Even as to an unmatured debt the fact that it is secured by real estate mortgage in the state where the tax is sought to be levied is immaterial, and such state is without power to levy a tax on the nonresident creditor.

W. 67; Duluth Bkg. Co. v. Koon, 81, v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, 52 L. ed. Minn. 486, 84 N. W. 335; State v. Canada | 436, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, 13 Ann. Cas. Cattle Car Co. 85 Minn. 457, 89 N. W. 764; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 66; Minnesota Sugar Co. v. Iverson, 91 49 L. ed. 937, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539, 3 Minn. 30, 97 N. W. 454; Murray v. Ram-Ann. Cas. 1133; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 say County, 81 Minn. 359, 51 L.R.A. U. S. 1, 59 L. ed. 441, L.R.A.1915C, 960, 828, 83 Am. St. Rep. 379, 84 N. W. 103; 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; Holden v. Hardy, Hetland v. Norman County, 89 Minn. 492, 169 U. S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. 95 N. W. 305; Thomas v. St. Cloud, 90 Rep. 383; Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U. S. Minn. 477, 97 N. W. 125; State ex rel. 426, 61 L. ed. 830, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 435, Mudeking v. Parr, 109 Minn. 147, 134 Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1043; Adkins v. ChilAm. St. Rep. 759, 123 N. W. 408; State dren's Hospital, 261 U. S. 525, 67 L. v. Minnesota Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. 145 ed. 785, 24 A.L.R. 1238, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. Minn. 231, 176 N. W. 756. 394; St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. Arkansas, 260 U. S. 346, 67 L. ed. 297, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 125; State v. International Paper Co. 96 Vt. 506, 32 A.L.R. 632, 120 Atl. 900; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 U. S. 149, 58 L. ed. 1259, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 879; Provident Sav. Lif Assur. Soc. v. Kentucky, 239 U. S. 103, 60 L. ed. 167, L.R.A.1916C, 572, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 34; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U. S. 357, 62 L. ed. 772, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 593; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595, 24 L. ed. 793; Dunn v. Stevens, 62 Minn. 380, 64 N. W. 924, 65 N. W. 318; McGahey V. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662, 34 L. ed. 304, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 972; Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 U. S. 342, 60 L. ed. 679, L.R.A.1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Cleveland, P. & A. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. Shore & M. S. R. Co. 130 Mich. 238, 300, 21 L. ed. 179; Grand Rapids v. Lake 97 Am. St. Rep. 473, 89 N. W. 932; Young v. Henderson, 76 N. C. 420.

Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491, 25 L. ed. 558; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 21 L. ed. 179; State v. Scottish-American Mortg. Co. 76 Minn. 155, 78 N. W. 962; Wheeler v. Sohner, 233 U. S. 434, 58 L. ed. 1030, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 607; State ex rel. Graff v. Probate Ct. 128 Minn. 371, L.R.A.1916A, 901, 150 N. W. 1094; Cooley, Taxn. 4th ed. p. 1244; Buck v. Beach, 206 U. S. 392, 51 L. ed. 1106, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 712, 11 Ann. Cas. 732.

The statute is not an income tax law.

Mr. William D. Bailey argued the cause, and, with Mr. J. W. Hunt, filed a brief for appellants in No. 390:

State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220, 108 N. W. 958, 9 Ann. Cas. 520; Boeing V Owsley, 122 Minn. 190, 142 N. W. 129; State v. Royal Mineral Asso. 132 Minn. 232, 156 N. W. 128, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 145; Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co. 242 U. S. 503, 61 L. ed. 460, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 201; Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 58 L. ed. 285, 34 Whether the law is valid depends upon Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; Doyle v. Mitchell the validity of the classification adopted Bros. Co. 247 U. S. 179, 62 L. ed. 1054, by the legislature. The same rules of 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 467; F. S. Royster classification apply whether the tax be Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 64 considered as a tax upon land, upon L. ed. 989, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560; Phila-money, upon income, or upon an occupadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsyl- tion or a privilege. vania, 122 U. S. 326, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1 Sams v. St. Louis & M. River R. Co. Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118.

The statute is not a privilege tax, which must be on a privilege a taxpayer has the option to accept or reject.

174 Mo. 73, 61 L.R.A. 475, 73 S. W. 686; Johnson v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. 43 Minn. 224, 8 L.R.A. 419, 45 N. W. 156; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 332, 333, 66 L. ed. 254, 263, 27 A.L.R. State v. Crete Min. Co. 164 Minn. 273, |375, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124; Southern R. 204 N. W. 932; Williams v. Evans, 139 Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 417, 54 L. Minn. 32, L.R.A.1918F, 542, 165 N. W. 495, 166 N. W. 504; Lucy v. Freeman, 93 Minn. 276, 101 N. W. 167; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 41 L. ed. 832, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 32 L. ed. 253, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 992, 1257; Adair

ed. 536, 541, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247; State ex rel. Luria v. Wagener, 69 Minn. 208, 38 L.R.A. 677, 65 Am. St. Rep. 565, 72 N. W. 67; Murray v. Ramsey County, 81 Minn. 361, 51 L.R.A. 828, 83 Am. St. Rep. 379, 84 N. W. 103; Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. v. Mar

Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, 291, 65 L. ed. 638, 644, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Campbell County v. Newport, 174 Ky. 723, L.R.A.1917D, 791, 193 S. W. 1; State v. Farmers & M. Sav. Bank, 114 Minn. 95, 130 N. W. 445, 851.

tin County, 104 Minn. 183, 116 N. W. |ner are subject to two taxes, while no 572; Keeney v. Comptroller, 222 U. S. unleased land is subject to more than one 525, 56 L. ed. 299, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, tax. 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Citizens' Teleph. Co. v. Fuller, 229 U. S. 322, 331, 57 L. ed. 1206, 1213, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Watson v. State Comptroller, 254 U. S. 122, 65 L. ed. 170, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 43; District of Columbia v. Brooke, 214 U. S. 138, 149, 53 L. ed. 941, 945, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560; Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co. 249 U. S. 152, 63 L. ed. 527, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 635, 29 L. ed. 746, 752, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 154, 41 L. ed. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; State v. Wells, F. & Co. 146 Minn. 456, 179 N. W. 221. It was not the purpose of the legislature to impose a new and additional tax upon an interest in land.

State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220, 108 N. W. 958, 9 Ann. Cas. 520; Boeing v. Owsley, 122 Minn. 190, 142 N. W. 129; State v. Royal Mineral Asso. 132 Minn 232, 156 N. W. 128, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 145; Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co. 242 U. S. 503, 61 L. ed. 460, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 201; Burden v. Thayer, 3 Met. 76, 37 Am. Dec. 117; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 66 Ill. 190; Tiffany, Land. & T. p. 1103. It is not a tax upon an interest in all land in which the ore is being depleted.

A classification of money or of ore with reference to its source is arbitrary and capricious.

People ex rel. Phillips v. Raynes, 136 App. Div. 417, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1053; People ex rel. Broderick v. Goldfogle, 123 Misc. 399, 205 N. Y. Supp. 876.

Even if the tax were in form upon the receipt of royalty, or upon the privilege of receiving it, or upon the privilege of leasing land, it would, in substance, be a tax upon property.

Thompson v. McLeod, 112 Miss. 387, L.R.A.1918C, 893, 73 So. 193, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 674; Thompson v. Kreutzer, 112 Miss. 167, 72 So. 891; Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, 294, 65 L. ed. 638, 645, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Craig v. E. H. Taylor Jr. & Sons, 192 Ky. 39, 232 S. W. 395; 26 R. C. L. § 209, p. 236.

Messrs. John G. Milburn and John R. Van Derlip argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Fred B. Snyder and Edward C. Gale, filed a brief for appellants in No. 471:

Taxing acts purporting to tax the various rights inherent in ownership have repeatedly been held void, or, at least, something else than an excise or occupational tax.

Oliver Iron. Min. Co. v. Lord, 262 U. S. 172, 67 L. ed. 929, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526; State v. Crete Min. Co. 164 Minn. 273, 204 N. W. 932; Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, 65 L. ed. 638, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Thompson v. Kreutzer, 112 Miss. 165, 72 So. 891; Thompson v. McLeod, 112 Miss. 388, L.R.A.1918C, 893, 73 So. 193, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 674; State ex rel. Zielonka v. Carrel, 99 Ohio St. 220, 124 N. E. 134; Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576, 593, 58 L. ed. 738, 746, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 372; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 145, 150, 55 L. ed. 380, 411, 413, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 594, 18 L. ed. 897; Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632, 18 L. ed. 904; Provident Inst. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 611, 18 L. ed. 907; Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes, 204 Ala. 495, 11 A.L.R. 300, 86 So. 56; Cooley, Taxn. 4th ed. § 42. All lands which are leased for the pur-42 La. Ann. 428, 7 So. 599; Lewellyn v. pose of exploring for or mining ore are Frick, 268 U. S. 238, 69 L. ed. 934, 45 subject to this tax, and are also subject Sup. Ct. Rep. 487; State v. Crete Min. to the usual ad valorem tax levied upon Co. 164 Minn. 273, 204 N. W. 932; Shepall real estate within the state of Minard's Estate, 184 Wis. 88, 197 N. W. 344. nesota, so that lands leased in this man- The act is invalid in any case for lack

Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, 65 L. ed. 638, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Thompson v. McLeod, 112 Miss. 383, L.R.A.1918C, 893, 73 So. 193, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 674; Thompson v. Kreutzer, 112 Miss. 165, 72 So. 891; Craig v. E. H. Taylor Jr. & Sons, 192 Ky. 36, 232 S. W. 395; State v. Gillespie, 81 Okla. 103, 197 Pac. 508; Re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co's Gross Production Tax, 81 Okla. 134, 197 Pac. 495; Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501, 66 L. ed. 338, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Parker v. North British & M. Ins. Co.

ceived under the sale contract are not taxable under the terms of the act.

Frick v. Pennsylvania, 268 U. S. 473, 69 L. ed. 1058, 42 A.L.R. 316, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co. v. Stewart, 45 Ind. App. 554, 90 N. E. 384; Girard Trust Co. v. McCaughn (D. C.) 3 F. (2d) 618; National Light & Thorium Co. v. Alexander, 80 S. C. 10, 61 S. E. 214; Gould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151, 153, 62 L. ed. 211, 213, 38 Sup. Ct.

of proper classification required both by the state and the Federal Constitutions. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. ed. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247; Citizens' Teleph. Co. v. Fuller, 229 U. S. 322, 57 L. ed. 1206, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; State ex rel. Board of Education v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 327, 106 N. W. 477; Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. v. Martin Coun-Rep. 53; Morison v. American Asso. 110 ty, 104 Minn. 179, 116 N. W. 572; Dohs Va. 91, 65 S. E. 469; Pine Tree Lumber v. Holm, 152 Minn. 529, 189 N. W. 418; Co. v. McKinley, 83 Minn. 419, 86 N. W. Driscoll v. Ramsey County, 161 Minn. 414; Moore v. Indian Camp Coal Co. 75 494, 201 N. W. 945; State ex rel. Douglas Ohio St. 493, 80 N. E. 6; Pine County v. v. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437, 57 L.R.A. 297, Tozer, 56 Minn. 293, 57 N. W. 796; Ma89 Am. St. Rep. 571, 89 N. W. 175; Jef-thews v. Mulvey, 38 Minn. 344, 37 N. W. ferson Highway Transp. Co. v. St. Cloud, 794; King v. Merriman, 38 Minn. 47, 35 155 Minn. 468, 193 N. W. 960; Fairley N. W. 570; Kingsley v. Hillside Coal & v. Duluth, 150 Minn. 374, 32 A.L.R. 1258 I. Co. 144 Pa. 613, 23 Atl. 250; Hope's 185 N. W. 390; Hjelm v. Patterson, 105 Appeal, 1 Sadler (Pa.) 307, 29 W. N. C. Minn. 256, 127 Am. St. Rep. 560, 117 N. 365; Lazarus's Estate, 145 Pa. 1, 23 Atl. W. 610; State ex rel. Greenberg v. Erick-372. son, 159 Minn. 287, 198 N. W. 1000; State ex rel. Mudeking v. Parr, 109 Minn. 147, 134 Am. St. Rep. 759, 123 N. W. 408; State ex rel. Hilderbrandt v. Fitzgerald, 117 Minr. 192, 134 N. W. 728; State v. Minnesota Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. 145 Minn. 231, 176 N. W. 756.

Messrs. Patrick J. Ryan and G. A. Youngquist argued the cause, and, with Mr. Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General of Minnesota, filed a brief for appellees:

The state has power to tax royalties.

Cooley, Taxn. 4th ed. §§ 71, 72; Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. p. 678; Park v. Duluth, 134 Minn. 296, 159 N. W. 627; State ex rel. Oliver Iron Min. Co. v. Ely, 129 Minn. 40, 151 N. W. 545, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 189.

The question is one of classification.

The act does not and cannot apply in any event to royalties for ore mined prior to January 1, 1923, nor to royalties due prior to that date, though paid afterward. | Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Daughton, 262 U. S. 413, 67 L. ed. 1051, 43 Sup. State ex rel. St. Paul City R. Co. v. Ct. Rep. 620; Holliday v. Atlanta, 96 Minnesota Tax Commission, 128 Minn. Ga. 377, 23 S. E. 406; New England 384, 150 N. W. 1087; State v. Wells, F. Mortg. Secur. Co. v. Board of Revenue, Citizens' Teleph. Co. v. Fuller, 229 U. S. & Co. 146 Minn. 444, 179 N. W. 221; 81 Ala. 110, 1 So. 30; State v. Galveston, 322, 329, 331, 57 L. ed. 1206, 1213, 1214, H. & S. A. R. Co. 100 Tex. 153, 97 S. 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; District of ColumW. 71; Frick v. Pennsylvania, 268 U. S. bia v. Brooke, 214 U. S. 138, 150, 53 L. 473, 69 L. ed. 1058, 42 A.L.R. 316, 45 ed. 941, 945, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560; Rast Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; Cooley, Taxn. 4th ed. v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 U. S. 342, § 520; Grand Rapids v. Lake Shore & 357, 60 L. ed. 679, 687, L.R.A.1917A, 421, M. S. R. Co. 130 Mich. 238, 97 Am. 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370, Ann. Cas. 1917B, St. Rep. 473, 89 N. W. 932; Weber v. 455; Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Detroit, 158 Mich. 149, 122 N. W. 570; Co. 249 U. S. 153, 157, 63 L. ed. 530, 531, People ex rel. McKnight v. Union Bag & 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Armour Packing Paper Co. 63 Misc. 132, 118 N. Y. Supp. Co. v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, 235, 50 L. ed. 456; First Nat. Bank v. Covington (C. 451, 456, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; SouthC.) 103 Fed. 523; Redwood County v. western Oil Co. v. Texas, 217 U. S. 114, Winona & St. P. Land Co. 40 Minn. 516, 54 L. ed. 688, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 496; Del41 N. W. 465, 42 N. W. 473, affirmed in aware R. Tax, 18 Wall. 206, 231, 21 L. 159 U. S. 526, 40 L. ed. 247, 16 Sup. Ct. ed. 888, 896; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, Rep. 83; State v. Weyerhauser, 68 Minn. 142 U. S. 339, 350, 35 L. ed. 1035, 1038, 353, 71 N. W. 265, affirmed in 176 U. S. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 810, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550, 44 L. ed. 583, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485; 250; Florida C. & P. R. Co. v. Reynolds, State v. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. 100 183 U. S. 471, 476, 46 L. ed. 283, 286, Tex. 153, 97 S. W. 71. 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Coulter v. LouisEven if the act be valid, moneys re-ville & N. R. Co. 196 U. S. 599, 608, 49

L. ed. 615, 617, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342;; Moffitt v. Kelly, 218 U. S. 401, 54 L. Michigan C. R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U. S. ed. 1086, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1179, 31 Sup. 245, 301, 50 L. ed. 744, 764, 26 Sup. Ct. Ct. Rep. 79; North Missouri R. Co. v. Rep. 459; Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576, Maguire, 20 Wall. 46, 22 L. ed. 287. 590, 58 L. ed. 738, 744, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 372; Singer Sewing Mach. Co. v. Brickell, 233 U. S. 304, 315, 58 L. ed. 974, 979, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 367, 59 L. ed. 265, 273, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Armour & Co. v. Virginia, 246 U. S. 1, 62 L. ed. 547, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 267; Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 247 U. S. 132, 138, 62 L. ed. 1025, 1037, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 444.

sought to prevent its enforcement. That court held the enactment valid and, by decrees entered [579] January 15, 1925, dismissed the bills. These appeals followed.

The challenged act (fourteen sections), effective from its passage, provides:

"Sec. 1. There shall be levied and collected upon all royalty received during the year ending December 31, 1923, and upon all royalty received during each calendar year thereafter, for permission to explore, mine, take out and remove ore from land in this state, a tax of six (6) per cent.

"Sec. 2. For all purposes of this act the word 'royalty' shall be construed to mean the amount in money or value of property received by any person having any right, title or interest in or to any tract of land in this state for permission to explore, mine, take out and remove ore therefrom; and the word 'person' shall be construed to include individuals, copartnerships, associations, companies and corporations."

removed. Some lessees have made subleases, reserving to themselves something above what they are obligated to pay.

Great bodies of ore are now subject to such leases, or conveyances of similar import, and every year millions of tons are mined thereunder, most of which goes out of the state. The consequent royalties are very large-sixteen million dollars during 1923.

In 1921 the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Occupation Tax Act-chapter 223. It prescribes a charge upon those who engage in mining, amounting to 6 per centum of the value of the ore extracted and removed, after deducting costs of operation and royalties. Oliver Iron Min. Co. v. Lord, 262 U. s. 172, 67 L. ed. 929, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526, sustained this act. The legislature evidently intended that chapter 226, Laws of 1923, should supplement chapter 223, Laws of 1921, and thus secure payment to the state of 6 per centum upon the value of all extracted ores, less the expense of raising them. If the owner operates, he must pay this 6 per centum, under the Occupation Tax Act; if a lessee mines, the act requires him to pay the same amount, less royalty. The Act of 1923 lays a charge of 6 per centum upon the royalty. See State ex rel. Interstate Iron Co. v. Armson, 166 Minn. 230, 207 N. W. 727, 731.

Succeeding sections relate to reports to the tax commission, method of assessment, penalties, date of payment, etc. Section 5 provides: "A person subletting land for the use of which he received royalty shall be required to pay taxes only on the difference between the amount of royalty paid by him and the amount received." And § 8: "The situs of roy- Appellants-corporate and individual alty for all purposes of this act shall be receive royalties from iron mines, unin this state; and the tax herein provided der lease or similar contracts, at desigfor shall be a specific lien from the time nated places, sometimes within and the same is due and payable upon all and sometimes without the state. Some of singular the right, title and interest of them reside within the state, and [581] the person to whom such royalty is pay-some without. Some own the fee; some able, in and to the land for permission are lessees who have executed subleases. to explore, mine, take out and remove ore on which the royalty is paid."

Article 9, § 1, Constitution of Minnesota: "The power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended or contracted away. Taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects, and shall be levied and collected for public purposes.

They maintain that the tax prescribed by chapter 226 of 1923 is not laid uniformly upon the same class of subjects, as required by the state Constitution; that its enforcement would deprive them of the equal protection of the laws and of property without due process of law, contrary to the 14th Amendment; and that it impairs the obligation of their contracts and thereby violates article I, § 10, Federal Constitution.

[580] Extensive areas in Northeastern Minnesota contain beds of rich iron ore and derive their chief value there- Titles to all the lands and leases were from. Titles to these lands are held by obtained subject to the state's power to many resident and nonresident in- tax. If the statute now in controversy is dividuals and corporations. For many within that power, it cannot impair the years these owners have followed the obligation of appellants' contracts; if common practice of making long-term beyond, it is, of course, invalid. Accordleases (ordinarily fifty years) to par-ingly, there is no occasion further to disties who agree to mine the ore and cuss the application of article I, § 10. pay the lessor, or his successors, at some The only provision of the Minnesota designated place, a specified amount Constitution which undertakes to limit ($.125 to $1.25), or royalty, for each ton the power of taxation, is in article 9, §