PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION, 361 



situated in other States, in other sovereignties, protected by their 

 laws and taxable there, and therefore it ought not to be subject to a 

 second taxation in New York. 



The court also, in rendering the decision, used the following lan- 

 guage : " There seems to be no place for the fiction " (that personal 

 property follows the owner) " in a well-adjusted system of taxation. 

 In such a system a fundamental requisite is that it be harmonious, 

 but harmony does not exist unless the taxing power is exerted with 

 reference exclusively either to the situs of the property or to the resi- 

 dence of the owner. Both rules can not obtain, unless we impute 

 inconsistency to the law and oppression to the taxing power. Which- 

 ever of these rules we find to be the true one, whichever we find to 

 be founded in justice and the reason of the thing, it necessarily 

 excludes the other; because we ought to suppose, indeed, we are 

 bound to assume, that other States and governments have adopted 

 the same rule. If, then, proceeding on the true principles of taxa- 

 tion, we subject to its burdens all goods and chattels actually within 

 our jurisdiction without regard to the owner's domicile, it must be 

 understood that the same rule prevails everywhere. If we proceed 

 in the opposite rule, and impose the tax on account of the domicile, 

 without regard to the actual situs, while the same property is taxed 

 in another sovereignty by reason of its situs there, we necessarily 

 subject the citizen to a double taxation, and for this no sound reason 

 can be given." 



In further support of its position the court made use of the fol- 

 lowing illustration: "A citizen, a resident of Massachusetts, may 

 own a farm in one of the counties of this State, and large wealth 

 belonging to him may be invested in cattle, in sheep or horses, which 

 graze the fields, or are visible to the eyes of the taxing power. Now, 

 these goods and chattels have an actual situs as distinctly as the farm 

 itself. Putting the inquiry, therefore, with reference to both, ' Are 

 they real estate, and personal? ' so as to be subject to taxation under 

 that definition. It seems that but one answer can be given to this 

 question, and that answer must be according to the actual truth of 

 the case. If we take the fiction instead of the truth, then the situs 

 of these chattels is in Massachusetts, and they are not within this 

 State. The statute means one thing or the other ; it can not 

 have double or inconsistent interpretations; and as this is impos- 

 sible, so we can not, under and according to the statute, tax the 

 citizen of Massachusetts with respect to his chattels here, and at the 

 same time tax the citizen of New York in respect to his chattels 

 having an actual situs there. In both cases the property must be 

 within the State, or there is no right to tax at all." 



Since this decision by its highest court, personal property, though 



