PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION. 813 



cut) taxes property, either directly or indirectly, out of its territory 

 and jurisdiction, which it can not protect, and which its processes 

 can not reach, the act is not taxation, but a mere arbitrary exercise 

 of power; not in accordance with any " process of law," and forbid- 

 den by the Constitution of the United States, and as involving a 

 principle under the Constitution. Furthermore, the question of 

 restraining a State from the exercise of such arbitrary powers would 

 seem to be one legally within the right of any citizen aggrieved, in 

 virtue of the fourteenth amendment, to carry from the courts of his 

 own State to the Supreme Court of the United States. As another 

 method by which a citizen of a State aggrieved by the imposition of 

 an ex-territorial tax might test the constitutionality of the same, 

 the following is also worthy of consideration: 



A citizen of Connecticut, for example, taxed on personal prop- 

 erty in Illinois, might obtain a writ of certiorari in an Illinois court, 

 and raise the question that, inasmuch as personal property is held in 

 law to follow the person, the property in question was not taxable 

 in Illinois. And after the courts of Illinois had rendered an adverse 

 judgment, as they undoubtedly would, the owner taxed for the same 

 property in Massachusetts could obtain a writ of certiorari in the 

 courts of that State, and raise the following questions: 



1. Want of jurisdiction in respect to the property on the part of 

 the State of Massachusetts. 



2. Violation of the Constitution of the United States in denying 

 full faith and credit to the " public acts (tax laws of Illinois) and 

 judicial proceedings " of a sister State. 



It needs no argument to prove that under the provisions of the 

 Constitution of the United States, above referred to, both the laws 

 and judicial proceedings of one State are as valid and as much to be 

 respected in another State as the laws and judicial proceedings of the 

 latter State itself. If the courts of Massachusetts, following prece- 

 dents in that State, should decide that personal property situated 

 beyond the State follows the person residing in Massachusetts, and so 

 disregards the judicial proceedings and public acts of Illinois, a 

 question uuder the Constitution of the United States would arise, 

 which would give jurisdiction in the United States Court. And as 

 one and the same thing can not occupy two places at the same time, 

 the Federal court must finally decide in which State is the situs 

 of the property for taxation in the case presented. The principle 

 involved in this case would seem to be identical with an attempt on 

 the part of a State to convict a citizen for an offense committed be- 

 yond her jurisdiction, in respect to which judgment had already been 

 rendered in a sister State, where the offense had been committed. 

 I As further bearing upon this subject, reference is made to the 



