformity, the provision requiring assessments at cash value and the Fourteenth Amendment. State statutes permitting deduction of debts from credits, not permitting the deduction from other personalty, have been held invalid. In re Construction of Revenue Law, 48 N. W. Rep. (S. Dak.) 813; Citizens St. Ry. Co. v. Common Council, 125 Michigan, 694; Exchange Bank v. Himes, 3 Ohio St. 1; San Mateo Co. v. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 722; Santa Clara Co. v. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 385; State v. Duluth Gas & Water Co., 78 N. W. Rep. (Minn.) 1032; Jacksonville v. McConnel, 12 Illinois, 138; People's Loan Association v. Keith, 153 Illinois, 609; People v. McCreery, 34 California, 432; People v. Whortenby, 38 California, 461; but see contra, State v. Smith, 63 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 25; S. C., 64 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 18, rehearing; State v. Moffett, 64 Minnesota, 292; Fayette Co. v. Bank, 10 L. R. A. 196; Florer v. Sheridan, 137 Indiana, 28; Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 California, 35.

The objection that the rate is dependent upon the action of local assessing officers within whose jurisdiction complainant has no property, before whom it has no right to be heard and against whose acts, if illegal, it has no redress, is based upon a false premise that the local officers fix and determine the rate. This is not the fact. The rate is fixed by the legislature in carrying into effect the constitutional provision. The local officers do no act which affects directly the rate to be applied to complainant. The rate varies from year to

year, with the varying of the average tax rate throughout the State, and when the tax rate in the several municipalities has become a fact of record, this rate is averaged and the result applied in the assessment of the property of complainant and similar companies.

The legislature by statute, and the people by constitutional provision, have the right to impose any tax rate they see fit. The rate imposed, the reasons for its imposition, and the basis of its measurement, are all matters of policy which do not concern the courts and which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislature and the people. Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 563; Wharton v. School District, 42 Pa. St. 358; Cooley on Taxation, 2d ed., 343; Guthrie on the Fourteenth Amendment, 95 et seq.

The validity of the tax can, in no way, be dependent upon the mode the State may see fit to adopt in fixing the amount for any year. Home Life Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594, 600; Mate v. Grand Trunk, 142 U. S. 217, 228; Wis. & Mich. Ry. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 387; Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 254; Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115; Cumberland & Penn. R. R. Co. v. State, 92 Maryland, 668, 690; Commissioner of Railroads v. Wabash R. R. Co., 126 Michigan, 115; Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 561; State v. Terre Haute, 130 Indiana, 443; Society for Savings v. Ciote, 6 Wall. 594, 608; State v. Haworth, 122 Indiana, 466, 467.

Complainant is not without right to appear before the local reviewing board and be heard upon questions affecting its interests. Michigan Comp. Laws, 1897, §§ 3852, 3853. The authority of a property owner to object upon review to irregularity of assessments, is not limited to those of his own property. Avery v. East Saginaw, 44 Michigan, 590; Dundee Mortgage Co. v. Charlton, 32 Fed. Rep. 192, 194; State v. Dodge Co., 20 Nebraska, 600; St. Louis Bridge Co. v. People, 128 Illinois, 428; Detroit Common Council v. Detroit Board of Assessors, 91 Michigan, 88. The appearance to correct assessments of

the general property, is not required to be before the local officers, but might be before the tax commissioners, who have supervision of all the tax rolls of the State. Act 154 of 1899, §§ 152, 153.

The average rate system is not invalid as compelling payment of taxes by complainant based on expenditures of local governments, whose benefits it does not share, while other property owners pay taxes based on expenditures of municipalities in which their property is located.

The plenary authority of the legislature to use any basis of measurement it sees fit, in fixing the tax rate, is controlling here. The railroad corporations are taxed for a different purpose than property generally. The tax imposed is a distinct and particular state tax. Pingree v. Auditor General, 120 Michigan, 102.

Only a certain amount each year is required to maintain the State and its municipalities. The portion of this burden paid by one class, is not borne by another and the average rate system operates to equalize the burden among the classes. The complainant and all other railroad companies benefit particularly from disbursements made in the local municipalities for municipal improvements and their tax rate is very properly proportioned to that borne in the local municipalities.

The fact that the burdens of taxation as compared with the benefits, are unequally shared, does not invalidate the taxes. If property receives any benefit, from a disbursement, however small, it can be made to share equally in the taxation, and this, though its property is not in the municipality making the disbursement for which the tax is levied, and though some other property has been more directly benefited. Foster v. Pryor, 189 U. S. 325, 331; Wagoner v. Evans, 170 U. S. 592; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78. The State has determined that the railroad corporations receive protection and benefits from its laws equal in amount to the expenditures and taxes of the several municipalities