We have already seen that the taking of private property by the State in exercise of the taxing power is not brought within the constitutional requirement, applicable in the case of property taken under the power of eminent domain, that direct pecuniary compensation therefor shall be made. In like manner the, taking of private property in the form of taxes, is not, in itself, a taking of property without due process of law.

In Davidson v. New Orleans21 the Supreme Court after considering the meaning of the phrase "due process of law" as employed in the Fourteenth Amendment, and after adverting to the difficulty of stating affirmatively and completely the protection afforded by it, go on to say that they can at least state some of the cases which do not fall within its application, and among these, they say, "we lay down the following propositions as applicable to the case before us: that whenever by the laws of a State, or by state authority, a tax, assessment, servitude, or other burden is imposed upon property for the public use, whether it be of the whole State or of some more limited portion of the community, and those laws provide for a mode of confirming or contesting the charge thus imposed, in the ordinary courts of justice, with such notice to the person or such proceeding in regard to the property as is appropriate to the nature of the case, the judgment in such proceedings cannot be said to deprive the owner of his property without due process of law, however obnoxious it may be to other objections. It may violate some provision of the state Constitution against unequal taxation, but the .Federal Government imposes no restraints on the States in that regard. . . . It is said that plaintiff's property had previously been assessed for the same purpose, and the assessment paid. If this be meant to deny the right of the State to tax or assess property twice for the same purpose, we know of no provision in the federal Constitution which forbids this, or which forbids unequal taxation by the States. If the act under which the former assessment was made is relied on as a contract against further assessments for the same purpose, we concur with the Supreme Court of Louisiana- in being unable to discover such a contract."

18 Art. I, Sec. VII, Cl. 4. 19 Art. I. Sec. VIII, Cl. 5. 20 Sec Sections 57-60. 2196 U. S. 97; 24 L. ed. 616

From the foregoing it is apparent that the taking of private property in the form of taxes is not, in itself, a taking of private property without due process of law because no direct compensation is made for the property thus taken. Though the taking of the property in the form of a tax is thus not in itself a taking without due process, it may become such by reason of the purpose for which, or the manner in which, the tax is levied, assessed and collected.

Due process of law obliges the United States as well as the individual States, in the exercise of their taxing powers, to conform to the following rules:

1. That the tax shall be for a public purpose.

2. That it shall operate uniformly upon those subject to it.

3. That either the person or the property taxed shall be within the jurisdiction of the government levying the tax.

4. That in the assessment and collection of the tax certain guarantees against injustice to individuals, especially by way of notice and opportunity for a hearing, shall be provided.