sire on the part of the state to bring within its borders large manufacturing establishments. People ex rel. Blackinton Co. v. Roberts, 4 App. Div. 388 (1896).

What are and what are not manufacturing corporations under the law; mining companies.-A Utah mining company sending its bullion to the New York assay office for refining and receiving therefor certificates which were sold by it, is not engaged in manufacturing in New York state. People v. Horn Silver Mining Co., 38 Hun, 276 (1885).

Asphalt company.-A corporation engaged in testing and mixing asphalt, oil, sand and limestone, producing a new paving compound, was held to be a manufacturing corporation. People ex rel. Eastern Bermudez Asph. Co. v. Morgan, 61 App. Div. 373, Kellogg, J., dissenting (1901). But a corporation engaged in preparing a street for an asphalt pavement and in laying the pavement is not a manufacturing corporation. People ex rel. Syracuse Imp. Co. v. Morgan, 59 App. Div. 302 (1901).

The rule laid down in the last two cases was again affirmed in the later case of People ex rel. Fruin-Bambrick Paving Co. v. Knight, 99 App. Div. 62 (1904).

Paint and chemical company.-A corporation engaged in making dry colors from various chemicals and in the making of colored paints by mixing these dry colors with materials not made by it, is employed in manufacturing. Such a corporation is taxable upon that part of its capital employed otherwise than in manufacturing, even though under its charter, it was not authorized so to employ it. People ex rel. Devoe & Raynolds Co. v. Roberts, 51 App. Div. 77 (1900).

Fountain pen company.-A corporation which purchases the constituent parts of a fountain pen and puts them together,

is a manufacturing corporation. People ex rel. L. E. Waterman Co. v. Morgan, 48 App. Div. 395 (1900).

Wood pulp company.-A corporation manufacturing linings for wood pulp digesters is exempt. People ex rel. Non-Antem Sulphite Digester Co. v. Knight, 67 App. Div. 365 (1901).

Company publishing newspaper.-A corporation which publishes a newspaper but does not own or operate any plant for printing it, is not a manufacturing corporation. People ex rel. Jewelers' Circular Pub. Co. v. Roberts, 155 N. Y. 1 (1898).

Buying sheep, slaughtering them and preparing the products. -Purchasing sheep, slaughtering them, selling the hides and preparing them for shipment and shipping them in refrigerator cars is not "carrying on manufacture." People ex rel. N. Eng. Dressed Meat & Wool Co. v. Roberts, 155 N. Y. 408 (1898); rev'g 20 App. Div. 521. See also People v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 99 N. Y. 181.

The preparation for market of goods manufactured outside the state does not entitle a foreign corporation to exemption. -A foreign corporation engaged in the manufacture of iron or steel wire rope in New Jersey and having a place of business in this state, where men were employed to fit goods for the market, is not engaged in manufacture in this state, and not entitled to exemption. People ex rel. Roebling's Sons' Co. v. Wemple, 138 N. Y. 582 (1893).

Company engaged in tea and coffee business.-A corporation engaged in the sale of spices, coffee and tea, purchased in bulk, the tea being mixed and sold in smaller packages, the coffee purchased in the raw bean, then roasted and ground, is not a manufacturing corporation. People ex rel. U. P. Tea Co.

v. Roberts, 145 N. Y. 375 (1895). Compare above case with Standard Wood Co., infra.

Preparation of manufactured article so as to fit it for sale does not exempt company from tax.-It seems that a foreign corporation engaged in this state in putting together the different parts of articles manufactured by it in another state, is not exempt from taxation for the reason that no part of the article was manufactured here from the original materials.

A sale made by sample in the state does not represent capital employed in the state. People ex rel. Seth Thomas Co. v. Wemple, 133 N. Y. 323 (1892).

Where company is engaged in manufacturing and also in interstate commerce it is not exempt.-Where a corporation is engaged in manufacturing and other business, the fact that the other business is interstate commerce does not prevent the state from taxing it. If there is no hostile discrimination it is not a violation of the Federal Constitution. People ex rel. Am. Soda F. Co. v. Roberts, 158 N. Y. 168 (1899).

Company engaged in making and selling kiln dried kindling wood exempt.-A foreign corporation using all its capital in the state in making and selling kiln dried kindling wood is wholly engaged in manufacturing in the state and exempt from a tax on franchise or business. People ex rel. Standard Wood Co. v. Roberts, 20 App. Div. 514 (1897).

Gas and electric companies liable to a tax under section 186 are now expressly exempted under section 183 of the Tax Law. -But prior to the express exemption these companies were held entitled to exemption from taxes under Chapter 542 of the Laws of 1880, third section, in favor of manufacturing corporations carrying on manufactures within the state. Nassau Gas Light Co. v. City of Brooklyn & Tanner, Collector, 25 Hun,

567, aff'd in 89 N. Y. 409 (1882); People ex rel. Brush El. Co. v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 543; People ex rel. Edison Co. v. same, 129 N. Y. 664 (1892).

Only that part of capital directly employed in manufacturing will be entitled to exemption.-Unless the business is directly incidental to the manufacturing carried on, it will not receive exemption. Thus, a piano manufacturing company owned about two hundred acres of land, on part of which it built some cottages, and rented them to employees at yearly and monthly rentals. This capital cannot be said to be engaged in manufacturing, although connected with the land on which the factory is built. Nor can it be said as to the vacant land, which is offered for sale, that it is not employed in business. People ex rel. Steinway Sons v. Kelsey, 108 App. Div. 138 (1905); see also Commonwealth v. Mahoning Rolling Mills, 129 Pa. 360 (1889); Commonwealth v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 151 Pa. 276 (1892).

Summary of decisions in other states on exemption of manufacturing corporations.-The following have been regarded as manufacturing:

PUBLISHING, PRINTING, AND SELLING BOOKS, ENGRAVING, JOB PRINTING, ETC. Evening Journal Assoc. v. State Board of Assessors, 47 N. J. L. 36 (1885); Press Printing Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 51 N. J. L. 75 (1888); Comm. v. William Man Co., 150 Pa. St. 64 (1894).

BUILDING OF BRIDGES AND STRUCTURAL STEEL WORK. Comm. v. Keystone Bridge Co., 156 Pa. St. 500 (1893).

RICE MILLING. New Orleans v. Ernst, 35 La. Ann. 746 (1883).

MAKING OF GAS. Covington Gas Light Co. v. Covington, 84 Ky. 94 (1886); Consolidated Gas Co. v. Baltimore, 62 Md. 588 (1884).

The following have been held not to be manufacturing:

PUBLISHING A NEWSPAPER. Evening Journal Ass'n v. State Board, 47 N. J. L. 36; Press Printing Co. v. State Board, 51 N. J. L. 75.

SUPPLYING STEAM POWER. Comm. v. Arrott Mills Co., 145 Pa. St. 69 (1891).

MAKING AND SELLING ICE CREAM. New Orleans v. Manessier, 32 La. Ann. 1075 (1880).

Frederick, etc.,

PRODUCING ELECTRICITY FOR LIGHTING. Light Co. v. Frederick City, 84 Md. 599 (1897); Comm. v. Northern Electric, etc., Co., 145 Pa. St. 105 (1891); Comm. v. Brush Electric, etc., Co., 145 Pa. St. 147 (1891); Comm. v. Edison Elec., etc., Co., 170 Pa. St. 231 (1895).

A BUSINESS CONSISTING OF ASSEMBLING PARTS manufactured by another. Lake v. Guillotte, 48 La. Ann. 870 (1896); Brooklyn Cooperage Co. v. New Orleans, 47 La. Ann. 1314 (1895); Chickasaw Cooperage Co. v. Police Jury, 48 La. Ann. 523 (1896).

SHELLS CLEANED AND ETCHED BY ACID, afterwards ground on an emery board. Hartranft v. Weigman, 121 U. S. 609 (1887).

CUTTING OF GRASS AND MAKING IT INTO HAY. Frazee v. Moffitt, 20 Blatch. 267, 18 Fed. 584 (1882).