is in partinvalid must be held to be wholly invalid unless the parts —that which is constitutional and that which is unconstitutional —are capable of separation, so that each may be read by itself. Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. 8. 678; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; Keokuk v. Keokuk, 95 U. 8. 80; Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82; United States v. Harris, 106 U. 8. 629. The “Gross Earnings Law” (if valid at all), does not, properly construed, exempt from taxation the lands in question. Bailey v. Magwire, 22 Wall. 215; Desty on Taxation, p. 108; Cooley on Taxation, pp. 54, 152; People v. Railroad Co., 119 Ill. 83; Appellant v. Irwin, 72 Ill. 452; Cook vy. State, 33 N. J. Law 474. See also, State v. Railroad Co., 32 Minn. 294; County of Ramsey v. Railroad Co., 33 Minn. 537; State v. Railroad Co., 38 N. W. Rep. 635;. Railroad Co. v. City of St. Paul, 38 N. W. Rep. 925; Railroad Co. v. Neary, 8 Atl. Rep. 363. The law is not an exemption law, but a scheme for commuting taxes, and the so-called exemption is only co-extensive with the property which produces the earnings. Railroad Co. v. Supervisors, 29 Wis. 116; Gardner v. State, 21 N. J. Law 557; County of Todd v. Railroad Co., 36 N. W. Rep. 109; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 575. Railroad property constitutes a class, and the state may exempt, or commute the taxes on such property, but the marks of distinction on which classification is founded must be such in the nature of things, as will in some reasonable degree account for or justify the restriction of the legislature. State v. Hammer, 42 N. J. Law 435; Nichols v. Walter, 33 N. W. Rep. 800; Lavallee v. Railroad Co., 41 N. W. Rep. 974; New Orleans v. Fourchy, 30 La. Ann. 910. Classification of property for taxation must be based upon the nature and use of the property itself. State v. Taylor, 11 AtL Rep. 321; Town v. Banks, 2 S. W. Rep. 852; Davies v. Gaines, 3S. W. Rep. 184; State v. Duryea, 6 Atl. Rep. 524; State Board v. State, 4 Atl Rep. 578; Graham v. Chatauqua Co., 2 Pac. Rep. 549; Lassen Co. v. Cone, 14 Pac. Rep. 100. To construe the law as exempting these lands from taxation would bring the law into conflict with the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 396; Railroad Co. v. Cailand, 3 Pac. Rep. 134; San Mateo Case, 13 Fed. Rep. 722.
