was suddenly removed; of such nature must be the justification, if any, for bounties given in times of flood, fire, or public disaster, which, however, are really sustained only in the absence of objection and on the principle lex non curat de minimis. The most insidious form of the bounty, however, is that of exemption from taxation, or, still worse, granting subsidies or subscribing to the stock and bonds of public-service, or even ordinary private, corporations.  Undoubtedly the exception has been established in the case of railroads.  The granting of State, city, or county aid to railroads has existed almost from their invention, probably on the analogy of highways; at all events, it is too late to be constitutionally questioned now.  The exemption from taxation of private profitable enterprises, such as mills or factories, is less defensible.  Frequently, however, they go without question, it being to no one’s particular interest to do so.  The usual subjects of State bounties were, in 1890, beet-root sugar, binding twine, iron and iron pipe, potato starch, and rope, with tax exemptions to Portland-cement works.  Ramie fibre continued a favorite subject of bounty for some years, with seed distributions to farmers, which were in some States held unconstitutional.  In 1896 Utah gave a bounty on canaigre leather and silk culture.  There was an exemption on salt plants in Michigan, but beet sugar continued the favorite beneficiary.  There has been a reaction against bounty legislation of recent years.  In 1908, for instance, New York repealed its bounty on beet sugar, and it may be hoped, with greater intelligence of constitutional principles, that all such legislation will be abandoned.

Coming to matters of ordinary taxation, of course the first thing to note is its extraordinary extent.  In direct taxation it is not an unfair estimate to say that the States and their municipal organizations undertake to impose an annual assessment on real and personal property which would average at least two per cent. throughout the country; amounting to from one-third to one-half of the income derived therefrom.  In indirect taxation, duties, and revenue taxes, a sum far greater is taken from the average household.  One might very much wish that the individual householder might at least know how large a sum is thus taken from his earnings annually, for it is safe to say that in no civilized country, not even in the France before the Revolution, was individual taxation anything like so heavy.  Therefore, we are beginning to find legislation, even constitutional provisions, carefully limiting the tax rate.  The amount of the State tax is thus limited in probably half the States, mostly Southern or Western, and nearly all of them limit also the amount of taxation to be imposed by the counties, cities, towns, school districts, or for other special purposes.  In the North-eastern States such limitation is not usual, though in Massachusetts and New York it exists as to certain cities.