delivered the opinion of the Court.
By their several bills in the United States District Court, appellants alleged the invalidity of Chapter 226, Laws of Minnesota, approved April 11, 1923, because of conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment and the State .Constitution. They sought to prevent its enforcement. ’That court held' the enactment valid and, by decrees en *579 tered January 15, 1925, dismissed the bills. These appeals followed.
The challenged Act (fourteen sections), effective from its passage, provides—
“ Sec. 1. There shall be levied and collected upon all ■royalty received during the year ending.December 31, 1923, and upon all royalty received during each calendar year thereafter, for permission to explore, mine, take out and remove ore from land in this State, a tax of six (6) per cent.
“ Sec. 2. For all purposes of this Act the word £ royalty ’ shall be construed to mean the amount in money or value of property received by any person having any right, title or interest in or to any tract of land in this state for permission to explore, mine, take out and remove ore therefrom; and the word ‘ person ’ shall be construed to include individuals, co-partnerships, associations, companies and corporations.”
. Succeeding sections relate to reports to the Tax Commission, method of assessment, penalties, date of payment, etc. Section 5 provides: “A person subletting land for the use of which he received royalty shall be required to pay taxes only on the difference between the amount of royalty paid by him and the amount received.” And Sec: tion 8: “ The situs of royalty for all purposes of this act shall be in this state; and the tax herein provided for shall be a specific lien from the time the same is due and payable upon all and singular the right, title and interest of the person to whom such royalty is payable, in and to the land for permission to1 explore, mine, take out and remove ore on which the royalty is paid.”
Article IX, Section 1, Constitution of Minnesota: “ The power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended or'.contracted away.. Taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects, and shall be levied and- collected for public purposes . . .”
*580 Extensive areas in northeastern Minnesota contain beds of rich iron ore and derive their chief value therefrom. Titles to these lands are held by' many resident and nonresident individuals and corporations. For many years these owners have followed the common practice of making long-term leases (ordinarily fifty years) to parties who agree to mine the ore and pay the lessor, or his successors, at some designated place, a specified amount ($.125 to $1.25), or royalty, for each ton removed. Some lessees have made subleases, reserving to themselves something above what they are obligated to pay.
Great bodies of ore are now subject to such leases, or conveyances of similar import, and every year millions of tons are mined thereunder, most of which goes out of the State. The consequent royalties are.very large — sixteen million dollars during 1923.
In 1921, the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Occupation Tax Act — Chapter 223. It prescribes a charge upon those who engage in mining, amounting to six-per centum of the value of the ore extracted and removed, after deducting costs of operation , and royalties.
Oliver Iron Mining Co. et al.
v.
Lord,
Appellants — corporate and individual — receive royalties from iron mines, under lease or similar contracts, at designated places, sometimes within and sometimes .without the State. Some of them reside within the State, and *581 some without. Some own the fee; some are lessees who have executed subleases. They maintain that the tax prescribed by Chápter 226 of 1923 is not laid uniformly upon the same class of subjects, as required by the State Constitution; that its enforcement would deprive them of the equal protection of the laws and of property without due process of law, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment; and that it impairs the obligation of their contracts and thereby violates Article I, Section 10, federal Constitution. •
Titles to all the lands and .leases were obtained subject' to the State’s power to tax. If the statute now in controversy is within that power, it cannot impair the obligation of appellants’ contracts; if beyond, it is, of course, invalid. Accordingly, there is no occasion further to discuss the application of Article I, Section 10.
The only provision of the Minnesota Constitution which undertakes to limit the power of taxation, is in Article IX, Section 1. “ Taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects, and shall be levied and collected for public purposes.” The state courts have said nothing to the contrary, and it seems to us sufficiently plain that this provision goes no further than the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, if the legislation under review does not offend that Amendment there is no conflict with the State Constitution.
In Von
Baumbach
v.
Sargent Land Co.,
As the tax is laid upon land, neither the owner’s residence nor the place fixed for payment of the royalty is' important.'
The remaining question is whether the Legislature may treat ore lands as a distinct class of property and impose upon them a tax not extended to quarries, forests, etc"., without, depriving their owners of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. And this question must be answered in thé affirmative, under the principles announced in
Heisler
v.
Thomas Colliery Co.,
There is nothing to show purpose by the State officers to insist upon a construction or application of the statute which will deprive appellants of their constitutional *583 rights; and, considering the true construction of the Act, no ground appears which would justify an injunction to prevent them from proceeding with its orderly enforcement.
Affirmed.