PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION. 801 



" Taxation and protection are correlative terms. Protection to 

 the person is the ground on which the right to tax the person rests. 

 Protection to the business, protection to that portion of the property 

 not taken by the tax, is the consideration or compensation for all 

 legitimate taxation on business or on property. The person must 

 be domiciled within the State to be subject to a personal or poll tax; 

 the business or the property must also be within the territory of the 

 State to confer jurisdiction over them. That the person of the 

 plaintiff is within the jurisdiction, and subject therefore to the taxing 

 power, is apparent from the record. This tax, however, is not im- 

 posed on the person; it is imposed on the property of the plaintiff, 

 and as such it must be sustained, if sustained at all. The case does 

 not require any description of the various species of property, real, 

 personal, etc. Peal property has, of course, an immovable situs, 

 and can never be subject to any taxation except that imposed by the 

 government within whose jurisdiction it is situate. The reason is, 

 that that government is the only one that can afford it protection. 

 Personal property, of whatever it may consist, though capable of be- 

 ing transported from place to place, if it be of a visible and tangible 

 kind, would seem, in the nature of things, to follow the same rule 

 and for the same reason that is, to be subject to taxation by the 

 State within whose jurisdiction it is situate, as that State only has 

 dominion over it, and as that State only can afford it protection. 



" Now, if the property in question be considered real property, 

 it being in the State of Illinois, any tax upon it by Connecticut 

 would be extraterritorial and void. If it be considered personal 

 property, of a visible and tangible character, it is still in the State 

 of Illinois, and so just as much out of the dominion and beyond the 

 jurisdiction of the State of Connecticut as though it were real prop- 

 erty. If we consider the property to be an interest in real or per- 

 sonal property, or a title, inchoate, equitable, or legal, to such prop- 

 erty in Illinois, such interest, or such title, is no legitimate subject 

 of taxation in Connecticut. The corpus and situs of this property 

 being in Illinois, and subject, of course, to taxation there because 

 within her jurisdiction, no interest in it, no title to it, can be taxable 

 in Connecticut. Such a claim involves one of two absurdities: 

 either that the same property may be in two places at the same time, 

 or that two independent governments can have jurisdiction over the 

 same subject-matter at one and the same time. 



"But the property of the plaintiff on which this tax has been 

 imposed is not real property, nor is it personal, of the character 

 here considered. It may be well to describe it precisely, that there 

 may be no room for misunderstanding. 



" The plaintiff loaned money in the city of Chicago, in the State 



VOL. LII. 59 



