30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 380; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 12 L. ed. 702; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, 16 L. ed. 644; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 20 L. ed. 449; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 347; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 24 L. ed. 527; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123, 26 L. ed. 103; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 26 L. ed. 565; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 466, 26 L. ed. 1067, 1068; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 27, 54 L. ed. 355, 366, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Robbins v. Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 489, 494, 30 L. ed. 694, 696, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 45, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 336, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1201, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 150, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Postal Teleg.-Cable Co. v. Richmond, 249 U. S. 252, 261, 63 L. ed. 590, 595, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265; New York ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. Tax Comrs. 2 Black, 620, 634, 17 L. ed. 451, 455; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 448, 452, 50 L. ed. 261, 264, 266, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 275, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 20 L. ed. 122.

The death duty attempted to be imposed by the Act of September 8, 1916, is of such form that, if effective, its enactment would be a usurpation of the sovereign power to regulate descent and distribution.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 561, 39 L. ed. 759, 812, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456, 15 L. ed. 127; Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 285, 46 L. ed. 196, 200, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; Strode v. Com. 52 Pa. 181; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 521, 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Re McKennan, 25 S. D. 369, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 606, 126 N. W. 611; Clapp v. Mason, 94. U. S. 589, 24 L. ed. 212; Mason v. Sargent, 104 U. S. 689, 26 L. ed. 894; Sturges v. United States, 117 U. S. 363, 29 L. ed. 920, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 767; United States v. Jones, 236 U. S. 106, 59 L. ed. 488, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 316; McCoach v. Pratt, 236 U. S. 562, 59 L. ed. 720, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Uterhart v. United States, 240 U. S. 598, |

60 L. ed. 819, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 417; Sage v. United States, 250 U. S. 33, 63 L. ed. 828, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 415; Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U. S. 543, 51 L. ed. 310, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215. If the exaction complained of is a tax in respect of the transfer of the whole estate, it must relate to the transfer to the personal representatives, and therefore be an unconstitutional attempt to tax an essential step lawfully required by the states in the exercise of their exclusive power over descent and distribution.

United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 628, 41 L. ed. 287, 288, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 288, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1040, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 46, 56, 44 L. ed. 969, 971, 975, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 289, 46 L. ed. 196, 202, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 578, 589, 46 L. ed. 697, 703, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 515; Moore v. Ruckgaber, 184 U. S. 593, 596, 46 L. ed. 705, 706, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 521; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 204-206, 47 L. ed. 439, 444, 445, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 250, 47 L. ed. 1035, 1036, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803; Vanderbilt v. Eidman, 196 U. S. 480, 497, 49 L. ed. 563, 569, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 331; Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U. S. 543, 550, 551, 51 L. ed. 310, 313, 314, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 52 L. ed. 95, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Keeney v. New York, 222 U. S. 525, 537, 56 L. ed. 299, 305, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; People ex rel. Gould v. Barker, 150 N. Y. 52, 44 N. E. 785; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 570, 8 L. ed. 483, 504; Green v. Creighton (Kendall v. Creighton) 23 How. 90, 106, 16 L. ed. 419, 423; Dixon v. Ramsay, 3 Cranch, 319, 323, 324, 2 L. ed. 453-455; Vaughan v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1, 5, 6, 10 L. ed. 639–641; Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521, 21 L. ed. 687; Wall_v. Bissell, 125 U. S. 382, 389, 390, 31 L. ed. 772, 776, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 979; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 613, 615, 37 L. ed. 867, 870, 871, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906; Raugh v. Weis, 138 Ind. 42, 37 N. E. 331; Stagg v. Green, 47 Mo. 500; State ex rel. Welch v. Morrison, 244 Mo. 193, 148 S. W. 907; Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 312, 64 L. ed. 919, 925, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 543; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cranch,

cago Title & T. Co. 187 Ill. 42, 58 N. E. 318; Re Speed, 216 Ill. 23, 108 Am. St. Rep. 189, 74 N. E. 809, affirmed in 203 U. S. 553, 51 L. ed. 314, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171, 8 Ann. Cas. 157; Re Graves, 242 Ill. 212, 89 N. E. 879; People v. Griffith, 245 III. 532, 92 N. E. 313; National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 250 Ill. 584, 95 N. E. 973, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 430, affirmed in 232 U. S. 58, 58 L. ed. 504, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 209; Northern Trust Co. v. Buck & Rayner, 263 Ill. 222, 104 N. E. 1114; Arnaud's Heirs v. His Executor, 3 La. 336; Kohn's Succession, 115 La. Ann. 71, 38 So. 898; Levy's Succession, 115 La. Ann. 377, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1180, 39 So. 37, 5 Ann. Cas. 871; Westefeldt's Succession, 122 La. Ann. 836, 48 So. 281; Fisher v. State, 106 Md. 104, 66 Atl. 661; Washington County Hospital Asso. v. Mealey, 121 Md. 274, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 373, 88 Atl. 136, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1050; Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113, 26 L.R.A. 259, 38 N. E. 512; Emmons v. Shaw, 171 Mass. 410, 50 N. E. 1033; Crocker v. Shaw, 174 Mass. 266, 54 N. E. 549; Frothingham v. Shaw, 175 Mass. 59, 78 Am. St. Rep. 475, 55 N. E. 623; Atty. Gen. v. Stone, 209 Mass. 186, 95 N. E. 395; Atty. Gen. v. Clark, 222 Mass. 291, L.R.A.1916C, 679, 110 N. E. 299, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 119; Union Trust Co. v. Wayne Probate Judge, 125 Mich. 487, 84 N. W. 1101; State ex rel. Gage v. Probate Ct. 112 Minn. 279, 128 N. W. 18; State ex rel. Fath v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 190, 60 S. W. 1093; Maguire v. University of Missouri, 271 Mo. 359, 196 S. W. 737; Re Cupple, 272 Mo. 465, 199 S. W. 556; Gelsthorpe v. Furnell, 20 Mont. 299, 39 L.R.A. 170, 51 Pac. 267; Re Touhy, 35 Mont. 431, 90 Pac. 170; State ex rel. Floyd v. District Ct. 41 Mont. 357, 109 Pac. 438; Howell v. Edwards, 88 N. J. L. 134, 96 Atl. 186; Re Hamilton, 148 N. Y. 310, 42 N. E. 717; Re Sherman, 153 N. Y. 1, 46 N. E. 1032; Re Dows, 167 N. Y. 227, 52 L.R.A. 433, 88 Am. St. Rep. 508, 60 N. E. 439; Re Delano, 176 N. Y. 486, 64 L.R.A. 279, 68 N. E. 871; Re Lansing, 182 N. Y. 238, 74 N. E. 882; Re White, 208 N. Y. 64, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 714, 101 N. E. 793, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 75; Re Zborowski, 213 N. Y. 109, 107 N. E. 44; Re Penfold, 216 N. Y. 163, 110 N. E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 783; Alvany v. Powell, 55 N. C. (2 Jones, Eq.) 51; Re Morris, 138 N. C. 259, 50 S. E. 682; Finnen's Estate, 196 Pa. 72, 46 Atl. 269; Jewell's Estate, 235 Pa. 119, 83 Atl. 610; Jackson v. Myers, 257 Pa. 104, L.R.A. 1917F, 821, 101 Atl. 341; Sherman v.

State, 25 S. D. 369, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 606, 126 N. W. 611; Knox v. Emerson, 123 Tenn. 409, 131 S. W. 972; Dixon v. Ricketts, 26 Utah, 215, 72 Pac. 947; Schoolfield v. Lynchburg, 78 Va. 366; Re Joyslin, 76 Vt. 88, 56 Atl. 281; State v. Clark, 30 Wash. 439, 71 Pac. 20; Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 121, 108 N. W. 627, 9 Ann. Cas. 711.

Sovereign power to regulate any subject-matter may have (a) positive expression in rules, requirements, or requisitions established by legislative authority, or (b) negative expression in the absence of such rules, requirements, or requisitions; the absence of any particular class of rules, requirements, or requisitions indicating the legislative will that, in that aspect, the subjectmatter shall be free from regulative restraint and requisition. The sovereign power of a state to regulate descent and distribution will always be found to have been expressed, in the matter of the requisition of death duties of the kind which are essentially a manifestation of such power, either (a) in the requisition of such death duties, or (b) in the absence of any such requisition; thus indicating the will of the state that there shall be no such requisition.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 209, 6 L. ed. 23, 73; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 203, 204, 29 L. ed. 158, 161, 162, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 269, 62 L. ed. 1101, 1104, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 399, 12 L. ed. 702, 750.

The taxing power of the United States cannot constitutionally be so exercised as to amount to a usurpation of any sovereign power belonging to the states. If the United States have attempted to impose death duties in a form in which such requisitions are essentially a manifestation of the sovereign power to regulate descent and distribution, this is an attempted usurpation of a sovereign power belonging to the states.

Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 59, 44 L. ed. 969, 977, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 214, 29 L. ed. 158, 165, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56, 54 L. ed. 378, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232, reversing 75 Kan. 664, 90 Pac. 319; Ludwig v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 216 U. S. 146, 162, 54 L. ed. 423, 429,

30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 380; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 12 L. ed. 702; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, 16 L. ed. 644; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 20 L. ed. 449; Welton v. Missouri, 91 Ú. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 347; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 24 L. ed. 527; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123, 26 L. ed. 103; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 26 L. ed. 565; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 466, 26 L. ed. 1067, 1068; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 27, 54 L. ed. 355, 366, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Robbins v. Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 489, 494, 30 L. ed. 694, 696, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 45, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 336, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1201, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 150, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Postal Teleg.-Cable Co. v. Richmond, 249 U. S. 252, 261, 63 L. ed. 590, 595, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265; New York ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. Tax Comrs. 2 Black, 620, 634, 17 L. ed. 451, 455; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 448, 452, 50 L. ed. 261, 264, 266, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 275, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 20 L. ed. 122.

The death duty attempted to be imposed by the Act of September 8, 1916, is of such form that, if effective, its enactment would be a usurpation of the sovereign power to regulate descent and distribution.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 561, 39 L. ed. 759, 812, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456, 15 L. ed. 127; Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 285, 46 L. ed. 196, 200, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; Strode v. Com. 52 Pa. 181; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 521, 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Re McKennan, 25 S. D. 369, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 606, 126 N. W. 611; Clapp v. Mason, 94. U. S. 589, 24 L. ed. 212; Mason v. Sargent, 104 U. S. 689, 26 L. ed. 894; Sturges v. United States, 117 U. S. 363, 29 L. ed. 920, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 767; United States v. Jones, 236 U. S. 106, 59 L. ed. 488, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 316; McCoach v. Pratt, 236 U. S. 562, 59 L. ed. 720, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Uterhart v. United States, 240 U. S. 598, |

60 L. ed. 819, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 417; Sage v. United States, 250 U. S. 33, 63 L. ed. 828, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 415; Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U. S. 543, 51 L. ed. 310, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215. If the exaction complained of is a tax in respect of the transfer of the whole estate, it must relate to the transfer to the personal representatives, and therefore be an unconstitutional attempt to tax an essential step lawfully required by the states in the exercise of their exclusive power over descent and distribution.

United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 628, 41 L. ed. 287, 288, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 288, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1040, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 46, 56, 44 L. ed. 969, 971, 975, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 289, 46 L. ed. 196, 202, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 578, 589, 46 L. ed. 697, 703, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 515; Moore v. Ruckgaber, 184 U. S. 593, 596, 46 L. ed. 705, 706, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 521; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 204-206, 47 L. ed. 439, 444, 445, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 250, 47 L. ed. 1035, 1036, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803; Vanderbilt v. Eidman, 196 U. S. 480, 497, 49 L. ed. 563, 569, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 331; Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U. S. 543, 550, 551, 51 L. ed. 310, 313, 314, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 52 L. ed. 95, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Keeney v. New York, 222 U. S. 525, 537, 56 L. ed. 299, 305, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; People ex rel. Gould v. Barker, 150 N. Y. 52, 44 N. E. 785; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 570, 8 L. ed. 483, 504; Green v. Creighton (Kendall v. Creighton) 23 How. 90, 106, 16 L. ed. 419, 423; Dixon v. Ramsay, 3 Cranch, 319, 323, 324, 2 L. ed. 453-455; Vaughan v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1, 5, 6, 10 L. ed. 639-641; Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521, 21 L. ed. 687; Wall v. Bissell, 125 U. S. 382, 389, 390, 31 L. ed. 772, 776, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 979; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 613, 615, 37 L. ed. 867, 870, 871, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906; Raugh v. Weis, 138 Ind. 42, 37 N. E. 331; Stagg v. Green, 47 Mo. 500; State ex rel. Welch v. Morrison, 244 Mo. 193, 148 S. W. 907; Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 312, 64 L. ed. 919, 925, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 543; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cranch,

9, 3 L. ed. 471; Kane v. Paul, 14 Pet. 33, 10 L. ed. 341; Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 319, 338, 11 L. ed. 283, 290; Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. 29, 35, 14 L. ed. 312, 315; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456, 15 L. ed. 127; Wilkins v. Ellett, 9 Wall. 740, 19 L. ed. 586; Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276, 22 L. ed. 536; Kieley v. McGlynn, 21 Wall. 503, 22 L. ed. 599; Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U. S. 256, 27 L. ed. 718, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 641; Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587, 30 L. ed. 532, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342; Baker v. Baker, E. & Co. 242 U. S. 394, 61 L. ed. 386, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; Shoenberger v. Lancaster Sav. Inst. 28 Pa. 459; Strode v. Com. 52 Pa. 181; North- | ern Trust Co. v. Lederer, 257 Fed. 812; United States v. Jones, 236 U. S. 106, 59 L. ed. 488, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 316; McCoach v. Pratt, 236 U. S. 562, 59 L. ed. 722, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Beauregard v. New Orleans, 18 How. 497, 503, 15 L. ed. 469, 472; Newcomb v. Williams, 9 Met. 525; Hunter v. Bryson, 5 Gill. & J. 483, 25 Am. Dec. 313; Hagthorp v. Hook, 1 Gill & J. 270; Fisher v. State, 106 Md. 104, 66 Atl. 661; Smith v. Denny, 37 Mo. 20; Southworth v. Southworth, 173 Mo. 59, 73 S. W. 129; Sevier v. Woodson, 205 Mo. 202, 120 Am. St. Rep. 728, 104 S. W. 1; State ex rel. Welch v. Morrison, 244 Mo. 202, 148 S. W. 907; Alvany v. Powell, 55 N. C. (2 Jones, Eq.) 51; Whit v. Ray, 26 N. C. (4 Ired. L.) 14; California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 150, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 20 L. ed. 122; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 50 L. ed. 261, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; Fifield v. Close, 15 Mich. 505; Warren v. Paul, 22 Ind. 276; Union Bank v. Hill, 3 Coldw. 325; Jones v. Keep, 19 Wis. 369; Sayles v. Davis, 22 Wis. 225; Craig v. Dimock, 47 Ill. 308; Carpenter v. Snelling, 97 Mass. 452; Latham v. Smith, 45 Ill. 29; Davis v. Richardson, 45 Miss. 499, 7 Am. Rep. 732; Wade v. Foss, 96 Me. 230, 52 Atl. 640; Smith v. Short, 40 Ala. 385; Bumpass v. Taggart, 26 Ark. 398, 7 Am. Rep. 623; Duffy v. Hobson, 40 Cal. 240, 6 Am. Rep. 617; Trowbridge v. Addoms, 23 Colo. 518, 48 Pac. 535; Griffin v. Ranney, 35 Conn. 239; Garland v. Gaines, 73 Conn. 662, 84 Am. St. Rep. 182, 49 Atl. 19; Small v. Slocumb, 112 Ga. 279, 53 L.R.A. 130, 81 Am. St. Rep. 50, 37 S. E. 481; Bunk

er v. Green, 48 Ill. 243; Richardson v. Roberts, 195 Ill. 27, 62 N. E. 840; Wallace v. Cravens, 34 Ind. 534; Hunter v. Cobb, 1 Bush, 239; Pargoud v. Richardson, 30 La. Ann. 1286; Holt v. Hart's Liquidators, 33 La. Ann. 673; Dudley v. Wells, 55 Me. 145; Sawyer v. Parker, 57 Me. 39; Wade v. Curtis, 96 Me. 309, 52 Atl. 762; Green v. Holway, 101 Mass. 243, 3 Am. Rep. 339; Moore v. Quirk, 105 Mass. 49, 7 Am. Rep. 499; Clemens v. Conrad, 19 Mich. 170; Sammons v. Halloway, 21 Mich. 162, 4 Am. Rep. 465; Amos-Richita v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. 143 Mich. 684, 107 N. W. 707; People ex rel. Barbour v. Gates, 43 N. Y. 40; Moore v. Moore, 47 N. Y. 467, 7 Am. Rep. 466; Gilbert v. Sage, 5 Lans. 287, affirmed in 57 N. Y. 641; Haight v. Grist, 64 N. C. 739; Cassidy v. St. Germain, 22 R. I. 53, 46 Atl. 35; Kennedy v. Roundtree, 59 S. C. 324, 82 Am. St. Rep. 841, 37 S. E. 942; Miller v. Morrow, 5 Heisk. 688; Walt v. Walsh, 10 Heisk. 314; Sporrer v. Eifler, 1 Heisk. 633; Southern Ins. Co. v. Estes, 106 Tenn. 472, 52 L.R.A. 915, 82 Am. St. Rep. 892, 62 S. W. 149; Watson v. Mirike, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 527, 61 S. W. 538; Hale v. Wilkinson, 21 Gratt. 75; Dawson v. McCarty, 21 Wash. 314, 75 Am. St. Rep. 841, 57 Pac. 816; Freedman v. Sigel, 10 Blatchf. 327, Fed. Cas. No. 5,080; State ex rel. Lakey v. Garton, 32 Ind. 1, 2 Am. Rep. 315; Ambrosini v. United States, 187 U. S. 1, 47 L. ed. 49, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 699; United States v. Owens, 100 Fed. 70; Stirneman v. Smith, 40 C. C. A. 581, 100 Fed. 600; Warwick v. Bettman, 102 Fed. 127, affirmed in 47 C. C. A. 185, 108 Fed. 46; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee (Van Brocklin v. Anderson) 117 U. S. 151, 29 L. ed. 845, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 670; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 466, 7 L. ed. 481, 487; New York ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. Tax Comrs. 2 Black, 620, 634, 635, 17 L. ed. 451, 455, 456; Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; United States v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 17 Wall. 322, 21 L. ed. 597; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 472, 24 L. ed. 527, 530; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. United States, 101 U. S. 1, 6, 25 L. ed. 979; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 350, 26 L. ed. 565, 567; Taney's Letter to Hon. S. P. Chase, Secretary of Treasury, 157 U. S. 701, 39 L. ed. 1155, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. ix: Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283, 290, 291, 45 L. ed. 862, 865, 866, 21 Sup.

Ct. Rep. 648, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 135; United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 94, 63 L. ed. 493, 496, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214; Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 64 L. ed. 887, 11 A.L.R. 519, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 138, 9 L. ed. 648, 662; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 399, 12 L. ed. 702, 750; Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76, 19 L. ed. 101, 104; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, 19 L. ed. 227, 237; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 547, 19 L. ed. 482, 485, 487; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 427, 20 L. ed. 449, 451; Union P. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 30, 31, 21 L. ed. 787, 791, 792; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 550, 23 L. ed. 588, 590; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679, 24 L. ed. 558; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 560, 581, 584, 39 L. ed. 759, 812, 819, 820, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 44 L. ed. 998, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 275, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; South Covington &C. Street R. Co. v. Kentucky, 252 U. S. 399, 404, 64 L. ed. 631, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 378.

If the exaction complained of is a tax in respect of the transfer to those beneficially entitled, or an income tax, it is unconstitutional because of its gross and capricious inequalities.

Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. p. 695;| Woodbridge v. Detroit, 8 Mich. 274: Black, Am. Const. Law, 3d ed. p. 442; Seligman, Essays in Taxn. 7th ed. pp. 5 7, 77; Redfield, Theory & Practice of Taxn. p. 511; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 560, 581-584, 39 L. ed. 759, 812, 819, 820, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Story, Const. 5th ed. § 1399; Cooley, Const. Lim. pp. 237, 239, 240, 242-244; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 135, 136, 143, 3 L. ed. 162, 177, 178, 180; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Craneh, 43, 50, 52, 3 L. ed. 659, 653, 654; Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244, 4 L. ed. 559, 561; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627, 657, 7 L. ed. 542, 553; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 19 L. ed. 482, 485; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 123, 124, 127, 20 L. ed. 122, 125-127; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 427, 20 L. ed. 449, 451; Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654, 662, 20 L. ed. 689, 695; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 320, 21 L. ed. 179, 187: Union P. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall.

5, 30, 21 L. ed. 787, 791; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388, 1 L. ed. 648, 649; Citizens' Savings & L. Asso. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, 22 L. ed. 455; Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 535, 536, 28 L. ed. 232, 238, 239, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111, 292; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369, 370, 30 L. ed. 220, 226, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462, 467, 468, 35 L. ed. 225-227, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 577; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 662, 37 L. ed. 599, 601, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 45, 38 L. ed. 896, 901, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1108; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 235237, 41 L. ed. 979, 984, 985, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 389, 390, 42 L. ed. 780, 790, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 76, 77, 109, 110, 44 L. ed. 969, 983, 984, 996, 997, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 63, 49 L. ed. 78, 98, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 448, 449, 451, 50 L. ed. 261, 264-266, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 256, 51 L. ed. 461, 472, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 64 L. ed. 887, 11 A.L.R. 519, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 12 L. ed. 702; United States v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 17 Wall. 322, 21 L. ed. 597; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487, 27 L. ed. 238, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 442; Cole v. LaGrange, 113 U. S. 1, 28 L. ed. 896, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 416; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 279, 292, 43 L. ed. 443, 447, 452, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 181 U. S. 324, 344, 45 L. ed. 879, 889, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371, 384, 385, 45 L. ed. 900, 906, 907, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616; Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158, 176, 177, 41 L. ed. 369, 388, 394, 395, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 563, 46 L. ed. 679, 691, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 238, 239, 64 L. ed. 878, 881, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 555, 23 L. ed. 588, 592; Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 46 L. ed. 713, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 37, 24 L. ed. 335; United States v. Singer, 15 Wall. 111, 21 L. ed. 49; Cummings v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 153, 157, 25 L. ed. 903, 904; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. 111 U. S. 701, 705, 28 L. ed. 569, 571, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663;