Opinion of the Court. Section 2782 Rev. Stat. of Ohio, originally § 34 of the act of April 5, 1859, Swan and Critchfield's Statutes, page 1452, provides, in substance, that if the county auditor shall have reason to believe that any person has given to the assessor a false statement of his personal property, moneys, or credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock companies, or otherwise, which are by law subject to taxation, or that the assessor has made an erroneous return of any such property, he shall proceed, at any time before the final settlement with the county treasurer, to charge such person on the duplicate with the proper amount of taxes, and to enable him to do this, he is authorized to issue compulsory process and require the attendance of any person "whom he might suppose to have a knowledge of the articles or value of the personal property, moneys, or credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock companies, or otherwise, and examine such person or persons on oath in relation to such statement or return; and it shall be the duty of the auditor in all such cases to notify every such person, before making the entry on the tax list and duplicate, that he may have an opportunity of showing that his statement or return of the assessor was correct. And the county auditor shall in all such cases file in his office a statement of the facts or evidence on which he made such correction." These provisions of the statute have been in force ever since April 5, 1859. The findings of fact show that the plaintiff in error was subpoenaed to appear before the auditor to give information of all property within his knowledge which had not been returned for taxation, and that, while in attendance before the auditor, he was informed by the latter of his purpose to increase the amount of the property returned by him for taxation. This was a substantial compliance with the statute, which required the auditor to notify the tax-payer, before making the entry of such increase on the tax list and duplicate, of his purpose to do so, so that he might have an opportunity of showing that his statement or the return of the assessor was correct. The subpoena served on the plaintiff in error and the conduct of the auditor under it gave him the opportunity to which the statute entitled him. Opinion of the Court. But the plaintiff in error contends, that, beside service of the subpoena requiring him to attend upon the auditor and give testimony in relation to property not returned for taxation, he was entitled to written notice before the auditor could make an entry on the tax list of any additional property omitted in his returns. The statute does not require any notice in writing except the compulsory process of subpoena to be served upon the person called to attend and testify. But if any further notice was required, it was waived by the plaintiff in error. The finding of the Circuit Court shows that he appeared and submitted to an examination touching the correctness of his returns, that the auditor told him during such examination that as auditor he was required by his duty to make a supplemental assessment against him of the property which he had not included in his returns for the four years mentioned in the findings of the court, and requested him to make such explanations of his returns as he thought proper, and that he did make such as he chose. It does not appear that he complained that he had not received notice of the purpose of the auditor to increase the assessment of his property, or that the notice was not in writing, or that it was too short, or that he asked further time for consideration, or to take the advice of counsel, or to produce further evidence. From all that appears by the record, there was no surprise; he had opportunity to establish the correctness of the tax returns, and to show the auditor that he was not liable to an additional assessment. He cannot, therefore, complain of want of notice. The plaintiff in error next insists that the law of 1878, by which the auditor assumed to correct the returns of the plaintiff in error for the years from 1874 to 1877 inclusive, and place his omitted property on the tax list, was retroactive, and therefore forbidden by section 28 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Ohio, which declares that "the General Assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws." Before the passage of the act of 1878, the law of Ohio, § 1 of the act of April 5, 1859, Vol. 46, page 175, Laws of Ohio; Vol. 2 Swan & Critchfield's Revised Statutes of Ohio, page 1438, provided that all property, whether real or personal, in Opinion of the Court. the State, all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, etc., of persons residing therein, should be subject to taxation and entered on the list of taxable property for that purpose; and section six of the same act required the owner to make out and deliver to the assessor a statement under oath of all the personal property, moneys, investments in bonds or stocks, required to be listed for taxation. This was the law in force during the years for which the taxes sued for were assessed and levied, and it is still in force. Section 34 of the act of April 5, 1859, re-enacted as § 2782 Rev. Stat. Ohio, of 1880, authorized, as we have stated, the county auditor, in case he believed any person had made a false return /of his personal property, investments in bonds or stocks, to proceed at any time before the final settlement with the county treasurer, which was required to be made annually, to correct the return and charge such person on the duplicate with the proper amount of taxes. By § 1 of a supplementary act passed March 29, 1861, Vol. 58, page 47, Laws of Ohio, it was provided that if any person whose duty it was to make a return of property for taxation should make a false return, the auditor should ascertain the true amount of the taxable property that such person ought to have returned, and add thereto fifty per centum on the amount so ascertained, and the amount so ascertained, with the fifty per centum, should be entered on the duplicate for taxation. These enactments continued in force until the act of May 11, 1878, when they were amended by § 48 of that act by adding the following clause: "And the inquiry and corrections provided for in this and the next section may go as far back as the same can be traced, not exceeding the four years next prior to the year in which the inquiries and corrections are made; but as to former years no penalty should be added and only simple taxes should be claimed." Laws of Ohio, 1878, title 13, page 456; Rev. Stat. Ohio, of 1880, § 2781. As this act took effect upon its passage, it authorized the auditor, in any future corrections and adjustments of taxes due, to extend his inquiries back for a period of four years. It did not require him to wait four years after its passage before he could give it full effect. Opinion of the Court. It is this amendment of April 11, 1878, which the plaintiff in error insists is retroactive, because it authorizes the auditor to go back for a period of four years to correct false returns; whereas, before its passage he could not for that purpose go behind his annual settlement with the treasurer. The complaint is not that the auditor was required to add fifty per centum to the value of the omitted property, for the old law authorized him to do that, provided he did it before his annual settlement with the county treasurer, and the new law authorized him to make the addition of fifty per centum for the current year only, so that in this respect the new law did not change the old; but that it was not competent for the legislature to go behind the annual adjustments made of the taxes by the auditor with the tax-payer; that if the State had wrongfully assumed too much, the citizen was barred, and if the citizen had listed too little the State was barred, and that legislation which undertook to open these adjustments was retroactive. In substance, this contention is that a tax-payer who has been evading the payment of the taxes due from him by making false returns, can shield himself behind the annual settlement made by the auditor with the treasurer, in which his returns were assumed to be true, and that the legislature can pass no act by which the falsity of the returns can for a limited period (in this case four years) be exposed, and the payment of the taxes enforced-in other words, that the tax-payer has a vested right in the fruits of his false returns. Such a proposi tion cannot be sustained. Foster v. Essex Bank, 16 Mass. 245. In our opinion, no right of the tax-payer was invaded by the act of 1878. His investments in bonds and stocks were subject to taxation; the taxes upon such investments were due to the State, and the act of 1878 merely provided a method by which the taxes might be assessed and collected in spite of the annual settlements made by the auditor. It gave a new remedy to the State for enforcing a right which it had all the time possessed, namely, the right to the taxes upon property liable to taxation. Such an act is not a retroactive law within the meaning of Opinion of the Court. the Constitution of Ohio. In the case of The Society for Prop- . agating the Gospel v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 139, Mr. Justice Story thus defines a retroactive, or, as he calls it, a retrospective law: "Upon principle, every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past, must be deemed retrospective." The act of 1878 took away no vested right of the tax-payer, it imposed upon him no new duty or obligation, and subjected him to no new disability in reference to past transactions. The definition of Judge Story was adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Rairden v. Holden, 15 Ohio St. 207, when construing the clause in the Constitution of Ohio now under consideration. Applying that definition, it is clear the provision in the act of May 11, 1878, complained of, is not open to the objection that it is forbidden by the Constitution of the State. See also Goshorn v. Purcell, 11 Ohio St. 641; Greene Township v. Campbell, 16 Ohio St. 11; State v. Richland Township, 20 Ohio St. 362; Dow v. Norris, 4 N. H. 16; Clark v. Clark, 10 N. H. 380; Greenlaw v. Greenlaw, 12 N. H. 200. The authorities cited are conclusive against the contention that the legislation under review is retroactive. The plaintiff in error next insists that the Circuit Court erred in deciding that certificates or shares.of capital stock in the Western Union Telegraph Company, held by him, were taxable in the State of Ohio. Section 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution of Ohio declares: "Laws shall be passed taxing by a uniform rule all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint-stock companies, or otherwise." To give effect to this provision the act of April 5, 1859, Rev. Stat., Swan & Critchfield, 1438, entitled "An Act for the assessment of all property in this State," &c., was passed. It was provided by § 1 of this act as follows: "All property, whether real or personal, in this State, all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint-stock companies, or otherwise, of persons residing therein, . except such as is herein after expressly exempted, shall be subject to taxation, and such |