This action is brought to recover of the Southern Pacific Bailroad Company, a corporation formed under the laws of California, certain state and county taxes levied upon its property for the fiscal year of 1881 and 1882, alleged to be due to the plaintiff, with 5 per cent, added for their non-payment, and interest. It was commenced in one of the superior courts of the state, and, on application of the defendant, was removed to this court.
The railroad company, besides a general denial of the allegations of the complaint, sets up as a special answer to the action that in the assessment of its property, according to which the taxes claimed were levied, an unlawful and unjust discrimination was made between its property and the property of individuals, to its disadvantage, subjecting it to an unequal share of the public burdens, and that it was not afforded an opportunity of being heard respecting the assessment, and that such discrimination was made and proceeding had under the provisions of the constitution of California, adopted in 1879, which in that respect are in conflict with the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States.
By the constitution of California, all property in the state, not exempt under the laws of the United States, is, with certain exceptions, to be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as prescribed by law; but in the ascertainment of its value as a basis for taxation, a distinction is made between the property owned by individuals and that owned by railroad corporations. By the thirteenth article, “a mortgage, deed of trust, contract, or other obligation by which a debt is secured,” is treated, for the purposes of assessment and taxa*728tion, “as an interest in the property affected thereby,” and, “except as to railroad and other quasi public corporations,” the value of the property affected, less the value of the security, is to be assessed and taxed to its owner, and the value of the security is to be assessed and taxed to its holder. Section é. But by the same article “the franchise, road-way, road-bed, rails, and rolling stock of all railroads operated in more than one county” are to be assessed at their actual value, and apportioned to the counties, cities, and districts in which the roads are located in proportion to the number of miles, of railway laid therein. No deduction from this value is allowed for any mortgages on the property.
By the constitution there is also a different system of assessment provided for “the franchise, road-way, road-bed, rails, and rolling stock” of railroads operated in more than one county from that provided for other property. The assessment of other property is to be made in the county, city, or district in which it is situated in the manner prescribed by law; and the supervisors of each county constitute a board of equalization of the taxable property of the county, and must act upon prescribed rules of notice to its owners. A state board of equalization is also created to equalize the valuation of the taxable property of the several counties, so that equality may be preserved between the tax-payers of the different localities, and its action in this respect must likewise be upon prescribed rules of notice.
The assessment of the franchise, road-way, road-bed, rails, and rolling stock of-railroads operated in more than one county in the state is to be made by this state board. And in making it, the board is not required to give any notice to the owners, nor is any provision made for affording them an opportunity to be heard respecting the valuation of their property. The tenth section of the article which confers this power of assessment has been held by the supreme court of the state to be self-executing, requiring no legislation for its enforcement.
The defendant, as already stated, is a corporation formed under the laws of the state, and operates a railroad through several counties. The entire length of its road in the state is a little over 711 miles, of which twenty-five miles and one-tenth of a mile pass through the county of San Mateo. Its principal place of business is at San Francisco. Its stockholders are, and always have been, citizens of the United States, some of whom are residents of this state, and some of other states.' Previously’ to January !, 188!, it'was indebted to different--citizens of the United States, many of them:residents of this *729state, in large sums, advanced to construct and equip the road; and to secure this indebtedness it executed, prior to that date, a mortgage upon its road, its franchise, and its rolling stock and appurtenances, and also upon a large number of tracts of land situated in different counties. The indebtedness secured exceeds $3,000 a mile of the road, no part of which, except the accruing interest, has been paid; the whole remains a valid and subsisting obligation of the company.
In the fiscal year of 1881 and 1882, the state board of equalization assessed the franchise, road-way, road-bed, rails, and rolling stock of the defendant at $11,739,915,—that is, at the rate of $16,500 per mile,—and apportioned to the county of San Mateo $414,150. Upon the amount thus apportioned the taxes were levied for which the present action is brought. In the assessment no deduction was allowed for the mortgage, but the property was assessed at its entire value independently of the mortgage. Nor was any notice given to the company by the board of its action, nor was any opportunity allowed the company to be heard respecting the assessment. These facts are admitted by the demurrer, and the validity of the defense rests upon the application of the law to them.
The railroad company contends that the taxes are invalid and void on two grounds:
(1) Because the assessment, according to which they were levied, was made in pursuance of the discriminating provisions of the state constitution, in the enforcement of which the company was not allowed any deduction from the valuation of its property for the mortgage thereon, and was thus subjected to an unjust proportion of the public burdens, and denied the equal protection of the laws guarantied by the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution; and (2) because the assessment was made in pursuance of provisions of the state constitution, which gave no notice to the company, and afforded it no opportunity to be heard respecting the value of the property, or for the correction of any errors of the board, thus depriving it of its property without due process of law guarantied by that amendment.
The plaintiff, on the other hand, contends:
(1) That the power of taxation possessed by the state is unlimited, except by the constitution of the United States, and that its exercise cannot be assailed in a federal court, either for the hardship or injustice of the tax levied; (2) that the classification of property for taxation, and the apportionment of taxes according to such classification, are not forbidden by the constitution of the United States, and that within this principle the taxes on the property of the railroad company were lawfully imposed; (3) that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States was adopted to protect the newly-made citizens of the African race in their freedom, and *730should not be extended beyond that purpose; (4) that corporations are not persons within the meaning of that amendment; (5) that the statute fixing the sessions of the state board of equalization, and requiring a statement in writing from the defendant of the amount and value of its property, afforded all the notice and hearing essential to the validity of the assessment made; and (6) that the provisions of article 13 of the constitution, as to the taxation of railroad property, are to be treated as conditions upon the continued existence of railroad corporations.
We do not state the positions of the several counsel who argued the case in their precise language, for they were presented in various forms, but we give their substance and purport.
The questions thus presented for our determination are of the greatest magnitude and importance. The answer to them concerns not merely the railroad corporations of this state, but all corporations other than municipal within the United States. It is of the highest interest to them all to know whether their property is subject to the same rules of assessment and taxation to which the property of individuals is subject, or whether it can be separated and distinguished from that of individuals and made liable to such different burdens in the way of taxation as the state may choose to impose. The questions have been argued with great ability and learning by distinguished counsel on both sides, and they have received from the court the most patient and thoughtful examination. Indeed, their examination has been accompanied with a painful anxiety to reach a right conclusion, aware as the court is of -the opinion prevailing throughout the community that the railroad corporations of the state, by means of their great wealth and the numbers in their employ, have become so powerful as to be disturbing influences in the administration of the laws; an opinion which will be materially strengthened by a decision temporarily relieving any one of them from its just proportion of the public burdens. That consideration, however, cannot be allowed to affect the judgment of the court. Whatever acts may be imputed justly or unjhstly to the corporations, they are entitled when they enter the tribunals of the nation to have the same justice meted out to them which is meted out to the humblest citizen. There cannot be one law for them and another law for others.
It is undoubtedly true that the power of taxation possessed by the state may be exercised upon any subject within her jurisdiction, and to any extent not prohibited by the constitution of the United States. As stated by the supreme court: “It may touch property in every shape,—in its natural condition, in its manufactured form, and in its various transmutations. And the amount of the taxation may be de*731termined by the value of the property, or its use, or its capacity, or its productiveness. It may touch business in the almost infinite forms in which it is conducted,—in professions, in commerce, in manufactures, and in transportation. Unless restrained by provisions of the federal constitution, the power of the state as to the mode, form, and extent of taxation is unlimited where the subjects to which it applies are within her jurisdiction.” State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 319.
It is also undoubtedly true that the hardship and injustice of a tax levied by the state, considered with reference to its amount, are not subjects of federal cognizance. Whether a tax upon property, subject to taxation, be 1 per cent, of its value, or 10 per cent., or 20, or more, is a mere matter of state discretion; a question of policy and not of power. So we often find in the reports language to the effect that the state’s power of taxation is without limitation; language which may be correct when applied to the special facts of the cases in which it is used, but which should always be read with a reservation that the exercise of the power does not confiict with any of the inhibitions of the federal constitution.
There are in the very nature of the federal government, and the powers with which it is clothed, many prohibitions upon the taxing power of the states. Within the sphere of its action that government is supreme, and no impediment to the free and full exercise of its power is permissible. The state cannot, therefore, place any restrictions upon the agencies of the federal government; otherwise it might embarrass and even defeat the operations of that government. It was long ago said by Chief Justice Marshall that the power to tax Involves the power to destroy; and that there would be a manifest repugnance in allowing one government to control the constitutional measures of another government in respect to which the latter is declared to be supreme. When, therefore, congress had created a bank of the United States as an agency in the management of the finances of the government, if was held that the states were inhibited from taxing the institution.
“If the states,” said that great judge, “ may tax one instrument employed by the government in the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument. They may tax the mail; they may tax the mint; they may tax the papers of the custom-house; they may tax judicial process; they may tax all the means employed by the government to an excess which would defeat all the ends of government. This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the states.” McCullough v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 432.
*732For like reasons the public securities of the United States are exempt from taxation by the states, except so far as such taxation is permitted by congress. A tax imposed by the city of Charleston upon all personal estate in its limits, including among other things stock of the United States, was therefore adjudged to be invalid. The court said that the tax was upon a contract between the government . and individuals, and therefore operated directly upon the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States; that if the right to impose- it existed with the states, it was a right which in its nature acknowledged no limits, and might be exercised to an extent which would seriously embarrass the government. Its existence was therefore held inconsistent with the supremacy of the government in the exercise of its granted powers. Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449.
Other illustrations might be given of implied inhibitions of the federal constitution to taxation by the states. The powers of the general government cannot be interfered with, or their exercise embarrassed in any respect, by such taxation; as has often been held with reference to attempted taxation on goods imported, while retaining the character of imports in unbroken packages, and on goods in transit from one state to another. The power to regulate commerce, foreign and interstate, cannot be thus trammeled by state action. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 434; Welton v. State, 100 U. S. 275; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344.
So in regard to the express prohibitions upon the states contained in the federal constitution; they apply equally to taxation and to any other action of the state. They cannot be evaded under the plea that the state possesses the unrestricted power to tax. Where, for example, a state has stipulated for a valid consideration to exempt certain property from taxation, as it has been repeatedly held that it may do, the stipulation cannot subsequently be withdrawn, and the property subjected to taxation. The provision which secures the inviolability of contracts against state legislation stands as a perpetual interdict against the imposition of the charge. It is to no purpose in such case to speak of the power of taxation as an attribute of state sovereignty which cannot be surrendered; that sovereignty, whatever its extent, must be exerted in subordination to the prohibition of the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Many of the attributes of sovereignty which the states would possess if independent political communities, have been in like manner' surrendered to the federal government, such as the power to ’ declare war, to make peace, to enter into treaties of alliance, and to regulate commerce *733with foreign nations. The question in all cases presented to a federal court, where complaint is made of a tax levied by the states, is whether there is any inhibition, express or implied, in the constitution of the United States upon the imposition of the tax. If there be, it is the duty of the court to enforce the inhibition, it matters not whom its decision may affect, nor how great and irresponsible the power of the state may be independently of such prohibition.
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution, in declaring that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, imposes a limitation upon the exercise of all the powers of the state which can touch the individual or his property, including among them that of taxation. Whatever the state may do, it cannot deprive any one within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws. And by equal protection of the laws is meant equal security under them to every one on similar terms,—in his life, his liberty, his property, an’d in the pursuit of happiness. It not only implies the right of each to resort, on the same terms with others, to the courts of the country for the security of his person and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs and the enforcement of contracts, but also his exemption from any greater burdens or charges than such as are equally imposed upon all others under like circumstances.
Unequal exactions in every form, or under any pretense, are absolutely forbidden; and of course unequal taxation, for it is in that form that oppressive burdens are usually laid. It is not possible to conceive of equal protection under any system of laws where arbitrary and unequal taxation is permissible; where different persons may be taxed on their property of the same kind, similarly situated, at different rates; where, for instance, one may be taxed at 1 per cent, on the value of his property, another at 2 or 5 per cent., or where one may be thus taxed according to his color, because he is white, or black, or brown, or yellow, or according to any other rule than that of a fixed rate proportionate to the value of his property.
In the constitution of several states a provision is found requiring “equality and uniformity” in the taxation of property, and this is held to mean that taxes must be levied according to some fixed rate or rule of apportionment, so that all persons shall pay the like amount upon similar kinds of property of the same value. As it seemed to one of the judges of the supreme court of Michigan:
“ To compel individuals to contribute money or property to the use of the public without reference to any common ratio, and without requiring the sum paid by one piece or kind of property, or by one person, to bear any relation *734whatever to that paid by another, is to levy a forced contribution, not a tax, duty, or impost, within the sense of these terms as applied to the exercise of powers by any enlightened or responsible government.” Woodbridge v. City of Detroit, 8 Mich. 301; Burroughs, Taxation, c. 5.
Absolute equality and uniformity may not be attainable in practice, but an approximation to them is possible, and any plain departure from the rule will defeat the tax.
What is called for under a constitutional provision requiring equality and uniformity in the taxation of property must be equally called for by the fourteenth amendment. The forced contribution from one which would follow taxation of his property without reference to a common ratio, would be inconsistent with that equal protection which the amendment requires the state to extend to every person within its jurisdiction.
The application of the amendment to taxation has been recognized by the legislation of congress. Soon after the adoption of the constitutional amendment, abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude, measures were proposed to give practical freedom to the emancipated race, which resulted in the passage of the civil-rights act. This act gave citizenship to persons of that race, and then declared that citizens of the United States of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, should have the same right in every state and territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue,- be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, own, and convey real and personal property, and to the full ' and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and should be subject to like punishments, pains, and penalties, and to none other. After the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, congress re-enacted this act, and to the clause that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States should enjoy the same rights as white citizens, and be subject only to like punishments, pains, and penalties, it added, and subject only to like “taxes, licenses, and exactions of every hind, and to no other.” Kev. St. § 1977.
The adjudications as to the meaning of the rule of equality and uniformity to be observed in taxation, may, therefore, be properly referred to in construing the requirement of the fourteenth amendment, when it is invoked with respect to burdens imposed by taxation. In Lexington v. McQuillan’s Heirs the supreme court of Kentucky said that the legislature of the state had no constitutional authority to exact from one citizen the entire revenue of the common*735wealth; and though the distinction between constitutional taxation and the taking of private property for public use by legislation might not be definable with perfect precision, the court was clearly of tho opinion that whenever the property of a citizen was taken from him by the sovereign will and appropriated without his consent to the benefit of the public, the exaction could not be considered a tax unless similar contributions were made by the public itself, or rather exacted by the same public will from such constituent members of the same community as own the same kind of property; and that, though there may be a discrimination in the subjects of taxation, still persons of the same class, and property of the same kind, must generally be subjected alike to the same common burden. 9 Dana, (Ky.) 513.
In State v. Township of Readington the supreme court of New Jersey said:
“ Taxation operates upon a community, or a class in a community, according to some rule of apportionment. When the amount levied upon individuals is determined without regard to the amount or value exacted from any other individual or classes of individuals, the power exercised is not that of taxation, but of eminent domain. A tax upon the persons or property of A., B., and 0. individually, whether designated by name or in any other way, which is in excess of an equal apportionment among the persons, or property of the class of persons or kind of property subject to tho taxation, is, to tho extent of such excess, the taking of private property for a public use without compensation. The process is one of confiscation, and not of taxation.” 38 N. J. Law, 70.
As the foundation of all just and equal taxation is the assessment of the property taxed,—that is, the ascertainment of its value,—in order that the tax may bo levied according to some ratio to the value, uniformity of taxation necessarily requires uniformity in tho mode of assessment as well as in the rate of taxation; or, to quote the language of tho supreme court of Ohio expressing the same thought: “Uniformity in taxing implies equality in the burden of taxation, and this equality of burden cannot exist without uniformity in the mode of assessment as well as in the rate of taxation.” Exchange Bank of Columbus v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 1.
If we now look at the scheme of taxation prescribed by the constitution of California for the property of railroad companies, we shall perceive a flagrant departure from the rule of equality and uniformity so essential to equality in the distribution of the burdens of government. Whenever an individual holds property incumbered with a mortgage he is assessed at its value, after deducting *736from it the amount of the mortgage. If a railroad company holds property subject to a mortgage, it is assessed at its full value, without any deduction for the mortgage; that is, as though the property were unincumbered. The inequality and discriminating character of the procedure will be apparent by an illustration given by counsel. Suppose a private person owns a farm which is valued at $100,000, and is incumbered with a mortgage amounting to $80,000 : he is, in that case, assessed at $20,000; if the rate of taxation be 2 per cent, he would pay $400 taxes. If a railroad corporation owns an adjoining tract worth $100,000, which is also incumbered by a mortgage for $80,000, it would be assessed for $100,000, and be required to pay $2,000 taxes, or five times as much as the private person. There is here a discrimination too palpable and gross to be questioned, and such is the nature of the discrimination made against the Southern Pacific Railroad Company in the taxation of its property. Nothing can be clearer than that the rule of equality and uniformity is thus entirely disregarded.
The case of People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539, decided by the supreme court, respecting the taxation of shares of the national banks, may be cited in this connection. Without the permission of congress, the shares of these banks could not be taxed by the states. Congress gave the permission on condition that the taxation should not be at a greater rate than is assessed on other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of the state, and that the shares owned by non-residents of the state should be taxed at the place where the bank is located. Rev. St. § 5219. In the case cited the court held, with regard to such taxation:
(1) That the prohibition imposed by congress against discrimination had reference to the entire process of assessment, and included the valuation of the shares as well as the rate of percentage charged; (2) that a statute of New York which established a mode of assessment by which such shares were valued higher in proportion to their real value than other moneyed capital, was in conflict with the prohibition, although the same percentage on such valuation was levied; and (3) that a statute which permitted a party to deduct his debts from the valuation of his personal property, except so much as consisted of those shares, taxed the shares at a greater rate than other moneyed capital.
The assessment thus held to be a discrimination against the shares of national banks in the taxation system of New York is similar to what we hold to be a discrimination against the property of railroad corporations in the taxation system of California.
*737In the case of the Evansville Bank v. Britton, decided at the last term of the supreme court, the doctrine of the Weaver Case was affirmed, and it was held that the taxation of shares in the national banks, under the revenue laws of Indiana, without permitting the shareholder to deduct from their assessed value the amount of his bona fide indebtedness, which was allowed in the case of other investments of moneyed capital, was a discrimination against the act of congress and illegal. 105 U. S. 322.
It is no answer to this discrimination to say that property in the state may be divided into classes, and different rates prescribed for them. Undoubtedly property may be classified for purposes of taxation. Real property may be subjected to one rate of taxation; personal property to another rate. Property in particular districts may be taxed for local purposes, while property elsewhere may be exempt. Taxation on business in the form of licenses may also vary according to the calling or occupation licensed, and the extent of business transacted, but even then there must be uniformity of charges with respect to the same calling or occupation in the same locality. It is, however, only with the taxation of property that we are concerned in this case, and the whole object of classifying property is that each class maybe subjected to a special rate of taxation. There is no difference in the rate prescribed by the law of the state for the property of railroad corporations, and the rate prescribed for the property of individuals. There is only one rate for all property. There is, therefore, no case presented for the application of the doctrine of classification. The discrimination complained of arises from the different rule adopted in ascertaining the value of the property of railroad corporations as a basis for taxation, not from any different rate of taxation when the value is established. In all_ taxes upon property, whatever its form or nature, the property is taken as representing a pecuniary value; as standing for so much money invested. The tax is the rate per centum of this pecuniary value. The value being ascertained, the law fixes the rate. The ground of complaint here is that the law requires a higher value to be placed upon the defendant’s property than upon the property of individuals similarly incumbered, or rather requires the assessor of the defendant’s property, in estimating its value, to disregard and set aside certain elements materially affecting its amount, which are to be considered in estimating the value of the property of individuals. It is not classifying property to make this distinction in determining its value. It *738is not classifying property to provide that the property of certain parties, which has a mortgage upon it, shall be assessed at its value after deducting the mortgage; and that the property of other parties, also having a mortgage upon it, shall be taxed at its full value without any deduction. That is not providing for a different rate of taxation for different kinds of property, but for unequal taxation according to the character of the owner.
Is the defendant, being a corporation, a person within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, so as to be entitled, with respect to its property, to the equal protection of the laws ? The learned counsel of the plaintiff, and the attorney general of the state, take the negative of this question, and assert with much earnestness that the amendment applies, and was intended to apply, only to the newly-made citizens of the African race, and should be limited to their protection.
It is undoubtedly true that the amendment had its origin in a purpose to secure to these newly-made citizens the full enjoyment of their freedom. When the amendment abolishing slavery and involitary servitude was adopted, there were men in congress who believed that it was intended to make every one born within the United States a freeman, and as such to give to him the right to pursue his happiness, in the ordinary vocations of life, subject to no restraint except such as affects others, and to enjoy equally with them the fruits of his labor. They therefore proposed the civil-rights bill, and secured its passage, the substantial provisions of which we have stated. Notwithstanding this expression of the national legislature as to the purpose of the amendment, the newly-made citizens were subjected in several of the states to various disabilities and burdens, and curtailed of their rights to such an extent that their freedom became of little value. To quote from the opinion of Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the court, in the Slaughter-house Cases:
“They were iu some states forbidden to appear in the towns in any other character than as menial servants. They were required to reside on and cultivate the ,soil without the right to purchase or own it. They were excluded from many occupations of gain and hire, and were nob permitted to give testimony in the courts in any case where a white man was a party. It was said that their lives were at the mercy of bad men, either because the laws for their protection were inefficient, or were not enforced.” 16 Wall. 70.
There was probably much exaggeration in what was reported of their treatment, but the statements made produced a profound impression upon congress. The validity of the civil-rights act was also *739called in question, and in some instances was adjudged by state courts to be invalid. Reports also prevailed that loyal men of the south wore treated with exceptional harshness, and that men from the north seeking residence there were met with marked hostility and aversion. It is not surprising that such was the fact, for notwithstanding the fiery courage and martial spirit of her people, their battalions had gone down before the forces of the Union. With the sound of the tread of the victorious army still ringing in their ears; with the desolations of war all around them, and the sudden rupture of their social relations by the emancipation of their former slaves,— it would have been a miracle if bitterness towards their recent foes had not lingered in their hearts and been exhibited in their conduct. A proud and brave people feel more keenly than others the sting of defeat. Undoubtedly much misconception and falsehood were mingled with the statements made respecting their action; nevertheless they led to the introduction into congress of the proposition for the fourteenth amendment. The discussion which followed, indicated that the purpose of its framers and advocates was to obviate objections to legislation similar to that contained in the first section of the civil-rights act, and to prevent for the future the possibility of any discriminating and hostile state legislation against any one.
Mr. Stevens, of the house of representatives, in presenting the proposition, after stating the provisions of the first section, said:
“ I can hardly believe that any person can be found who will not admit that every one of these provisions is just. They are all asserted in some form or other in our declaration or organic law. But the constitution limits only the action of congress, and is not a limitation on the states. This amendment supplies that defect, and allows congress to correct the unjust legislation of the states so far that the law which operates upon one man shall operate equally upon all.”
In reply do an objection that the first section of the amendment was in substance the civil-rights bill, which congress had passed over the president’s veto, and that by voting to so amend the constitution as to put the bill Into it was to admit that the bill was unconstitutional, Mr. Garfield, then also a member of the house, said:
“We propose to lift that great and good law above the reach of political strife, beyond the reach of plots and machinations of any party, and fix it in the serene sky, in the eternal firmament of the constitution, where no storm of passion can shake it and no cloud can obscure it. For this reason, and not because I believe the civil-rights bill unconstitutional, I am glad to see that first section here.’1'
*740Though the occasion of the amendment was the supposed denial of rights in some states to newly-made citizens of the- African race, and' the supposed hostility to Union men, the generality of the language used extends the protection of its provisions to persons of every race and condition against discriminating and hostile state action of any kind. Its effect, in preserving free institutions, and preventing harsh and oppressive state legislation, can hardly be overstated. When burdens are placed upon particular classes or individuals, while the majority of the people are exempted, little heed may be paid to the complaints of those affected. Oppression thus becomes possible, and lasting. But a burdensome law operating equally upon all will soon create a movement for its repeal. With the amendment enforced, h bad or an oppressive ■ state law will not long be left on any statute book.
The argument that a limitation must be given to. the scope of this amendment because of the circumstances of its origin is without force. Its authors, seeing how possible it was for the states to oppress without relief from the federal government, placed in the constitution an interdict upon their action which makes lasting oppression of any kind by them under the form of law impossible.
The amendment prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, had its origin in the previous existence of African slavery. But the generality of its language makes its prohibition apply to slavery of white" men as well as that of black men; and also to serfage, vassalage, villenage, peonage, and every other form of compulsory labor- to minister to the pleasure, caprice, vanity, or power of others.
The provision of the constitution prohibiting legislation by states impairing the obligation of contracts had its origin in the existence of tender laws, appraisement laws, stay laws, and installment laws passed by the states soon after the revolution, when their finances were embarrassed and their people were overwhelmed with debts. These laws, according to Story, prostrated all private credit and all private morals, and led to the adoption of the prohibition, by which such legislation was forever prevented. But in its construction the provision has not been limited to mere commercial contracts. In the Dartmouth College Case it -was urged that the charter of the college was not a contract contemplated by the constitution, because no valuable' consideration passed to the king as an equivalent for the grant, and that contracts merely voluntary were not *741within the prohibition. But Chief Justice Marshal], after showing that the charter was a contract upon a valuable consideration, said:
“ It is more than possible that the preservation of rights of this description was not particularly in view of the framers of the constitution when the clause under consideration was introduced into that instrument. It is probable that interferences of more frequent recurrence, to which the temptation was stronger and of which the mischief was more extensive, constituted the great motive for imposing this restriction on the state legislatures. But although a particular and a rare case may not in itself be of sufficient magnitude to induce a rule, yet it must be governed by the rule when established, unless some plain and strong reason for excluding it can be given.” And again: “The case being within the words of the rule, must he within its operation likewise, unless there be something in the literal construction so obviously absurd or mischievous, or repugnant to the general spirit of the instrument, as to justify those who expound the constitution in making it an exception.” 4 Wheat. 644.
Following that authority, we cannot adopt the narrow view for which counsel contend, and limit the application of the prohibition of the fourteenth amendment to legislation touching members of the enfranchised race. It has a much broader operation. It does not, indeed, place any limit upon the subjects in reference to which the states may legislate. It does not interfere with their police power. Upon every matter upon which previously to its adoption they could act, they may still act. They can legislate now, as they always could, to promote the health, good order, and peace of the community; to develop their resources, increase their industries, and advance their prosperity; hut it does require that in all such legislation hostile and partial discrimination against any class or person shall be avoided; that the state shall impose no greater burdens upon any one than upon others of the community under like circumstances, nor deprive any one of rights which others similarly situated are allowed to enjoy. It forbids the state to lay its hand more heavily upon one than upon another, under like conditions. It stands in the constitution as a perpetual shield against all unequal and partial legislation by the states, and the injustice which follows from it, whether directed against the most humble or the most powerful; against the despised laborer from China, or the envied master of millions.
The adoption of the federal constitution met, as all know, with most determined opposition from a large class who believed that the exercise of the powers delegated to the general government would erippie and embarrass the states in the administration of their local *742affairs. The dread of centralization disturbed the minds of some of the purest and greatest statesmen of the day. This feeling continued after the adoption of the constitution, and finally led to the first 10 amendments. The population of the country was sparse; each state afforded security to its people, and was to them the special object of attachment. They enjoyed under its laws protection in their property, in their homes, and in their business. They felt a natural distrust of a power wielded by officers not selected by themselves. They apprehended that the rights which they enjoyed might be encroached upon, if not destroyed. So the amendments proposed. contained limitations upon the powers of congress, many of which were, indeed, unnecéssary, but were adopted in order to prevent “misconception or abuse of the powers of the general government.” They declared, among other things, that certain liberties should not be abridged, such as the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech and of the press; that certain rights should not be taken away, such as the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition for a redress of grievances, and to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; that certain securities against wanton prosecution for public offenses should not be withdrawn, such as that no person should be held to' answer for a felony except upon the presentment or an indictment of a grand jury; that in all prosecutions the accused should have the benefit of a speedy trial; should be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; should be confronted with the witnesses against him; should 'have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, and the assistance of counsel; that certain guaranties against oppression of person and spoliation of property should not be violated, such as afford protection against the deiDrivation of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, and the taking of private property by the public without compensation; that the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and that the powers not delegated to tlie United States <by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, were reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. These were all restraints upon the general government. Had the population of the United States continued as sparse as when the constitution was formed, ancl the means of more rapid intercourse between the states had not been invented, it is possible that further amendments to the constitution would not have been demanded. But the imménse development of the resources of the country, the *743great increase of population, the constant intercourse between the stales by steamer, railway, and telegraph, ¿hanged the business and commercial relations of the states to each other, and led the people of one section to seek a closer union, and to desire a greater authority to be exercised by the central government, while the peculiar institutions of the other section, and the different industries they developed, led its people to desire to limit, rather than to strengthen,, the central authority. Differences of opinion in matters of internal policy, and the estrangement engendered by controversies growing out of the existence of slavery in some of the states, ultimately culminated in civil war. Men then saw that danger was to be apprehended in a direction opposite to that which led to the original amendments. Eestraints upon the power and action of the states were therefore suggested, and to impose them and to abolish slavery, the great cause of the civil conflict, the new amendments—the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth—were adopted.
“While, therefore,” to quote the language of an admirable writer and eminent jurist, Judge Cooley, “ the first amendments were for the purpose of keeping the central power within duo limits, at a time when the tendency to centralization was alarming to many persons, the last were adopted, to impose new restraints on state sovereignty, at a time when state powers had nearly succeeded in destroying the national sovereignty. Of these amendments it may be safely affirmed that the first ten took from the Union no power it ought ever to have exercised, and that the last three required of the states the surrender of no power which any free government should ever employ.”
It would tend, therefore, to defeat the great purposes of the late amendments, if to any of them we should give the narrow construction for which counsel contend.
Private corporations are, it is true, artificial persons, but with the exception of a sole corporation, with which we are not concerned, they consist of aggregations of individuals united for some legitimate business. In this state they are formed under general laws; and the Civil Code provides that they “may be formed for any purpose for which individuals may lawfully associate themselves.” Any five or more persons may by voluntary association form themselves into a corporation. And, as a matter of fact, nearly all enterprises in this state, requiring for their execution an expenditure of large capital, are undertaken by corporations. They engage in commerce; they build and sail ships; they cover our navigable streams with steamers; they construct houses; they bring the products of earth and sea to market; they light our streets and buildings; they *744open and work mines; they carry water into our cities; they build railroads, and cross mountains and deserts with them; they erect churches, colleges, lyceums, and theaters; they set up manufactories, and keep the spindle and shuttle in motion; they establish banks for savings; they insure against accidents on land and sea; they give policies on life; they make money exchanges with all parts of the world; they publish newspapers and books, and send news by lightning across the continent and under the ocean. Indeed, there is nothing which is lawful to be done to feed and clothe our people, to beautify and adorn their dwellings, to relieve the sick, to help the needy, and to enrich and ennoble humanity, which is not to a great extent done through the instrumentalities of corporations. There are over 500 corporations in this state; there are 30,000 in the United States, and the aggregate value of their property is several thousand millions.* It would be a most singular result if a constitutional provision intended for the protection of every person against partial and discriminating legislation by the states, should cease to exert such protection the moment the person becomes a member of a corporation. We cannot accept such a conclusion. On the contrary, we think that it is well established by numerous adjudications of the supreme court of the United States and of the several states, that whenever a provision of the constitution, or of a law, guaranties to persons the enjoyment of property, or affords to them means for its protection, or prohibits legislation injuriously affecting it, the benefits of the provision extend to corporations, and that the courts will always look beyond the name of the artificial being to the individuals whom it represents.
The ease of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464, furnishes an apt illustration of this doctrine. The sixth article of the treaty of peace with Great Britain of 1783 provided that there should be “no future confiscations made, nor any prosecutions commenced, against any person or persons for or by reason of the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property.” An English corporation claimed the benefit of this article with reference to certain lands in Vermont granted to it before the revolution, which the legislature of that state had undertaken to give to the *745town whore they were situated. It was contended that the treaty only applied to natural persons; that it did not embrace corporations, because they were not persons who could take part in the war, or could be considered British subjects; but the position was held to be untenable. The court, speaking through Mr. Justice Washington, said that the argument proceeded upon an incorrect view of the subject, and referred to the case of U. S. v. Devaux, 5 Cranch, 86, to show that the court, when necessary, will look beyond the name of a corporation to reach and protect those whom it represents.
The constitution, in defining the judicial power of the United States, declares that it shall extend to “controversies between citizens of different states;” and in the case referred to by Mr. Justice Washington the question arose whether a corporation composed of citizens of one state could sue in the circuit court of the United States a citizen of another state, and it was held that it could. In deciding the question, the court, speaking through Chief Justice Marshall, said:
“ However true the fact may be that the tribunals of the state will administer justice as impartially as those of the nation to parties of every description, it is not less true that the constitution itself either entertains apprehension on this subject, or views with such indulgence the possible fears and apprehensions of suitors, that it has established national tribunals for the decision of controversies between aliens and citizens, or between citizens of different states. Aliens or citizens of different states are not less susceptible of these apprehensions, nor can they be supposed to be less the objects of constitutional provision because they were allowed to sue by a corporate name. That name, indeed, cannot be an alien or a citizen, but the persons whom it represents may be the one or the other, and the controversy is, in fact and in law, between those persons suing in their corporate character, by their corporate names, for a corporate right, and the individual against Whom the suit may be instituted. Substantially and essentially the parties in such a case, where the members of the corporation are aliens or citizens of a different state from the opposite party, come within the spirit and terms of the jurisdiction conferred by the constitution on the national tribunals. Such has been the universal understanding on the subject., Bepeatedly has this court decided causes between a corporation and an individual without feeling a doubt respecting its jurisdiction.”
Tlie same point was presented in another form in the case of Marshall v. Baltimore O. R. Co. 16 How. 326. There the question was whether a citizen of* one state could sue in the circuit court of the United States a corporation of another state, and a similar conclusion was reached. After referring to the clause of the constitution extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies,/be*746tween citizens of different states, the court proceeded to consider the objections urged to treating a corporation as a citizen, so far as it might be necessary to protect the corporators:
“A corporation,” observed Mr. Justice Grier, speaking for the court, “it is said, is an artificial person, a mere legal entity, invisible and intangible. This is no doubt metaphysically true in a certain sense. The inference, alsp, that such an artificial entity ‘cannot be a citizen’ is a logical conclusion from the premises, which cannot be denied. But a citizen who has made a contract, and has a controversy with a corporation, may also say, with equal truth, that he did not deal with a mere metaphysical abstraction, but with natural persons; that his writ has not been served on an imaginary entity, but on men and citizens; and that his contract was made with them as the legal representatives of numerous unknown associates, or secret and dormant partners.
“The necessities and conveniences of trade and business require that such numerous associates and stockholders should act by representation, and have the faculty of contracting, suing, and being sued in a ficititious or collective name. But these important faculties, conferred on them by state legislation, for their own convenience, cannot be wielded to deprive others of acknowledged rights. It is not reasonable that those who deal with such persons should be.deprived of a valuable privilege by a syllogism, or rather sophism, which deals subtly with words and names, without regard to the things or persons they are used to represent.”
The fifth amendment to the constitution declares that—
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
From the nature of the prohibitions in this amendment it would .seem, with the exception of the last one, as though theymould apply only to natural persons. No others can he witnesses; no others can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, or compelled to b'e witnesses against themselves; and therefore it might be said with much force that the word “person,” there used in connection with the prohibition against the deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, is in like manner limited to a natural person. But such has not been the construction of the courts. A similar provision is found in nearly all of the state constitutions; and everywhere, and at all times, and in all courts, it has been held, either by tacit assent or express adjudication, to extend, so far as their property is con*747cerned, to corporations. And this has been because the property of a corporation is in fact the property of the corporators. To deprive the corporation of its property, or to burden it, is, in fact, to deprive the corporators of their property or to lessen its value. Their interest, undivided though it be, and constituting only a right during the continuance of the corporation to participate in its dividends, and on its dissolution to receive a proportionate share of its assets, has an appreciable value, and is property in a commercial sense, and whatever affects the property of the corporation necessarily affects the commercial value of their interests. If, for example, to take the illustration given by counsel, a "corporation created for banking purposes acquires land, notes, stocks, bonds, and money, no stockholder can claim that he owns any particular item of this property, but he owns an interest in the whole of it which the courts will protect against unlawful seizure or appropriation by others, and on the dissolution of the company he will receive a proportionate share of its assets. Now, if a statute of the state takes the entire property, who suffers loss by the legislation? Whose property is taken? Certainly, the corporation is deprived of its property; but at the same time, in every just sense of the constitutional guaranty, corporations are also deprived of their property.
The prohibition against the deprivation of life and liberty in the same clause of the fifth amendment does not apply to corporations, because, as stated by counsel, the lives and liberties of the individual corporators are not the life and liberty of the corporation.
Nor do all the privileges and immunities of citizenship attach to corporations. These bodies have never been considered citizens for any other purpose than the protection of the property rights of the corporators. The status of citizenship, entitling the citizen to certain privileges and immunities in the several states, does not belong to corporations. The special privileges which citizens acquire by becoming incorporated in one state cannot, therefore, bo exercised in another state without the latter’s consent, as was held in Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, although such consent will generally be presumed in the absence of positive prohibition.
Decisions of state courts, in harmony with the views we have expressed, exist in great numbers. "But it is unnecessary to cite them. It is sufficient to add that in all text writers, in all codes, and in all revised statutes, it is laid down that the term “person” includes, or may include, corporations; which amounts to what we have already said, that whenever it is necessary for the protection of contract or prop*748erty rights, the courts will look through the ideal entity and name of the corporation to the persons who compose it, and protect them, though the process be in its name. All the guaranties and safeguards of the constitution for the protection of property possessed by individuals may, therefore, be invoked for the protection 'of the property of corporations. And as no discriminating and partial legislation, imposing unequal burdens upon the property of individuals, would be valid under the fourteenth amendment, so no 'legislation imposing such unequal burdens upon the property of corporations can be maintained. The taxation, therefore, of the property of the defendant upon an assessment of its value, without a deduction of the mortgage thereon, is to that extent invalid.
If there were no other objection to the assessment we might, perhaps, order judgment for the amount of taxes due upon the valuation of the property, after deducting therefrom the amount of the mortgage; but there is another objection, of equal significance, which goes to the validity of the whole assessment. No opportunity was afforded to the defendant to be heard respecting it before the state board of equalization. It was made by the board under the tenth section of article 13 of the constitution, which declares that “the franchise, road-way, road-bed, rails, and rolling stock of all railroads operated in more than one county in this state shall be assessed by the state board of equalization at their actual value, and the same shall be apportioned to the counties, cities and counties, cities, towns, townships, and districts in which such railroads are located, in proportion to the number of miles of railway laid in such counties, cities and counties, towns, townships, and districts.”
Other articles of the constitution, and laws supplementing. their directions, provide for the assessment by county officers of all property except “the franchise, road-way, road-bed, rails, and rolling stock” of railroads operated in more than one county, for a hearing by property holders respecting the assessment, and for its equalization by county boards. Ample security is thus afforded to individuals against erroneous and arbitrary assessments. But the assessment of the property mentioned, of railroads operated in more than one county, is placed entirely with the state board.
In People v. Sup’rs of Sacramento County the supreme court of the state said that—
“It is the manifest intent of the constitution that the valuation of the railroad property mentioned in section 10 of article 13 shall be finally fixed and determined by the state board of equalization. The state board has the *749exclusive power to assess and equalize its value. Thus the constitution furnishes a system for the assessment of railroads operated in more than one county, which is separate and distinct from that provided for the assessment of other property.” And again: “The portion of the section quoted (the portion above) is clearly self-executing. Wo are at a loss to imagine how any statute could make the duty of the state hoard any clearer than does this distinct and positive mandate of the constitution. If any doubt could possibly be built upon the words cited it would be dispelled by the first clause of the same section: ‘All property, except as hereinafter in this section provided, shall be assessed in the county, city, city and county, town, township, or district in which it is situated, in the manner prescribed by law.’ Thus by the very language of the constitution all other but the railroad property mentioned must he assessed by local assessors, in the manner prescribed by statute. The railroad property must he assessed in the manner prescribed by the section of the constitution, that is, by the state board, without the aid of statute.” 8 Pac. Law .1. 103.
The Political Code provides that the assessment shall be made by the state board on or before the first Monday in May of each year; that the president, secretary, cashier, or managing agent, or such officer of the corporation as the board may designate, shall furnish to the board, on or before the first Monday of April of the year, a statement, signed and sworn to by him, showing in detail the whole number of miles of railway owned, operated, or leased in the state by the corporation, and the value thereof per mile, and all its property of every kind located in the state, the number and value of its engines, passenger, mail, express, baggage,'freight, and other cars, or property used in operating or repairing the railway in the state, and on railways which are parts of lines extending beyond its limits, the amount of the rolling stock in use during the year, the annual gross earnings of the entire railway, and the proportionate annual gross earnings of the same in the state, and such other facts as the hoard may in writing require; and that if the officer or officers designated fail to make and furnish such statement, the board sbii.ll proceed to assess the property; and the valuation fixed shall be final and conclusive. The law also provides that the property shall be assessed at its aetuul value; that the assessment shall be made of the entire railway in the state, including the right of way, road-bed, track, bridges, culverts, and rolling stock; that the state board shall transmit to the county assessor of each county through which the railway runs, a statement showing the length of its main track within the county, and its assessed value per mile, as fixed by a pro rata distribution per mile of the assessed value of the whole property; *750that this statement shall be entered on the assessment roll of the county, and that at their first meeting after its receipt by the county assessor the board of supervisors of the county shall cause an order to be entered in the proper record book stating the length of the main track and the assessed value of the railway lying in each city, town, township, school-district, or lesser taxing district in the county through which the railway runs, as fixed by the state board, which shall constitute the taxable value of the property for taxable purposes in the district, and that such property shall be taxed at the same rates as the property of individuals.
We have no, doubt that further legislation might have been adopted providing for notice to the company, and a system of procedure by which it might have been heard respecting the assessment. We do not understand that the supreme court of the state intended by the decision cited to hold that the tenth section of the thirteenth article is self-executing, except to the extent that it vests complete power in the state board to make the assessment of the property; not that legislation may not be had providing for the mode in which the powers of the board shall be exercised. Indeed, the concluding section of the article authorizes any legislation necessary to give effect to its provisions. Unfortunately, no such legislation has been had. The attempted legislation failed, because it did not receive in the legislature the constitutional majority, as is clearly shown by the circuit judge in his opinion.' It is unnecessary to go over the ground he has completely covered.
The presentation to the state board by the corporation of a statement of its property and of its value, which it is required to furnish, is not the equivalent to a notice of the assessment made and of an opportunity to be heard thereon. It is a preliminary proceeding, and until the assessment the corporation cannot know whether it will have good cause of complaint. No hearing upon the statement presented is allowed, and when the assessment is made the matter is closed; no opportunity tó correct any errors committed is provided. The presentation of the statement can no more supersede the necessity of allowing a subsequent hearing of the owners, than the filing of a complaint in court can dispense with the right of the suitor and his contestant to be there heard.
There being, then, no provision of law giving to the company notice of the action of the state board, and an opportunity to be heard respecting it, is the assessment valid? Would the taking of the com*751pany’s property in the enforcement of the tax levied according to the assessment he depriving it of its property without due process of law ? It seems to us there can be but one answer to these questions. There is something repugnant to all notions of justice in the doctrine that any body of men can be clothed with the power of finally determining the value of another’s property, according to which it may be taxed, without affording to him an opportunity of being heard respecting the correctness of their action. And the injustice is strikingly apparent when the property consists of the great number of particulars' which go to make up the taxable estate of a railroad company, requiring for any just estimate of their value accurate knowledge upon a multitude of subjects, not usually possessed without special study. We cannot assent to any such doctrine. It conflicts with the great principle which lies at the foundation of all just government, that no one shall be deprived of his life, his liberty, or his property without an opportunity of being heard against the proceeding. The principle is as old as Magna Charta, and is embodied in all the state constitutions, and in the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution. .The provision in this amendment is in the form of an interdict upon the states—“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” And by due process is meant one which, following the forms of law, is appropriate to the case, and just to the parties to be affected. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by the law; it must be adapted to the end to be attained; and it must give to the party to bo affected an opportunity of being heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought. Without these conditions entering into the proceeding, it would be anything but due process.’ If it touched life or liberty, it would be wanton punishment, or rather wanton cruelty; if it touched property, it would be arbitrary exaction. It is significant that the guaranty against the deprivation of property without due process of law is contained in the clause which guaranties against a like deprivation of life and liberty; and it means that there shall be no proceeding against either without the observance of all the securities applicable to the case recognized by the general law, by those principles which are established in all constitutional governments for the protection of private rights. Notice is absolutely essen* tial to the validity of the proceeding in any case; it may be given by personal citation, and in some cases it may be given by statute; but given it must be in some form. If life and liberty are involved, there *752must be a- regular course of judicial proceedings; so, also, where title of possession of property is in contention. But in the taking of property by taxation the proceeding is more summary and stringent. The necessities of revenue for the support of government will not admit of the delays attendant upon judicial proceedings in the courts of justice. The statute fixes the rate of taxation upon the value of the property, and appoints officers to estimate and appraise the value. Due process of law in the proceeding is deemed to be pursued, when, after- the assessment is made by the assessing officers upon such information as they may obtain, the owner is allowed a reasonable opportunity, at a time and place to be designated, to be heard respecting the correctness of the assessment, and to show any errors in the valuation committed by the officers. Notice to him will be deemed sufficient, if the time and place of hearing be designated by statute. But whatever the character of the proceeding, whether judicial or administrative, summary or protracted, and whether it takes property directly, or creates a charge or liability which may be the basis of taking it, the law directing the proceeding must provide for some kind of notice, and offer to the owner an opportunity to be heard, or the proceeding will want the essential ingredient of due process of law. Nothing is- more clearly established by a weight of authority absolutely overwhelming than that notice and,opportunity to be heard are indispensable to the validity of the proceeding.
In Davidson v. New Orleans the supreme court of the United States assumed this position to -be unquestionable. In that case an assessment levied on certain real estate in New Orleans for draining the swamps of that city was resisted on the ground that the proceeding deprived the owners of their property without'due process of law; and the court refused to disturb it for the reason that the owners of the property had notice of the assessment and an opportunity to contest it in the courts. After stating that much misapprehension prevailed as to the meaning of the terms “due process of law, ” and that it would be difficult to give a definition which would be at once perspicuous, comprehensive, and satisfactory, the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Miller, said that it would lay down the following proposition as applicable to the case:
“Tliat whenever by the laws of a state, or by state authority, a tax, assessment, servitude, or other burden is imposed upon property for the public use, whether it be for the whole statd or of some more limited portion of the community, and those laws provide for a mode of confirming or contesting the charge *753thus imposed, in the ordinary course of justice, with notice to the person, or such proceeding in regal'd to the property as is appropriate to the nature of the case, the judgment in such proceedings cannot be said to deprive the owner of his property without due process of law, however obnoxious it may be to other objections.” 96 U. S. 104.
In Stuart v. Palmer the meaning of these terms is elaborately con sidered by the court of appeals of New York with reference to numerous adjudications on the subject. In that ease a law of the state imposed an assessment on certain real property for a local ’improvement without notice to the owner, and a hearing oran opportunity to be heard by him, and the court held that it had the effect of depriving him of his property without due process of law, and was therefore unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Earl, speaking for the court, said:
“ I am of the opinion that the constitution sanctions no law imposing such an assessment without a notice to, and a hearing, or an opportunity of hearing, by the owners of the property to be assessed. It is not enough that the owners may by chance have notice, or that they may, as a matter of favor, have a hearing. The law must require notice to them, and give them the right to a hearing, and an opportunity to be heard. It matters not, upon the question of the constitutionality of such a law, that the assessment has in fact been fairly apportioned. The constitutional validity of a law is to be tested, not by what has been done under it, but what may, by its authority, be done. The legislature may prescribe the kind of notice, and the mode in which it shall be given, but it cannot dispense with all notice.” And, again, that “no case, it is believed, can be found in which it was decided that this constitutional guaranty [against depriving one of his property without due process of law] did not extend to eases of assessments; and yet we may infer, from cortain dieta of judges, that their attention was not called to it, or that they lost sight of it in the cases which they were considering. It has sometimes been intimated that a citizen is not deprived of his property, within the meaning of this constitutional provision, by the imposition of an assessment. It might as well be said that he is not deprived of his property by a judgment entered against him. A judgment does not take property until it is enforced, and then it takes the real or personal property of the debtor. So an assessment may generally be enforced, not only against the real estate upon which it is a lien, but, as in this case, against the personal property of the owner also; and by it he may just as much be deprived of his property, and in the same sense, as the judgment debtor is deprived of his by the judgment.” 74 N. Y. 188,195.
Wo concur fully in the views thus forcibly expressed.
It remains to consider the last position of counsel, that the pro visions of article 13 of the constitution of the state, as to the taxa *754tion of railroad property, are to be treated as conditions upon the continued existence of railroad corporations. On the hearing, this position seemed to us to possess some force, but on careful consideration its supposed force is dissipated. The argument is that on the original creation of the corporation the state might have imposed any conditions whatever as to the manner and the amount in which its property should be taxed; that under the reserved power of amendment of the law creating the corporation, the state could at any time afterwards impose such a condition; that the new constitution, in continuing the defendant and other railroad corporations' in existence, and at the same time authorizing the taxation of their property upon a valuation different from that at which the property of individuals is assessed, imposed that condition upon them, and that the subsequent exercise of its franchises by the defendant implies an assent to such condition.
There are two answers to this argument. In the first place, article 13 is not intended to make any change in the powers or rights of cor- - porations under the laws of the state. It treats entirely of revenue and taxation, and of the rules which shall govern the assessment of the property of individuals, and of railroad and other quasi public corporations. It is in another article that provisions are made for the control of railroad corporations; and the duties and responsibilities of corporations generally, and the power of the state over them, are declared.
In the second place, the state, in the creation of corporations, or in amending their charters, or rather in passing .or amending general laws under which corporations may be formed and altered, possesses no power to withdraw them when created, or by amendment, from the guaranties of the federal constitution. It canhot impose the condition that they shall not resort to the courts of law for the redress of injuries or the protection of its property; that they shall make no complaint if their goods are plundered and their premises invaded ; that they shall ask no indemnity if their lands be seized for public use, or'be taken without due process of law, or that they shall submit without objection to unequal and oppressive burdens arbitrarily imposed upon them; that, in other words, over them and their property * the state may exercise unlimited and irresponsible power. Whatever - the state may do, even with the creations of its own will, it must do in subordination to the inhibitions of the federal constitution. It may confer, by its general laws, upon corporations certain capacities of *755doing business, and of having perpetual succession in their members, It may make its grant in these respects revocable at pleasure; it may make the grant subject to modifications and impose conditions upon its use, and reserve the right to change these at will. But whatever property the corporations acquire in the exercise of the capac - ities conferred, they hold under the same guaranties which protect the property of individuals from spoliation. It cannot be taken for public use without compensation. It cannot be taken without due process of law, nor can it be subjected to burdens different from those laid upon the property of individuals under like circumstances.
The state grants to railroad corporations formed under its laws a franchise, and over it retains control, and may withdraw or modify it. By the reservation clause it retains power only over that which it grants; it does not grant the rails on the road; it does not grant the depots along-side of it; it does not grant the cars on the track, nor the engines which move them, and over them it can exercise no power except such as maybe exercised through its control over the franchise, and such as may be exercised with reference to all property used by carriers for the public. The reservation of power over the franchise,—that is, over that which is granted,—makes its grant a conditional or revocable contract, whose obligation is not impaired by its revocation or change. The supreme court established, in the Dartmouth College Case, that the charter of a private corporation is a contract between the corporators and the state, and that it was, therefore, within the prohibition of the federal constitution against the impairment of contracts. To avoid this result the states have generally inserted clauses in their constitutions reserving a right to repeal, alter, or amend charters granted by their legislatures, or to repeal, alter, or amend the general laws under which corporations are allowed to be formed. The reservation relates only to the contract of incorporation, which, without such reservation, would be irrepealable. It removes the impediment to legislation touching the contract. It places the corporation in the same position it would have occupied had the supreme court held that charters are not contracts, and that laws repealing or altering them did not impair the obligation of contracts. The property of the corporation, acquired in the exercise of its faculties, is held independently of sued reserved power, and the state can only exercise over it the control which it exercises over the property of individuals engaged in similar business.
The case of Detroit v. Detroit & Howell Plank-road Co., in the *756supreme \ court of Michigan, is in point on both of the propositions stated. An act of the legislature of the state, amending the charter of the company, required it to remove without the limits of the city of Detroit a toll-gate on its road, then within the limits. The effect of the act was to take from the company about two and a half miles of its road, upon which it collected'tolls. The act under which the company was incorporated reserved a power in the legislature to repeal and amend it at any time, and the question was whether, under this reservation, the legislature could require the removal of the toll-gate out of the city; and it was held that it could not. Ordinarily a law requiring the removal of a toll-gate from one place to another on a road would be a mere police regulation, but here it was something more; it deprived the company of compensation for the use of its road within the city limits; that is, for a large part of the travel over it. The court, speaking through Mr. Justice Cooley, observed that there were cases in which amendments to charters having some resemblance to this had been sustained, and cited several which involved a mere police regulation, such as requiring a railroad company to build a station-house and stop its trains at a certain locality; to permit and provide for the crossing of its track; and to unite with others in a common passenger station for trains entering a city.
“ But [the court added] there is no well-considered ease in which it has been held that a legislature, under its power to amend a charter, might take from a corporation any of its substantial property or property rights. In some cases the power has been denied, where the interest involved seemed insignificant. The ease of Albany, etc., R. Co. v. Brownell, 24 N. Y. 345, is an illustration. It was there decided that although the legislature might require railroad companies to suffer highways to cross their tracks, they could not subject the lands which the companies had acquired for other purposes to the same burden, except in connection with the provision for compensation. The decision was in accord with that in Com. v. Essex Co. 13 Gray, 239, 253, in which, while the power to alter, amend, or repeal the corporate franchises was sustained, it was at the same time declared that ‘ no amendment or alteration of the charter can take away the property or rights which have become vested under a legitimate exercise of the powers granted.’ The same doctrine is clearly asserted in Railroad Co. v. Maine, 96 U. S. 499, and is assumed to be unquestionable in the several opinions delivered in the Sinking-fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700.
“ But for the provision of the constitution of the United States which forbids impairing the obligation of contracts, the power to amend and repeal corporate charters would be ample without being expressly reserved. The *757reservation of tlie right leaves the state where any sovereignty would he, if unrestrained by express constitutional limitations and with the powers which it would then possess. It might, therefore, do what it would be admissible for any constitutional government to do when not thus restrained, but it could not do what would be inconsistent with constitutional principles. And it cannot be necessary at this day to enter upon a discussion in denial of the right of the government to take from either individuals or corporations any property which they may rightfully have acquired. In the most arbitrary times such an act was recognized as pure tyranny, and it has been forbidden in England ever since Magna Oharta, and in this country always. It is immaterial in what way tlie property was lawfully acquired,—whether by labor in the ordinary avocations of life, by gift or descent, or by making profitable use of a franchise granted by the state; it is enough that it has become private property, and it is then protected by the ‘law of the land.’” 43 Mich. 140-147; [S. C. 5 N. W. Rep. 275.]
We have already extended this opinion to a great length, and we do not think it necessary or important to notice other positions urged by counsel with great learning and ability against the validity of the taxes for which the present action is brought. We are. satisfied that the assessment upon which they were levied is invalid and void, and judgment must be accordingly entered on the demurrer for the defendant, and, by stipulation of parties, the judgment must be made final.
Hote. The number of corporations here stated is much less than th8 number actually existing. There are over 5,000 corporations in California alone.