*It is now well settled, and on obvious grounds, that the abandonment of the taxing power is not to "be presumed, where *the deliberate purpose of the State to relinquish it does not distinctly appear, (x) And, on the annexed to the land, because, in the event of a sale, on which alone the question could become material, the value would be enhanced by it Of this case it has been observed, that there was no restriction on the colonial government; that the right of the legislature to surrender or limit the taxing power so as to bind its successor, was not raised; and that it may be sustained on the ground that it was in the nature of a treaty with the Indians." Brewster v. Hough, 10 N. H. 143; Debolt v. The Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co. 1 Ohio State, 589. In Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 133, the State of Maryland had passed acts pledging the faith of the State not to impose any further tax on certain banks, upon their accepting and complying with certain conditions, as subscribing for the construction of a road, which was duly accepted and complied with. It was held, that the individual stockholders were thereby exempted from taxa-sion for shares in the stock of the banks, and a law imposing such a tax was unconstitutional, as impairing the obligation of a contract. The construction of the statute exempting the banks was the only question raised by the defendant's counsel, who maintained that it exempted merely the corporate franchise, and not the property of the banks, or the shares of the individual stockholders, in the stock. This question of construction is the only one to which the opinion of the court is directed. In Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 561, Marshall, C. J., speaking of the taxing power, said: "We will not say that a State may not relinquish it; that a consideration sufficiently valuable to induce a partial release of it may not exist" In Philadelphia & Wilmington R R. Co. v. Maryland, 10 How. 394, the court forbore to express an opinion on the question. The case of New Jersey v. Wilson, has been followed in Connecticut. At water v. Wood bridge, 6 Conn. 223; Osborne v. Humphrey, 7 id. 335; Parker v. Redfield, 10 id. 495; Landon v. Litchfield, 11 id. 251; Armington v. Barnet, 15 Vt. 751 , Herrick v. Randolph, 13 Vt. 525. On the other hand, the Superior Court of New Hampshire has strongly intimated an opinion, that the taxing power is an essential attribute of sovereignty inherent in the people under a republican government, and that the legislature cannot exempt land from taxation, so as to bind future legislation, without an express authority for that purpose in the Constitution, or in some other way directly from the people themselves. Piscataqua Bridge v. N. H. Bridge, 7 N. H 69; Brewster v. Hough, 10 id 138; Backus v Lebanon, 11 id. 24 The Supreme Court of Ohio, in elaborate opinions, has recently held that the taxing power is a sovereign right of the State, essential to its existence, delegated by the people to the General Assembly, to be used as a means to secure the ends of government; and that among the powers delegated to that body, there is none to surrender or limit this right so as to abridge the control of future legislation over it; that it has power to exercise it for the purposes for which it was granted, hut no power over the right itself. Debolt v. Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co. 1 Ohio St. 563; Mechanics and Traders Bank v. De-bolt, id. 591; Knoup v. The Piqua Bank, id 603; Toledo Bank v Bond, id. 622; Milan & R. Plank Road Co. v. Husted,3 Ohio St. 578. But see Piqua Bank v. Knoup, 16 How. 369, in which the judgment of the State court in the first three cases was reversed

(x) A bank charter does not carry with it by implication an exemption from taxation. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514, 561. Marshsll, C. J.: "That the taxing power is of vital importance, that it is essentia] to the existence of government, are truths which it cannot be necessary to reaffirm. They are acknowledged and asserted by all. * It would seem that the relinquishment of such a power is never to be assumed. We will not say that a State may not relinquish it,-that a consideration sufficiently valuable to induce a partial release of it may not exist; but, as the whole community is interested in retaining it undiminished, that community has a right to insist that its abandonment ought not to be presumed in a case in which the deliberate purpose of the State to abandon it does not appear." The Philadelphia & Wilmington R. R. Co. v. Maryland, 10 How. 376. Taney, C. J. "This court, on several occasions, has held, that the taxing power of a State is never presumed to be relinquished, unless the intention to reliquish is declared in clear and unambiguous terms." Portland Bank v. Ap-thorp, 12 Mass. 252; Bank of Watertown other hand, if the constitution of a State exempts property from taxation, the legislature cannot authorize its assessment (y)