The facts are stated in the opinion.

Garber, Creswell & Garber, and Smith & Pringle, for Appellant.

Double taxation is unconstitutional in this state. (Const., art. XIII, sec. 1; Savings etc. Soc. v. Austin, 46 Cal. 483, 495; People v. Hibernia Bank, 51 CaL 243; 21 Am. Rep. 704; Burke v. Badlam, 57 Cal. 600; Spring Valley W. W. v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 112; San Francisco v. Mackey, 21 Fed. Rep. 539; San Francisco v. Anderson, 103 Cal. 69; 42 Am. St. Rep. 98; Security Savings etc. Co. v. Hinton, 97 Cal. 222; McHenry v. Downer, 116 Cal. 28.) The constitution exempts from taxation the bonds of railroads and other quasi public corporations. (Const., art. XIII, sec. 4; Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 59; Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. Rep. 728, 735; County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 391.) Legislative acts are to be construed against double taxation, and all presumptions are against it. (Cooley on Taxation; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 129, 137; American Bank v. Mumford, 4 R. I. 482; Savings Bank v. Portsmouth, 52 N. H. 29; Osborn v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 40 Conn. 494; Montgomery Co. Board of Revenue v. Montgomery Gas Light Co., 64 Ala. 273; 1 Desty on Taxation, 199; Burroughs on Taxation, sec. 49.) The exemption of railroad bonds by the Political Code is valid and effective legislation. (Pol. Code, secs. 3608, 3617; Burke v. Badlam, 57,Cal. 602; Security Savings etc. Soc. v. Hinton, supra; McHenry v. Downer, supra.)

Tirey L. Ford, Attorney General, William Abbott, Deputy Attorney General, Franklin K. Lane, City and County Attorney, and W. I. Brobeck, Assistant, for Respondent.

In view of the language of the constitution (Const., art. XIII, sec. 1) and weight of authority and reasoning in the courts of other states, the reasoning of Justice Crockett in Savings etc. Soc. v. Austin, 46 Cal. 483, and the case of People v. Hibernia Bank, 51 Cal. 343, 21 Am. Rep. 704, should be overruled, and the doctrine of Mackay v. San Francisco, 113 Cal. 392, should be adhered to and extended, so as to hold that the taxation of bonds of railroad corporations, which have been decided to be not an interest in its property (Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35), is not unconstitutional or invalid. “Bonds” are taxable by the very terms of our constitution. (Const., art. XIII, sec. 1; State v. Carson City Savings Bank, 17 Nev. 146-59; People v. Worthington, 21 Ill. 171,177; 74 Am. Dec. 86; Lamar v. Palmer, 18 Fla. 147; Alabama etc. Ins. Co. v. Lott, 54 Ala. 499; Judge v. Spencer, 15 Utah, 242; New Orleans v. Mechanics’ etc. Ins. Co., 30 La. Ann. 876; 31 Am. Rep. 232; Cook v. Burlington, 59 Iowa, 251; 44 Am. Rep. 679; McGregor v. Vanpel, 24 Iowa, 436; Detroit Common Council v. Board, 91 Mich. 78; Taggart v. Board, 71 Mich. 16-22; Jefferson Co. Sav. Bank v. Hewitt, 112 Ala. 546; Appeal Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md. 319; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97; State v. Jones, 24 Minn. 251; Burroughs on Taxation, 49, 50, 59; Walker on Taxation, 49; Cooley on Taxation, 204; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 326; Augusta Bank v. Augusta, 36 Me. 257; Goldgart v. People, 106 Ill. 25; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491; Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vt. 152; Popplelon v. Yamhill County, 8 Or. 338; State v. Collectors, 25 N. J. L. 315.) Presumptions are against exemptions from taxation. (People ex rel. etc. v. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 585, 586; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514; People ex rel. etc. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 82 N. Y. 464, 465; 95 N. Y. 556, 557; Fletcher v. Oliver, 25 Ark. 294, 295; Morrison v. Larkin, 26 La. Ann. 702.)