598 HARVARD LAW REVIEW States, at common law, refuse to tax chattels in other states be- longing to residents, but confine taxation of chattels to those actually situated within the state. ^^ Not every chattel which happens to be within the limits of the sovereign's territory can be regarded as situated there. A chattel merely temporarily within those hmits is not, at common law, subject to the ordinary property tax, nor can one of the United States by statute subject such a chattel to taxation, since to do so would contravene due process of law. The leading case is Hays v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co.,^^ where it was held that a vessel, found at a port of call in California on the taxing-day but registered outside the state, was not subject to taxation. This principle has been extended to all kinds of chattels passing through a state. ^ The reason is clear. The tax is levied in return for a year's pro- tection; it is known that this particular chattel will require pro- tection only for a short time. To exact a tax based on a year's protection would be unfair; no other tax is provided for by the law. If there were provision for a daily tax this could lawfully be exacted even from property temporarily within the state, for such property is of course within the jurisdiction of the sovereign. Any method provided by statute for exacting a really fair tax from such property is constitutional.^^ Promissory notes and bonds, being things of value in them- selves, salable in the market and passing freely from hand to hand, have a real situs, and are taxable in any state in which they are permanently located, ^^ and are not taxable elsewhere in a (Mass.) 292 (i860); Tobey v. Kip, 214 Mass. 477, loi N. E. 998 (1913) (semble); Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 197 Pa. 551, 47 Atl. 740 (1901). " Colbert v. Board of Supervisors, 60 Miss. 142 (1882); State v. Rahway, 24 N. J. L. (4 Zab.) 56 (1853); Hoj^ V. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 224 (1861). 62 17 How. (U. S.) 596 (1854). " For a full collection of the cases on this point see an article by the author in the current volume of the Yale Law Journal'. " Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18 (1890). " Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592 (1881); New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U. S. 309 (1899); Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189 (1903), 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, 439; Buck V. Miller, 147 Ind. 586, 45 N. E. 647, 47 N. E. 8 (1897); Callahan v. Woodbridge, 171 Mass. 595, 51 N. E. 176 (1898); State v. St. Louis County Court, 47 Mo. 594 (1871); People v. Ogdensburgh, 48 N. Y. 390 (1872); Matter of Gibbs, 60 N. Y. Misc. 645, 113 N. Y. Supp. 939 (1908); People v. Roberts, 25 App. Div. 16, 49 N. Y. Supp. 10 (1898); Matter of Tiffany, 143 App. Div. 327, 128 N. Y. Supp. 106
