TrajIilAMS V. BEES. 691 �see no reason why it cannot, within certain lîmits, maie dif- ferent classes of manufacturing companies, and provide differ- ent rules for assessing the value of their capital and franchises. �Applying these views to the case before court, it seems to me Mfholly within the province of the legislature to say ■whether gas companies shall be olassed with other manufac- turing companies for the purposes of taxation, or whether they shall form a distinct class by themselves. �One cogent reason suggests itself why they should be clas- sified separately from companies engaged exclusively in man- ufacturing : They usually, if not always, exercise not only the franchise of being a corporation, but also the right to use the public streets and highways for the purpose of conveying the gas made by them to their consummers. �In the case of this defendant company, it bas, by its char- ter, the vested right to lay its pipes in ail the streets and avenues of this city — a franchise presumably of great value, and differing essentially from the franchise of a mere manu- facturing company ; and, as a general rule, this class of cor- porations always uses the streets, alleys and highways of the cities and towns in which they carry on their business for the purpose of laying their pipes therein ; and, indeed, thia privilege, whether derived from the legislature, as in the casa with this company, or from the city or town authorities, is almost a necessary incident to the suocessful practical oper- ation of a gas company, as it is doubtf ul if any of them could be profitably worked if compelled to obtain the right to lay their pipes solely on private property. From the very nature of their business they must depend upon and enjoy an ease- ment in the public streets, such as is not enjoy ed by other manufacturers. �And if the legislature deems this or any other distinction between ths business of gas companies and other manufactur- ing companies sufiîcient to justify a different mode of taxa- tion, the courts cannot interfere. �For. these reasons the injunction isdenied. The demurrer to the bill is sustained, and the bill discharged for want of equity. ����
