588 HARVARD LAW REVIEW personal ownership of the territory has the general control of it. Thus where land near the New Jersey shore, under the waters of New York bay, were taxed by New Jersey this tax was held vaHd, though "exclusive jurisdiction of and over all the waters of the Bay of New York . . . and of and over the land covered by said waters" was by agreement of the two states given to New York, saving to New Jersey "the exclusive property in and to the land under water " on the west side of the bay.^ Mr. Justice Holmes said that "The boundary line is the hne of sovereignty. . . . Boundary means sovereignty since in modern times sovereignty is mainly territorial, unless a different meaning clearly appears." jOn. tho: other hand, where land within a state is ceded to the United States for federal purposes the complete sovereignty passes away from the state, which can no longer levy taxes within the ceded territory.^. If a subject of taxation is within the taxing power of a sovereign, he has full power to tax it, irrespective of what has been done by another sovereign. Thus the fact that property within the juris- diction has paid a tax for the same year to another sovereign does not in any way affect the right of the former sovereign to tax it; ^ nor does an exemption granted by another sovereign withdraw the subject of taxation from his power. ^ The method of taxation now almost universally adopted is to levy a tax annually, payable usually in money, but now and then in labor, as in the case of a "road-tax." The day on which the tax is levied is fixed by the sovereign at his will; and on that day he levies a tax based upon his needs for a year. It may of course happen that a person is domiciled within one state on its taxing day, or property is then situated there, and is therefore liable to be taxed there, and that the domicile of the person or situs of the property is then changed to another state before its taxing day, so that the new sovereign also has a right to levy the tax. The right - ' Central R. R. v. Jersey City, 209 U. S. 473 (1908), afl&rming s. c. 70 N. J. L. 81, 56 Atl. 239 (1903); 72 N. J. L. 311, 61 Atl. 1118 (1905) followed; Leary v. Jersey City, 208 Fed. 854 (1913). • Commonwealth v. Clary, 8 Mass. 72, 77 (1811) (semble). ' Coe V. Errol, 116 U. S. 517 (1886); Shaw v. Hartford, 56 Conn. 351, 15 Atl. 742 (1888); Hudson V. Miller, 10 Kan. App. 532, 63 Pac. 21 (1900); General Electric Co. V. Board of Assessors, 121 La. 116, 46 So. 122 (1908); Winkley v. Newton, 67 N. tl. 80, 36 Atl. 610 (1891); Crosby v. Charlestown (N. H.), 95 Atl. 1043 (iQ^S); State r. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 35 Tex. Civ. App. 214, 80 S. W. 544 (1904).
- Bonaparte v. Appeal Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592 (i88r).
