Water Co. 172 U. S. 1, 43 L. ed. 341, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; City R. Co. v. Citizens' Street R. Co. 166 U. S. 557, 41 L. ed. 1114, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 653; St. Tammany Waterworks Co. v. New Orleans Waterworks Co. 120 U. S. 64, 30 L. ed. 563, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 405; New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 647, 29 L. ed. 525, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Little Falls Electric & Water Co. v. Little Falls, 102 Fed. 663; Cunningham v. Cleveland, 39 C. C. A. 211, 98 Fed. 657; Los Angeles City Water Co. v. Los Angeles, 88 Fed. 720; Bartholomew v. Austin, 29 C. C. A. 568, 5o U. S. App. 512, 85 Fed. 359; Ludington Water-Supply Co. v. Ludington, 119 Much. 480, 78 N. W. 558; Atlantic City Waterworks Co. v. Atlantic City, 39 N. J. Eq. 367; Adrian Waterworks v. Adrian, 64 Mich. 584, 31 N. W. 529; Newport v. Newport Light Co. 84 Ky. 166; State v. Orr, 68 Conn. 101, 34 L.R.A. 279, 35 Atl. 770; Indianapolis v. Indianapolis Gaslight & Coke Co. 66 Ind. 396; Atlantic City Waterworks Co. v. Atlantic City, 48 N. J. L. 378, 6 Atl. 24.

The state cannot appropriate to itself, without compensation, the property obtained by a municipality with taxes raised and used for its nongovernmental purposes, even upon dissolution of the municipality.

People ex rel. Park Comrs. v. Detroit and State ex rel. Board of Edu. v. Haben, supra; State ex rel. White v. Barker, 116 Iowa, 96, 57 L.R.A. 244, 93 Am. St. Rep. 222, 89 N. W. 204; Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472, 26 L. ed. 197; Dubuque v. Illinois C. R. Co. 39 Iowa, 56; Grogan v. San Francisco, 18 Cal. 590; Spaulding v. Andover, 54 N. H. 38; Milwaukee v. Milwaukee, 12 Wis. 93; Atty. Gen. v. Burrell, 31 Mich. 34; Thompson v. Moran, 44 Mich. 602, 7 N. W. 180; Adrian Waterworks v. Adrian, Davock v. Moore, Blades v. Water Comrs. and Cook Farm Co. v. Detroit, supra.

The rule that taxes must be founded upon the expenses of a government whose benefits the taxpayer shares is plain, both in principle and on authority.

Sleight v. People, 74 Ill. 47; Allhands v. People, 82 Ill. 234; Drake v. Ogden, 128 Ill. 603, 21 N. E. 511; Bellepoint v. Pence, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 371, 17 S. W. 197; Talbot County v. Queen Anne's County, 50 Md. 245; Wells v. Weston, 22 Mo. 387, 66 Am. Dec. 627; Re Assessment of Lands, 60 N. Y. 398; Platt v. Milton, 58 Vt. 608, 5 Atl. 558; Simon v. Northrup, 27 Or. 487, 30 L.R.A. 171, 40 Pac. 560; Berlin Mills Co. v. Wentworth's Location, 60 N. H. 156; Re Madera Irrig. Dist. Bonds, 92 Cal. 296, 14 L.R.A. 755, 27 Am. St. Rep. 106, 28 Pac. 272, 675; Farris v. Vannier, 6 Dak. 186, 3 L.R.A. 713, 42 N. W. 31.

This rule requires more than that the tax be laid by, and paid into the treasury of, a government from which the taxpayer benefits. It demands that one taxpayer be not charged more than others of the expenses of the government which they both enjoy, because of and in proportion to the taxes which those others pay for the support of other governments from which the first-named taxpayer does not benefit.

1 Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. 187, 188; Bellepoint v. Pence, supra; Howell v. Bristol, 8 Prince George's County v. Bush, 493; Laurel, 70 Md. 443, 3 L.R.A. 528, 17 Atl. 388; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; State ex rel. Chouteau v. Leffingwell, 54 Mo. 458.

The rule that persons and property cannot be taxed by or for governments under which they do not exist, and whose benefits they, therefore, do not share, is elementary.

State Treasurer v. Auditor General, 46 Mich. 224, 9 N. W. 258; Callam v. Saginaw, 50 Mich. 7, 14 N. W. 677; Louisville & J. Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U. S. 385, 47 L. ed. 513, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 463; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U. S. 341, 49 L. ed. 1077, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 669; 1 Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. 84, 249; Judson, Taxn. § 354.

The very nature of apportionment involves that the legislature determine and prescribe how the tax of one class shall compare with the taxes of other classes for the expenses of the same government.

People ex rel. Detroit & H. R. Co. v. Salem, 20 Mich. 453, 4 Am. Rep. 400; 1 Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. 225-227, 411; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Clark, 60 Kan. 826, 47 L.R.A. 77, 58 Pac. 477; Hutchinson v. Ozark Land Co. 57 Ark. 554, 38 Am. St. Rep. 258, 22 S. W. 173; State ex rel. Harris v. Laughlin, 75 Mo. 147; State ex rel. White House School Dist. No. 71 v. Readington Twp. 36 N. J. L. 66; Kansas City v. Whipple, 136 Mo. 475, 35 L.R.A. 747, 58 Am. St. Rep. 657, 38 S. W. 295; Lund v. Chippewa County, 93 Wis. 640, 34 L.R.A. 131, 67 N. W. 927; State ex rel. New Richmond v. Davidson, 114 Wis. 563, 58 L.R.A. 739, 88 N. W. 596, 90 N. W. 1067; State ex rel. Garrett v. Froehlich, 118 Wis. 129, 61 L.R.A. 345, 99 Am. St. Rep. 985, 94 N. W. 50; Judson, Taxn. § 340; Morton v. Comptroller General, 4 S. C. N. S. 454; Santa Clara County v. Southern P. R. Co. 9 Sawy. 165, 18 Fed. 400; Lexington v. Mo Quillan, 9 Dana, 513, 35 Am. Dec. 159; Railroad Tax Cases, 8 Sawy, 238, 13 Fed. 722; Santa Clara County v. Southern P. R. Co. 9 Sawy. 165, 18 Fed. 424; Williams v. Detroit, 2 Mich. 560; State, Central R. Co., Prosecutor, v. State Assessors, 48 N. J. L. 1, 57 Am. Rep. 516, 2 Atl. 789; State ex rel. White House School Dist. No. 71 v. 749

It is not enough for the state legislature to say that there shall be a tax, and then leave the amount of the tax to be fixed by others. There is no tax until its amount is prescribed; and the body that determines the amount levies the tax.

Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. 557; Morton v. Comptroller General, 4 S. C. N. S. 430; Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646; San Francisco & N. P. R. Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12.

And the legislature that taxes, and therefore fixes the amount of tax, must be that which represents the taxpayer; that is, the legislature which is chosen by the community which includes the taxpayer or his property. Nothing is more fundamental than this requirement.

River v.

Readington Twp. supra; State v. Hoyt, 71 | penter, 102 Cal. 469, 36 Pac. 836; Schultes Vt. 59, 42 Atl. 973. v. Eberly, supra; Wells v. Weston, 22 Mo. 384, 66 Am. Dec. 627; Wilcox v. Paddock, supra; State ex rel. Howe v. Des Moines, 103 Iowa, 76, 39 L.R.A. 285, 64 Am. St. Rep. 157, 72 N. W. 639; Marr v. Enloe, 1 Yerg, 452; Leveeing Wabash Houston, 71 Ill. 318; Gage v. Graham, 57 Ill. 144; King v. Concordia F. Ins. Co. (Mich.) 103 N. W. 616; Elliott v. Detroit, 121 Mich. 611, 84 N. W. 820; Bradshaw v. Langford, 73 Md. 428, 11 L.R.A. 582, 25 Am. St. Rep. 602, 21 Atl. 66; People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 624; Dowling v. Lancashire Ins. Co. 92 Wis. 63, 31 L.R.A. 112, 65 N. W. 738; O'Neil v. American F. Ins. Co. 166 Pa. 77, 26 L.R.A. 715, 45 Am. St. Rep. 650, 30 Atl. 943; New York & N. J. Teleph. Co. v. Bound Brook, 66 N. J. L. 168, 48 Atl. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 427, 41022; Stevens v. Truman, 127 Cal. 155, L. ed. 606; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514, 7 L. ed. 939; Wilcox v. Paddock, 65 Mich. 23, 31 N. W. 609; People ex rel. Le Roy v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 9 Am. Rep. 103; People ex rel. Park Comrs. v. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228, 15 Am. Rep. 202; Wyandotte County v. Abbott, 52 Kan. 148, 34 Pac. 416; Schultes v. Eberly, 82 Ala. 242, 2 So. 345; Parks v. Wyandotte County, 61 Fed. 436; Harward v. St. Clair & M. Levee & Drainage Co. 51 Ill. 130; United States v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381, 25 L. ed. 225; Thomp son v. Allen County, 115 U. S. 550, 29 L. ed. 472, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; Lexington v. McQuillan, supra.

In order to be representative, a legislature must be not only chosen by the community for which it acts, but likewise chosen to act for, and upon, the persons or property affected. Nobody outside the limits of a particular county, city, village, town, or school district participates in the selection of the members of its local legis lature; and the purpose of their selection is to legislate for the particular community

which chooses them.

People ex rel. Park Comrs. v. Detroit, supra; Cook Farm Co. v. Detroit, 124 Mich. 426, 83 N. W. 130; United States v. Cruik shank, 92 U. S. 542, 549, 23 L. ed. 588, 590. The statute in question delegates the taxing power to the various local legis

latures.

59

Pac. 397; Jernigan v. Madisonville, 102 Ky. 313, 39 L.R.A. 214, 43 S. W. 448; Schaezlein v. Cabaniss, 135 Cal. 466, 56 L.R.A. 733, 87 Am. St. Rep. 122, 67 Pac. 755; Harmon v. State, 66 Ohio St. 249, 58 L.R.A. 618, 64 N. E. 117; Beasley v. Ridout, 94 Md. 641, 52 Atl. 61; State ex rel. Montgomery v. Rogers, 71 Ohio St. 203, 73 N. E. 461.

The rule that a taxpayer is constitutionally entitled to a hearing on the amount of his tax includes the right of hearing on that point before the legislature. Such privilege is part of the general right of ap pearance before, or petition to, the legis lature, which is part of the law of the land.

Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 497, 498; 2 Story, Const. § 1894; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. ed. 588; State Tax-Law Cases, 54 Mich. 350, 20 N. W. 493; Fallbrook. Irrig. District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 170, 174, 175, 41 L. ed. 369, 392, 394, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; French V. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 181 U. S. 324, 339–341, 45 L. ed. 879, 887, 888, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625.

The right of a taxpayer to be heard on the assessment of his property is fully estab

lished.

Cooley, Taxn. 3d. ed. 626; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U. S. 701, 28 L. ed. 569, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663; Winona & St. P. Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U. S. 526, 535, 40 L. ed. 247, 250, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 83.

Under ordinary ad valorem tax laws, any taxpayer has the constitutional right, if the rate of tax has not been named by the legis lature, but is left to result from division of the amount of tax ordered by the legislature, by the total assessment, to be heard on assessments generally.

Houghton v. Austin, supra; People ex rel. Hopkins v. Kings County, 52 N. Y. 556: Wyandotte County v. Abbott, 52 Kan. 168, 34 Pac. 416; Parks v. Wyandotte County. supra; Central R. Co. v. State Assessors, 49 N. J. L. 1, 7 Atl. 306; Muhlenburg County v. Morehead, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 376, 46 S. W. 484; Fleming v. Dyer, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 689, 47 S. W. 444; Dawson v. Ward, 71 Cooper v. Board of Works, 14 C. B. N. Tex. 72, 9 S. W. 106; Wade v. State, 22 S. 181; Dundee Mortg. Trust Invest. Co. v. Tex. App. 629, 3 S. W. 796; McCabe v. Car-Charleton, 32 Fed. 192; State, Dickerson

201 U. S.

a

S. Min. Co., Prosecutor, v. Dickerson, 25 N., own nature and from the nature of the per J. L. 427; State ex rel. Goff v. Dodge Coun- sons or properties classified, affords ty, 20 Neb. 595, 31 N. W. 117; State ex rel. reasonable and just ground for the different Lincoln Land Co. v. Edwards, 26 Neb. 705, treatment of the different classes 42 N. W. 882.

The courts have recognized: 1. That persons are within the equal protection of the laws as to taxation.

Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. Indeed, a right of hearing before the S. 150, 155, 41 L. ed. 666, 668, 17 Sup. Ct. proper body seems necessary concerning any Rep. 255; Stratton Claimants v. Morris act whose effect is to take property. Claimants (Dibrell v. Lanier) 89 Tenn. 497, Alexander v. Gordon, 41 C. C. A. 228, 101| 12 L.R.A. 70, 15 S. W. 87; South & North Fed. 91; Re Rosser, 41 C. C. A. 497, 101| Ala. R. Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala. 193; State v. Fed. 562; Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 21 L.R.A. 789, 22 S. Co. 67 L.R.A. 558, 65 C. C. A, 570, 132 Fed. W. 350; Wilder v. Chicago & W. M. R. Co. 434. 70 Mich. 382, 38 N. W. 289; Lafferty v. Chicago & W. M. R. Co. 71 Mich. 35, 38 N. W. 660; Park v. Detroit Free Press Co. 72 Mich. 560, 1 L.R.A. 599, 16 Am. St. Rep. 544, 40 N. W. 731; Grand Rapids Chair Co. v. Runnels, 77 Mich. 104, 43 N. W. 1006; San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Wilson, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. (Willson) § 323, 19 S. W. 910; Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 294, 57 Am. Rep. 869, 7 N. E. 631; Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171, 16 L.R.A. 492, 31 N. E. 395; Eden v. People, 161 Ill. 296, 32 L.R.A. 659, 52 Am. St. Rep. 365, 43 N. E. 1108; Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 8 L.R.A. 808, 20 Am. St. Rep. 123, 46 N. W. 128; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179, 6 L.R.A. 621, 25 Am. St. Rep. 863, 10 S. E. 285; State v. Fire Creek Coal & Coke Co. 33 W. Va. 188, 6 L.R.A. 359, 25 Am. St. Rep. 891, 10 S. E. 288; Pearson v. Portland, 69 Me. 278, 31 Am. Rep. 276; State v. Haun, 61 Kan. 146, 47 L.R.A. 369, 59 Pac. 340; Durkee v. Janesville, 28 Wis. 464, 9 Am. Rep. 500.

2. That while the legislature, in imposing taxes, may exercise a wide discretion, in subjecting property to different forms and amounts of taxation, that discretion must rest upon a reasonable basis, and the discriminations made by the legislature in taxation of different sorts of property must not be arbitrary, in the sense of resting upon no fact that affords a just ground for such

course.

3. That no more in taxation than in other fields of legislation are any persons to be deprived of those things that are more fundamental in our government, and are always essential to any real protection of the government's subjects, such as the decision of legislative questions by a popular and representative legislature; the right of appeal to the courts on questions of judicial character; opportunity for hearing before either the legislature or the court that determines the subject's rights; and the avoidance, in all fundamental ways, of such things as, in Justice Bradley's words, "are of an unusual character, unknown to the practice of our governments."

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369, 30 L. ed. 220, 226, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 31, 32, 28 L. ed. 923-925, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; San Mateo County v. Southern P. R. Co. 7 Sawy. 517, 13 Fed. 145; Railroad Tax Cases, 8 Sawy. 238, 13 Fed. 722.

It will not do for a tax law directly and necessarily to tend to inequality, at least of a kind that is unmistakably unreason able and unjust.

Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v. Godard) 183 U. S. 79, 110, 46 L. ed. 92, 109, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 301, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1045, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Santa Clara County v. Southern P. R. Co. 9 Sawy. 165, 18 Fed. 385; Railroad Tax Cases, supra.

Classification means only the division of persons or properties into different classes on some basis or principle that, from its

The equality of all before the law, which the 14th Amendment requires, is inherent in a republican form of government.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 554, 23 L. ed. 588, 592.

The Federal courts are not bound, in considering questions under the 14th Amendment, to accept the view of the nature or effect of a state statute which may have been taken by the state courts.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 366, 30 L. ed. 220, 225, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 100, 43 L. ed. 909, 911, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609.

The "equal protection of the laws" has a wider scope than "due process of law." Santa Clara County v. Southern P. R. Co. supra.

Can property of the same kind, used in the same kind of business, be taxed in different ways and at different rates, according to the single fact whether it is owned by a corporation or by natural persons (either individually or in partnership or in joint stock associations)?

San Mateo County v. Southern P. R. Co., Railroad Tax Cases, and Santa Clara Coun

ty v. Southern P. R. Co. supra; Cotting v. | tute discrimination which is a denial of Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v. equal protection. Godard) 183 U. S. 79, 46 L. ed. 92, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30; Vanzant v. Waddel, 2 Yerg. 260; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 155, 165, 166, 41 L. ed. 666, 668, 671, 672, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 104, 105, 43 L. ed. 909, 912, 913, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 43 L. ed. 432, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 309, 25 L. ed. 664, 666; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 36S, 30 L. ed. 220, 225, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 49 L. ed. 169, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Judson, Taxn. § 455; Northern P. R. Co. v. Walker, 47 Fed. 681; Guthrie, 14th Amendment, pp. 120, 122.

Cooley, Taxn. 2d ed. 61-63, 141, 142, 241, | sary act in taxation. In the nature of the 242; People ex rel. Park Comrs. v. Detroit, case, the determination of the amount, or

the rate, is a legislative act. Being a necessary act of the legislature, it is not in the power of the state, in the preservation of the established principles of American law, which constitute the law of the land, to delegate or refer such determination to the action of any other body of officials. It cannot be referred to and made to depend upon the legislative or discretionary action of the municipalities.

28 Mich. 228, 15 Am. Rep. 202; Metropolitan Police v. Board of Auditors, 68 Mich. 576, 36 N. W. 743; Blades v. Water Comrs. | 122 Mich. 366, 81 N. W. 271; Wilcox v. Paddock, 65 Mich. 23, 31 N. W. 609; People ex rel. Le Roy v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 9 Am. Rep. 103; Cook Farm Co. v. Detroit, 124 Mich. 426, 83 N. W. 130; Atty. Gen. v. Detroit, 58 Mich. 213, 55. Am. Rep. 675, 24 N. W. 887; United States v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381, 392, 25 L. ed. 225; State Rail- Cooley, Taxn. 2d ed. pp. 61-^3, 141, 142, road Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 615, 23 L. ed. 241, 242; People ex rel. Park Comrs. v. 663, 674; Heine v. Levee Comrs. 19 Wall. | Detroit, Metropolitan Police v. Board of Au655, 22 L. ed. 223; Meriwether v. Garrett, ditors, Blades v. Water Comrs., Wilcox v. 102 U. S. 472, 501, 515, 26 L. ed. 197, 200, Paddock, People ex rel. Le Roy v. Hurlbut, 205; Thompson v. Allen County, 115 U. S. Cook Farm Co. v. Detroit, Atty. Gen. v. De550, 555, 29 L. ed. 472, 474, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. troit, United States v. New Orleans, State 140; Harward v. St. Clair & M. Levee & Railroad Tax Cases, Heine v. Levee Comrs., Drainage Co. 51 Ill. 130; Parks v. Wyan- Meriwether v. Garrett, Thompson v. Allen dotte County, 61 Fed. 436. County, Harward v. St. Clair & M. Levee & Drainage Co. and Parks v. Wyandotte County, supra, Citizens' Sav. & L. Asso. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, 664, 22 L. ed. 455, 461.

The principles of due process of law as defined by this court in respect to taxation require that the process shall be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by law, be just to the parties affected, be adapted to the end to be attained, and, when necessary to the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought, and there must be the observance of those general rules established in our system of jurisprudence for the security of private rights.

Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U. S. 701, 708, 28 L. ed. 569, 572, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 107, 24 L. ed. 616, 620; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 237, 33 L. ed. 892, 895, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. S. 316, 327, 35 L. ed. 419, 425, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825; Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321, 331, 29 L. ed. 414, 416, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 277, 278, 43 L. ed. 443, 446, 447, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187; Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 398, 409, 44 L. ed. 520, 524, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 410; Weimer v. Bunbury, 30 Mich. 201; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 181 U. S. 324, 356, 45 L. ed. 879, 894, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Miller, Const., p. 666; Cooley, Taxn. 2d ed. p. 51; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v. Godard) supra; Santa Clara County v. Southern P. R. Co. 9 Sawy. 165, 18 Fed. 385.

To determine the tax, when it is an ad valorem tax, requires that the legislature state the amount to be raised or the rate of the tax upon the dollar of the valuation. The determination of the amount to be raised, or the rate of taxation on the valuation, is the essential, the chief and neces

In the determination of a tax by the legislature it is an essential of just legislation that the legislature act in view of, and determine the needs of the public in respect to, the objects for which moneys are to be raised by taxation, and of the amount necessary to provide for those needs, and also the extent to which it is just to burden the taxpayers against whom the taxes are to be charged. These are principles which are fundamental in taxation.

Midland Twp. v. Roscommon Twp. 39 Mich. 424; Michigan Land & Iron Co. v. L'Anse Twp. 63 Mich. 700, 30 N. W. 331.

Where the amount of the tax to be raised, or the rate of taxation, is determined by the legislature itself, the taxpayers who are to be charged with the taxes have a right to and an opportunity to be heard by the legislature upon the whole subject of the taxation, including the purpose of the tax, the needs of the public for the promotion of the object for which the taxes are to be imposed, the amount of taxation required for those needs, and the amount which can be properly and justly charged against the taxpayers.

Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. pp. 497, 498; 2 Story, Const. § 1894; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 552, 23 L. ed. 588, 591; Citizens' Bank v. Board of Assessors, 54 Fed. 73.

The Constitution of Michigan grants to the taxpayers the absolute right to a hearing before the legislature upon the measures to be adopted for their taxation.

State Tax-Law Cases, 54 Mich. 350, 20 N. W. 493.