Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 191 U. S. ville, etc., Ry. v. Taylor, 86 Fed. Rep. 168, 179; Railroad and Telephone Cos. v. Board, 85 Fed. Rep. 302, 303, 317; Fraser v. McConway, 82 Fed. Rep. 257; Davenport v. Cloverport, 72 Fed. Rep. 689; Myers v. Shields, 61 Fed. Rep. 713. The laws require, therefore: 1. That the General Assembly shall provide a law for assessment and taxation; 2. That the law must provide for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation; 3. That such law shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation, for taxation, for all property, both real and personal; 4. Excepting such only for (a) municipal, (b) educational, (c) literary, (d) scientific, (e) religious, or (f) charitable purposes, as may be exempted by law, but the provision in the Constitution that "all property, both real and personal," shall be taxed, precludes exemption by the Legislature of any property from taxation. Indianapolis v. Sturdevant, 24 Indiana, 391; 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 156, note; Memphis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Gaines, 97 U. S. 697; Trustees M. E. Church v. Ellis, 38 Indiana, 3; Memphis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Gaines, 3 Tenn. Ch. 604; Ellis v. Louisville Ry. Co., 8 Baxt. Tenn. 530; State v. Hannibal, etc., Ry., 75 Missouri, 208; New Orleans v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 28 La. Ann. 756; Chattanooga v. Nashville, etc., Ry. Co., Lea, Tenn. 651. If the constitutional provision by its terms permits exemption, then, within the limits of its provisions, exemptions may be made by law, by the Legislature, but no exemption can be made outside of the limits specified. State ex rel. Tieman v. Indianapolis, 69 Indiana, 375; Chesapeake, etc., Ry. Co. v. Miller, 19 W. Va. 408; Hogg v. Mackay, 23 Oregon, 339; 31 Pac. Rep. 779; 19 L. R. A. 77. Any law exempting either persons or property must be strictly construed and it has been settled that this provision must be so construed. Trustees M. E. Church v. Ellis, 38 Indiana, 3, 8; Read v. Yeager, 104 Indiana, 195; Conklin v. Cambridge, 58 Indiana, 130; City of South Bend v. University, 69 Indiana, 344; State ex rel. v. City of Indianapolis, 69 Indiana, 375; Warner v. Curran, 75 Indiana, 309; Orr v. Baker, 4 191 U. S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. Indiana, 86; Indianapolis v. McLean, 8 Indiana, 328; Indianapolis v. Grand Lodge, 25 Indiana, 518, 521; 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 157. The burden is also on him who claims the exemption, 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 159, and his pleading must set out the facts that exempt him. Cairo, etc., Ru. Co. v. Parks, 32 Arkansas, 131; Appeal Tax Cases v. Rice, 50 Maryland, 302, 312. The test in every instance of exemption is the use. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Kent, 151 Indiana, 349, 353; State ex rel. Tieman v. Indianapolis, 69 Indiana, 375; 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pp. 166, note, 167, 168. The act violates both the Constitution of the State of Indiana and the Fourteenth Amendment: 1. The lack of constitutional uniformity and equality in the rate of assessment and taxation; 2. It is a special law for the assessment of taxes for state, county, township and road purposes; 3. It grants to one class of citizens privileges and immunities which, upon the same terms, will not equally apply to all citizens; 4. It exempts from taxation realty not held for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes. This method of valuation is illegal and in violation of the Constitution and rules laid down by the courts. Cooley's. Const. Lim (6th ed.) 608; 2 Kent Com. 231; Bright v. McCulloch, 27 Indiana, 223; Cleveland, etc., R. R. Co. v. Backus, 133 Indiana, 513; Willis v. Crowder, 134 Indiana, 515. The law is special and violative of sec. 2, art. IV, of the state constitution as it discriminates against unincumbered real estate. There is no separate estate in lands mortgaged created by the mortgage. A mortgage conveys no estate in the lands mortgaged, but simply creates a lien. Sec. 1099, Burns, 1901; Reasoner v. Edmunson, 5 Indiana, 393; Francis v. Porter, 7 Indiana, 213; Norton v. Noble, 22 Indiana, 160; Grable v. McCulloh, 27 Indiana, 472; Fletcher v. Holmes, 32 Indiana, 497. The mortgagee class are favored to the exclusion of other debtors and this is condemned by the Constitution. Washington University v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 444; Knowlton v. Supervisors of Rock Co., 9 Wisconsin, 421; Van Riper v. Pearson, 40 Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 191 U. S. N. J. L. 1, 9; State v. Hammar, 42 N. J. L. 435, 440; Randolph v. Wood, 49 N. J. L. 85; Lippman v. The People, 175 Illinois, 101, 106; Ex parte Jentzsch, 32 L. R. A. 664, 665; Darcy v. San José, 104 California, 642; Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 California, 238; Cooley's Const. Lim. 393, 395; Bank of the State v. Cooper, 2 Yerg. 599; Officer v. Young, 5 Yerg. 320; Griffin v. Cunningham, 20 Grat. 31; Arnold v. Kelley, 5 W. Va. 446; Lewis v. Webb, 3 Greenl. 326; State v. Ellet, 47 Ohio St. 90; State v. Hinman, 65 N. H. 103; State v. Sheriff, 48 Minnesota, 236; Hogg v. Mackay, 23 Oregon, 339; State v. Gardner, 58 Ohio St. 599; Hores v. Sheridan, 137 Indiana, 128, distinguished. The effect of the act is to exempt from taxation, property not coming within the classes privileged by the state constitution. Any law which indirectly produces an exemption is void. That cannot be accomplished indirectly which the Constitution declares shall not be done directly. Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U. S. 97. The question at issue has already been decided. State v. Indianapolis, 69 Indiana. 367; Warner v. Curran, 75 Indiana, 309; People v. Eddy, 43 California, 431; S. C., 13 Am. Rep. 143; Hogg v. Mackay, 19 L. R. A. 177; S. C., 31 Pac. Rep. 779. For cases as to absolute inhibition against exemptions not specifically enumerated, see Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U. S. 97; Crawford v. Linn Co., 11 Oregon, 494; Chesapeake & O. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 19 W. Va. 408; Zanesville v. Richards, 5 Ohio St. 589; People v. McCreery, 34 California, 432; Fletcher v. Oliver, 25 Arkansas, 289; Nashville & K. R. R. Co. v. Wilson Co., 89 Tennessee, 597; Barber v. Louisville Board of Trade, 82 Kentucky, 645; Jones v. Mayor, 25 Arkansas, 289; Life Association v. Board of Assessors, 49 Missouri, 512. The state cannot tax mortgages held by non-residents at the locus of the mortgaged property. Such debts must be taxed where the holder resides. Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432; State v. Earl, 1 Nevada, 397; Myers v. Seaberger, 45 Ohio St. 232; Arapahoe Co. Comrs. v. Cutter, 3 Colorado, 350; People v. Eastman, 25 California, 621; State v. Lantz, 53 Maryland, 578. 191 U. S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. A debt, for purposes of taxation, is situated at the domicile of the creditor, although secured by mortgage upon real estate situated in another State. This is the general rule. Ex parte Clark, 100 U. S. 401; State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 82 U. S. 15; Eells v. Holder, 12 Fed. Rep. 668; San Francis v. Mackey, 22 Fed. Rep. 602; Cooley on Taxation, 21, 22, 63; 1 Desty on Taxation, p. 62; Foresman v. Byrnes, 68 Indiana, 247; Senour, Treas., v. Ruth, 140 Indiana, 318; Baltimore v. Hussey, 67 Maryland, 112; State v. Vansyckle, 49 N. J. L. 366; State v. Darcy, 2 L. R. A. 350; 51 N. J. L. 140; Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St. 28; Grant v. Jones, 39 Ohio St. 506; Worthington v. Sebastain, 25 Ohio St. 1; Holland v. Comrs., etc., 27 L. R. A. 797; St. Paul v. Merritt, 7 Minnesota, 258; Liverpool, etc., v. Board, 44 La. Ann. 760; Goldgart v. People, 106 Illinois, 25; People v. Eastman, 25 California, 603; People v. Smith, 88 N. Y. 577; Territory v. Del. Tax List, 24 Pac. Rep. 182 (Arizona); Comm. v. R. R. Co., 27 Gratt. 344; Holland v. Commissioners, 27 L. R. A. 797; Detroit v. Board of Assessors, 91 Michigan, 78, distinguished. The Indiana exemption and deduction statute differs from other exemption statutes in that it deducts a fixed amount for debts. For statutes of other states see Conn. R. S. 1888, $3854; New Jersey Rev. St. vol. 3, 3298; New York, Birdseye's R. S. 2d ed. Tax Law, vol. 3, 3094; Michigan, Acts of 1893, p. 288; Illinois, Starr & Curtis, An. Stat. 1896, ch. 120, § 27; Iowa, Code, 1897; Oregon, An. Stats. 2d ed., 1892, § 2752; Kansas, Stats. 1899, § 7165; Minnesota, Stats. 1894, § 1526; Nebraska, Stats. 1901, § 4308; Nor. Dakota Stats. 1887, § 1543, clause 6; So. Dakota, R. S. 1896, § 2135; California, Deering's An. Codes & Stats. 1885, § 3650; Washington, Ballinger's An. Codes & Stats. 1897, § 1657. As to Indiana, see § 6332, Rev. St. 1881, for old act held constitutional in Florer v. Sheridan, 137 Indiana, 28, and new act of 1891, pp. 199-291. Indiana does not make mortgages realty for purposes of taxation as Oregon does and this distinguishes Savings &c. Assn, v. Multonomah County, 169 U. S. 421; Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 191 U. S. Crawford v. Linn County, 110 Oregon, 482, and other cases on defendant in error's brief. The granting of the deduction is the equivalent of giving of a credit for so much tax or the drawing of a warrant and whether the officer has a personal interest in the question, or if the nature of the office is such as to require him to raise it, he may make defense and it is his duty to do so. Denman v. Broderick, 111 California, 97; Norman v. State Board, 93 Kentucky, 537; Von Schmidt v. Wilbur, 105 California, 151; Smith v. Broderick, 107 California, 644. Upon the question of whether a ministerial officer can defend a mandamus case on the ground of the unconstitutionality of a law the cases are in irreconcilable conflict. 19 Enc. Law, p. 764. It is always a question of the particular case. People ex rel. v. Salomon, 54 Illinois, 39, is not a mandamus case at all, but a case involving a contempt proceeding. But, admitting it so holds, yet in People v. Salomon, 46 Illinois, 333; People v. Miner, 46 Illinois, 384; Madison Co. v. People, 58 Illinois, 456; People v. Thompson, 155 Illinois, 451, exactly the opposite doctrine was held. Franklin Co. v. State ex rel., 24 Florida, 55, is exactly contrary to McConihe v. State, 17 Florida, 238, and State v. Hooker, 36 Florida, 358. The State cites twelve cases from eight States, but of these eight States five have also decided the same question the other way; these are Louisiana, Illinois, Nebraska, West Virginia and Florida. The Illinois and Florida cases are eited above. The others are: State v. New Orleans, 42 La. Ann. 92; State v. Judge, 5 La. Ann. 756; State v. Moore, 40 Nebraska, 854; State v. Wyoming Co., 47 W. Va. 672. But arrayed against this doctrine are some sixteen state and Federal court decisions in the following cases: Hoover v. McChesney, 81 Fed. Rep. 483; Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U. S. 97, 101; State v. Stout, 61 Indiana, 143; Denman v. Broderick, 111 California, 97; Bradenburg v. Hoke, 101 California, 101; Smith v. Judge, 17 California, 547; Patly v. Colgan, 97 California, 251; Maynard v. Board, 84 Michigan, 226; Public Schools v. Allegheny Co., 20 Maryland, |