introduced evidence tending to prove, and | claimed it was proved, that these inventions were of no value, or if any, no more than the amount already paid for them. In this condition of the evidence it was a difficult matter for the jury to settle the issue submitted to them, but as they were able to do it with the aid of the court and eminent counsel, after a lengthy trial, by finding a considerable verdict for the plaintiff, it would seem that he ought to be satisfied with it. At any rate there is no error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed. Acts of the Legislature of said State hereinafter recited, and that the indebtedness referred to in the ordinance of April 8, 1865, originated under the loan of bonds and credit specified in said Act. That, after the year 1860, the said Pacific Railroad failed to pay interest on the bonds of the State, loaned in pursuance of the Acts hereinbefore recited as therein required, and the same was in default from that day, and still continued, until after the adoption of said ordinance, and that the amount then in arrears exceeded the amount of the said sum assessed as a tax now in controversy, and that such interest has never been paid to the State of Missouri. That, while so in default and before the adop THE PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. tion of said ordinance, to wit: on the 10th day in Err., บ. CONSTANTINE MAGUIRE. (See S. C., 20 Wall., 36-45.) When state Act constitutes an agreement not to tax a railroad-violation of such agreement. 1. The Missouri state Act of 1852, created a contract between the State and the Pacific Railroad Company, by which the railroad was exempt from taxation until it was completed and put in operation, and until it should declare a dividend on its capital stock not, however, extending longer than two years after its completion. 2. The state ordinance of 1865, imposing a tax of ten per cent, upon its gross earnings before the road was completed and in operation and had declared a dividend, was a violation of this contract, and the levy for its enforcement was illegal. [No. 280.] of February, 1864, the Legislature passed an Act entitled "An Act for the Extension and Completion of the Pacific Railroad to the Western Boundary of the State of Missouri, at Kansas City, etc., Hereinafter Fully Set Out by its Title and Date of Approval;" which said Act was duly accepted by said Company, as therein provided; that the Fund Commissioner was appointed in pursuance of said Act; that the net earnings of said road, above expenses, were insufficient to pay the bonds provided for by the 1st section of said Act, and interest therein provided for, and have been so insufficient up to and long after the years for which said tax was levied; that the bonds provided for in said Act were, at the time of the passage of said ordinance and the assessment of said tax, all outstanding and unpaid, and that the same were not paid until the first day of April, 1870; that, at the time of the passage of the said ordinance, the said road was under construction, and was not completed until the first day of April, 1866, and that the Fund Commissioner appointed by the State had sole charge of all the receipts of said road at the time said tax was assessed; that the Pacific Railroad was completed and in operation on the 5th day of April, 1866; that said Company has never declared a dividend; that, at an election held on the 6th day of June, 1865, a majority of the votes cast were in favor of an ordinance for the payment of State and railroad indebtedness, adopted in convention April 8, 1865, and that the Governor issued his Proclamation accordingly; that the following That the gross receipts of the Pacific Rail- Acts were passed by the Legislature of the State road for the year commencing October 1, 1866, of Missouri, and were duly accepted by the and ending October 1, 1867, for the transporta-Pacific Railroad Company in the mode and tion of freight and passengers, not including manner provided therein, as far as such excepthe amount received from and taxes paid to the tions were provided for: United States, were $2,536,440. Argued Apr. 1, 2, 1874. Decided Apr. 20, 1874. N ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. IN The agreed statement of facts, referred to in the opinion, is as follows: That the Pacific Railroad is a Corporation incorporated by the State of Missouri, under Act of date March 12, 1849, which Act was amended March 1, 1851; and that it has its principal office or place of business in the City and County of St. Louis, in the State of Mis souri. That Constantine Maguire is, and was at the time of the levy hereinafter referred to, Collector of the Revenue of St. Louis County. That there was assessed in the year 1867, on the said gross earnings in the County of St. Louis, under the provisions of the ordinance hereinafter referred to and in the same manner as other state taxes were assessed in said county, ten per cent. as a tax, under the ordinance hereinafter recited, amounting to the sum of $253,644. That, prior to the adoption of the ordinance of April 8, 1865, hereinafter referred to, the State of Missouri had loaned its credit to the Pacific Railroad, under and by virtue of certain NOTE. What laws are void as impairing the obligation of contracts, constitutionality of laws, or of repeal or modification of statute. Vested rights -see note to Fletcher v. Peck, 3 L. ed. U. S. 162. 1. An Act to incorporate the Pacific Railroad, approved March 12, 1849, pp. 18-22 of the book hereinafter mentioned. 2. An Act to amend the Act entitled An Act to Incorporate the Pacific Railroad, approved March 1, 1851, at pp. 22-27 of said bock. 3. An Act to expedite the construction of the Pacific Railroad, and of the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad, approved February 22, 1851, PP. 60-63 of said book. 4. An Act to accept a grant of land made to the State of Missouri by the Congress of the United States, to aid in the construction of certain railroads in this State, and to apply a portion thereof to the Pacific Railroad, approved December 25, 1852, pp. 64-68 of said book. 5. An Act for the benefit of the Pacific and other railroad companies, approved February 10, 1855, pp. 69 and 70 of said book. 6. An Act to aid the construction of the Pacific Railroad, approved March 3, 1855, pp. 7072 of said book. 7. An Act to secure the completion of certain railroads in this State, passed on reconsideration December 10, 1855, pp. 73-75 of said book. 8. An Act to secure the prompt payment of interest on state bonds, approved December 7, 1855, on pp. 85 and 86 of said book. 9. An Act to loan $250,000 to the Pacific Railroad Company, approved December 12, 1855, on pp. 87 and 88 of said book. 10. An Act to amend "An Act to Secure the Completion of Certain Railroads in this State, and for Other Purposes, approved December 10, 1855," approved March 3, 1857, on pp. 89 and 94 of said book. 11. An Act supplemental to "An Act to Amend an Act to Secure the Completion of Certain Railroads in this State, and for Other Purposes, approved March 3, 1857," approved November 19, 1857, on pp. 96-100 of said book. That a certain printed book, to which refer ence is made above, containing on its fly-leaf the following title: "Compilation of the laws in reference to such railroads as have received aid from the State, compiled under the provisions of a resolution of the House of Representatives, adopted on the 14th of March, 1859. Jefferson City: W. G. Cheeney, Public Printer, 1859." Contains an accurate copy of all the laws above referred to, by their title and date of approval, on pages of said book respectively above mentioned. That the Legislature of the State of Missouri passed: 12. An Act for the Extension and Completion of the Pacific Railroad to the Western Boundary of the State at Kansas City, and the North Missouri Railroad to the Iowa State line; to complete the southwest branch of the Pacific Railroad, and to reduce the state indebtedness; approved Feb. 10, 1864, and that the printed book containing on its fly-leaf the following title: "Laws of the State of Missouri, passed at the adjourned session of the twenty-second General Assembly, begun and held at the City of Jefferson, on Tuesday, November 10, 1863. By authority. Jefferson City: W. A. Currey, Public Printer, 1864." On pages from 50 to 58 contains an accurate copy of said Act. That, after the adoption of the ordinances cited (and after the assessment of the ten per cent. on the gross earnings of said railroad company, for the year beginning Oct. 1, 1866, and before the date of the levy made by defendant in this case), the State parted with all interest which it had in said railroad by virtue of any laws creating a lien on the property of said railroad for advances made to it by the State. That a tax bill, in words and figures following: Bill 3677. City Book 2. State taxes 1868. Received of Pacific Railroad Company, Madison Miller, Com'r, two hundred and fifty-three thousand six hundred and forty-four dollars. Gross receipts, for the year commencing Oct. 1, 1866. Total Aggregate of ass'd val. $2,536,440 Amt. of Taxes. $253,644 00 $253,644 00 was made out by the Assessors of St. Louis County, and delivered to defendant Maguire as collector. That said collector, on the 13th day of July, 1871, made proper demand of said tax of the plaintiff, with penalty and interest amounting to the sum of $- and that they refused to pay the same; and that, thereupon, on the 14th day of July, 1871, the collector levied said tax bill on certain personal property in the County of St. Louis, belonging to plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the ordinance entitled "An Ordinance for the Payment of the State and Railroad Indebtedness," so far as the same relates to the action of the collector in this case was invalid, inoperative and unconstitutional in this: that it was in direct violation of sec. 10 of Art. 1 of the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of the 5th and 7th Articles of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and that it was otherwise invalid, and that defendant, in levying said tax was guilty of a trespass against the property of plaintiff. The defendant claimed that said ordinance is valid and constitutional, and that the plaintiff is liable to pay said tax. The 12th section of the Act, approved December 25, 1850, is as follows: "Sec. 12. The said Pacific Railroad and the said Southwestern Branch Railroad shall be exempt from taxation, respectively, until the same shall be completely open and in operation and shall declare a dividend, when the roadbed, buildings, machinery, engines, cars and other property of such completed road, at the actual cash value thereof, shall be subject to taxation at the rate assessed by the State on other real and personal property of like value; and for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the same, it shall be the duty of the President of said Company, on the first day of Febru ary in each year, after such road is completed, opened and put in operation, and declares a dividend, to furnish to the Auditor of the State a statement under his oath, made before and certified by some officer authorized to administer oaths, of the actual value of the road-bed, buildings, machinery, engines, cars and other property appertaining to such completed road; and from said statement, so furnished, the Auditor shall charge said Company with the amount appearing to be due to the State, according to the statement furnished, as herein required, by the President of the Company. And in case said Company shall fail to pay into the State Treasury, within thirty days after the first day of December in each year, the amount charged against said Company as aforesaid, said Company shall forfeit and pay to the State of Missouri, in addition to the sum with which said Company may stand charged by the Auditor, ten per cent. per month, after the expiration of said thirty days, on the amount charged to said Company; which sum charged against said Company, together with the ten per cent. per month hereinbefore specified, may be recovered in the name of the State of Missouri, by civil action, in any court of competent jurisdiction, and should the President of said Company fail to make out and furnish to the Auditor of the State a statement as herein required, said Company shall forfeit and pay to the State $10,000 for such failure, which may be recovered in the name of the State of Missouri, in any court of competent jurisdiction; Provided, That, if said Company shall fail, for the period of two years after said roads respectively shall be completed and put in operation, to declare a dividend, then said Company shall no longer be exempt from the payment of said tax, nor from the forfeitures and penalties in this section imposed." Session Acts 1853, p. 10, Laws & Documents, A. & P. R. R., 28. On the 4th of July 1865, the present Constitution of Missouri, together with an ordinance known as the Railroad Ordinance, as a part thereof, went into effect. The provisions of the ordinance pertinent to this case, are as follows: "Sec. 1. There shall be levied and collected from the Pacific Railroad, the North Missouri Railroad Co. and the St. Louis and Iron Mountain Railroad Co., an annual tax of ten per centum of all their gross receipts for the transportation of freight and passengers (not includ ing amounts received from, and taxes paid to, the United States) from the first of October," 1866, to the first of October, 1868, and fifteen per centum thereafter; which tax shall be as40*] sessed and collected in *the County of St. Louis, in the same maner as other state taxes are assessed and collected, and shall be appropriated by the General Assembly to the payment of the principal and interest now due, or hereafter to become due, upon the bonds of the State, and the bonds guarantied by the State, issued to the aforesaid Railroad Companies." "III. The tax in this ordinance specified shall be collected from each Company hereinbefore named, only for the payment of the principal and interest on the bonds for the payment of which such Company shall be liable; and whenever such bonds and interest shall have been fully paid, no further tax shall be collected from such Company, but nothing shall be received by the State in discharge of any amounts due upon said bonds, except cash or other bonds or obligations of this State. IV. Should either of said Companies refuse or neglect to pay said tax, as herein required, and the interest or principal of any of said bonds, or any part thereof, remain due and unpaid, the General Assembly shall provide by law for the sale of the railroad and other property, and the franchises of the Company that shall be thus in default under the lien reserved to the State, and shall appropriate the proceeds of such sale to the payment of the amount remaining due and unpaid from said Company." Messrs. J. B. Henderson, Geo. E. Leighton, Jas. Baker & Wm. M. Evarts attorneys for plaintiff: 1. That the 12th section of the Act of December 25, 1852, before referred to, does exempt the plaintiff from the payment of the taxes in question, we think, is too plain for argument. This tax was assessed on the gross receipts of the road for a period of time covered by the exemption. As is shown by the agreed statement itself, no dividend had ever been declared or paid, and the road was not completed until April 1, 1866. The tax is for the year commencing October 1, 1866, and ending October 1, 1867. The two years for which the Company was exempt after the completion of the road did not expire until April 1, 1868. This court, in a number of cases, has fully settled the question as to the power of a State to exempt corporations from taxation, and that any attempt (such as is made by the said ordinance) to set aside such a contract as was made in this case, is a violation of that part of the Constitution of the United States which forbids a State to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts. It holds that such provisions, exempting corporations from taxation constitute a contract which a State may not subsequently impair, and this doctrine has been repeatedly reiterated and re-affirmed. Constitution U. S. art. I., sec. 10; Wilmington R. Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall., 264, 20 L. ed. 568; Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall., 249, 21 L. ed. 327; Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall., 460, 21 L. ed. 189; Binghamton Bridge Case, 3 Wall., 51, 18 L. ed. 137; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 518; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet., 514; Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black, 436, 17 L. ed. 173; Han. & St. Jo. R. Co. v. Shacklett, 30 Mo., 550; S. C., 37 Mo., 280; Pacific R. Co. v. Cass Co.. 53 Mo., 17; Gorman v. Pacif. R. Co. 26 Mo., 450. 2. The claim of the State, denominated a tax, is, in fact, not a tax, nor is its imposition a proper exercise of the taxing power. The Supreme Court of Missouri, in defining the word, says: "Taxes are charges or burdens imposed by legislative power upon persons and property to raise money for public purposes, or to defray the necessary expenses in administering the Government." Sheehan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 50 Mo., 158. This was an attempt to enforce the payment of a debt in a manner unknown to the law, a greater part of which was not mature, no part of the principal of the bonds that were to be paid by the money to be raised by this so-called tax, was due. If the plaintiff is not exempt from all taxation under the 12th section of the Act of December 25, 1852, it is liable to pay taxes under the ordinary revenue laws of the State, at the rate other property is taxed, in addition to the tax in question. The enormous sum claimed, amounting, as it does, to almost one third of the net earnings of the road, precludes the idea of its being a tax. It would bankrupt any railroad company in the nation to pay so large a part of its earnings as a tax. The effort of a State to sequester the private property of its citizens, cannot be made legal by denominating it a tax. The question, whether the law of a State is a proper exercise of the taxing power, must be determined by the substance, character and purposes of the Act, and not by its name. If this was the only burden to be imposed on the Company so unfortunate as to become debtors to the State in the way of taxation. it will It seems to us that the proceeding authorized by the ordinance in question, is plainly an attempt to sequester the property of these corporations under the pretense of an exercise of the taxing powers. be seen that the amount is largely in excess of | 192; Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall., 454, 21 L. the taxation of other property, and is, there- ed. 204. The same authorities and many others fore, grossly unjust. referred to in those cases, show that when a contract of exemption from taxation is thus established it is binding upon the State, and the action of the State in the passage of laws violating its terms will not be sustained. Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall., 481, 21 L. ed. 472; Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall., 247, 21 L. ed. 326, where the cases are collected. The principles of law are sufficiently settled. The real question arises upon their application to the facts of the case. Cooley, Const. Lim., 486, 487, 436; 2 Kent, Com., 331; Tyson v. School Directors, 51 Pa., 9; Woodbridge v. Detroit, 8 Mich., 301; Carondelet v. Picot, 38 Mo., 130; Peirce v. City of Boston, 44 Mass., 520; 2 Story, Const., secs. 13, 99. Messrs. M. Blair, F. A. Dick, & A. H. Buckner and R. E. Rombauer, for defendant in error: The 12th section of the Act of Dec. 25, 1852, refers to tax for general purposes, and applies only to tax on the corporate property, road-bed, machinery, buildings, etc. This would not prevent tax on the franchise or on the earnings of the Company. This proposition, which is true on general principles, is also consistent with the several Acts which form the charter of the Company. See 9th section of the Act of Feb. 22, 1851, p. 62; 9th section of Act of 25th Dec. 1852, itself p. 65; 5th section of the Act of Dec. 10, 1855, all of which dedicate the tolls and income of the road, which is the subject of this tax, to the identical object for which it is levied -to pay the interest on the debt contracted for the benefit of the road; and the 4th section of the Act of Dec. 10, 1855, p. 75, gives the State power to take any active measures to carry into effect the pledge. There the tax is laid upon the subject which the charter has dedicated to the object for which it is laid, and is, therefore, in strict accordance with the intent and meaning of the contracting parties. 42*] *Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the opin ion of the court: This is an action against a tax collector, who levied upon property to collect a tax imposed by virtue of an ordinance adopted July 4, 1865, as a part of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. The action was tried by the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, upon an agreed state of facts, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff below. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, where the judgment at the circuit was versed, and final judgment was rendered to the effect that the tax was constitutional and legally collectible from the Company. From this judgment the Company brings error to this court. re The first question is this: by the Acts organizing this Company, and by the Acts loaning the credit of the State and the proceedings under the same, was an agreement created on the part of the State that the Pacific road should not be taxed until it was built and finished and had declared a dividend, and that for two years after it was finished it should be liable to taxation only in common with other property of the State and at the same rate! The right of taxation is a sovereign right, and presumptively belongs to the State in regard to every species of property and to an unlimited extent. The right may be waived in particular instances, but this can only be done by a clear expression of the legislative will. Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall., 469, 21 L. ed. By an Act of March 12, 1849, the Pacific Railroad Company was incorporated with a capital of $10,000,000, for the purpose of building a railroad from the City of St. Louis to a point in the western line of Van Buren County. Authority was given to the counties through which it should pass to subscribe for the stock, and it was invested also with the powers usually conferred upon such companies. By an Act passed February 22, 1851, it was enacted that when $50,000 had been collected of the capital stock and expended in the survey and construction of the road, the bonds of the State to the same amount should be loaned to the road, and further loans were authorized, not to exceed the sum of $2,000,000. By an Act of December 25, 1852, certain public lands were vested in the Company, and the Company were authorized to build a branch road to the western boundary of the State, south of the Osage River. Provision was made for the issue of an additional million of dollars of the bonds of the State, to be used in aid of the work proposed, with precaution that subscriptions should have been made and should have previously been applied by the Company to be sold at less than their par value, *and [*38 amounts stated, and that the bonds should not that the road should be completed and put in operation within five years after the passage of the Act. The 12th section contained the following provisions: "The said Pacific Railroad and the said Southwestern Branch Railroad shall be exempt from taxation respectively, until the same shall be completed, opened and in operation, and shall declare a dividend, when the road-bed, buildings, machinery, engines, cars, and other property of such completed road, at the cash value thereof, shall be subject to taxation at the rate assessed by the State on other real and personal Provided, That property of like value. if said Company shall fail, for the period of two years after said roads respectively shall be completed and put in operation, to declare a dividend, then the said Company shall no longer be exempt from the payment of said tax, nor from the forfeitures and penalties in this section imposed." This Act and its grants were accepted by an instrument under seal, and filed with the Secretary of State, in compliance with the 15th section of the same Act. The road was completed and put in operation on the 1st of April, 1866, but no dividend had been declared or paid when the levy in question was made, and two years had not elapsed from the completion of the road. On the 4th day of July, 1865, the present Constitution of Missouri, together with an ordi nance known as the Railroad Ordinance, as a part thereof, went in effect. The provisions of the ordinance pertinent to this case are as follows: "Sec. 1. There shall be levied and collected from the Pacific Railroad, the North Missouri Railroad Co., and the St. Louis & Iron Mountain Railroad Co., an annual tax of ten per centum of all their gross receipts for the transportation of freight and passengers (not including amounts received from and taxes paid to the United States) from the first of October, 1866, to the first of October 1868, and fifteen per centum thereafter; which tax shall be as40*] sessed and collected in the County of St. Louis, in the same manner as other state taxes are assessed and collected, and shall be appropriated by the General Assembly to the payment of the principal and interest now due, or hereafter to become due, upon the bonds of the State, and the bonds guarantied by the State, issued to the aforesaid Railroad Companies." "III. The tax in this ordinance specified shall be collected from each Company hereinbefore named only for the payment of the principal and interest on the bonds, for the payment of which such Company shall be liable; and whenever such bonds and interest shall have been fully paid, no further tax shall be collected from such Company, but nothing shall be received by the State in discharge of any amounts due upon said bonds, except cash or other bonds or obligations of the State. IV. Should either of said Companies refuse or neglect to pay said tax, as herein required, and the interest or principal of any of said bonds or any part thereof, remaining due and unpaid the General Assembly shall provide by law for the sale of the railroad and other property, and the franchises of the Company that shall be thus in default, under the lien reserved to the State, and shall appropriate the proceeds of such sale to the payment of the amount remaining due and unpaid from said Company." In pursuance of this ordinance the defendant assessed a tax against the plaintiff for the year commencing October 1, 1866, of ten per cent. on $2,536,440, that being the gross earnings of the road for that year, which is the tax in question. By the agreed case it is stated that "this was assessed in the same manner as other state taxes were assessed in said county, ten per cent. as a tax under the ordinance hereafter recited, amounting to the sum of $253,644." See the agreed statement of facts, p. 4 of the record. [ante, 282]. Upon this state of facts we are of the opinion: 1. That the 12th section of the Act of 1852 created a contract between the State and the Railroad Company, by which the Railroad was exempt from taxation until it was completed and put in operation, and until it should declare a dividend on its capital stock, not, how ever, extending longer than two years after its completion. 2. That the Ordinance of 1865, imposing a tax of ten per cent. upon its gross earnings before the road was completed and in operation, and had declared a dividend, was a violation of this contract, and that the levy for its enforce ment was illegal. We omit a reference to other questions which have been argued and express no opin- [*43 ion upon them. We base our opinion upon the effect of the statutes already cited. The authorities which have been referred to show that a State Legislature may make a contract to exempt a corporation from taxation by which it will be bound. That the facts recited constitute such an agreement we think sufficiently plain. The Pacific Corporation was unable to raise funds for completing its road. To induce it to go on with its work, and to induce individuals and counties to subscribe for what the Legislature evidently deemed an enterprise of public benefit, it made loans of the credit of the State from time to time. To make the franchise still more valuable to the Company, and to the end that individuals and counties should be induced to subscribe to the stock, the Legislature added an exemption from taxation until the road should be completed and in operation, and should have declared a dividend. That the money value of this exemption was great, is evident from the fact that the tax imposed for a single year, commencing October 1, 1866, amounted to $253,644. This transaction amounted to a contract between the State and the Corporation that there should be no taxation of the Company until the occurrence of the stipulated events. Humphrey v. Pegues, supra; R. Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall., 264, 20 L. ed. 568. In delivering the opinion in the last cited case, Mr. Justice Davis uses this language: "It has been so often decided by this court that a charter of incorporation granted by a State creates a contract between the State and the corporators, which the State cannot violate, that it would be a work of supererogation to repeat the reasons on which the argument is founded. If the contract is plain and unambiguous, and the meaning of the parties to it can be clearly ascertained, it is the duty of the court to give effect to it the same as if it were a contract between private persons, without regard to its supposed injurious effects upon the public interests." *The Statute of 1852 provided for an [*44 exemption from taxation of the "Pacific Railroad," its bed, and of its "buildings, machinery, engines, cars and other property." The tax imposed by the Ordinance of 1865 was an "annual tax of ten per centum of all their gross receipts for the transportation of freight and passengers." It was directed "to be levied and collected from the Pacific Railroad." In R. Co. v. Reid, supra, it was held that a statute exempting all the property of a railroad company from taxation exempts not only the rolling stock and real estate owned by it and required by the Company for the successful prosecution of its business, but its franchise also. In the case before us the road-bed, buildings, machinery, cars and other property not only, but the "Pacific Railroad" is declared to be exempt from taxation. We cannot doubt that a contract not to tax a railroad company or its property is broken by the levy of a tax upon its gross receipts for the transportation of freight and passengers. A suggestion is made that the imposition in question is not a tax, for the reason that the ordinance imposing it provides, that the same shall be appropriated by the General Assembly in payment of the principal and interest due and to become due upon the bonds issued to the |