Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1882-03-01
The Suit Against the Standard
OIL Company on Hearing
nj Harrisburg.


HARRISBURG, FEB. ga suit of
the State to recover taxes alleged to be
due from the Standard Oil Company
came before court this morning. Dep
uty Attorney General Snodgrass pre-
sented letter, alleged to have been
written at the Auditor Generals office
in 1879, requesting the Standard Com
pany to report. The defense objected
to the letter on the ground that the
person to whom it was sent was not
in any manner connected with the
company. Reports fled by the Stand
ard Company in the latter part OF 1881
were read. A voluminous correspond
ence between Auditor General Schell
and attorneys and officers of the Stand
ard Company was offered and read by
the States attorneys. in all of which
the Standard Company denied they
were liable to taxation in this State.
An agreement as to the facts was next
read, during which the counsel for
both sides gave notice that they would
make numerous objections. The COM
monwealth rested its case after pre-
senting a statement of Auditor General
Schell. Olmstead opened the defense
by presenting an appeal for the COM
pany from the Auditor Generals state.
ment. He also read dispositions from
ex Governor Hartranft, Insurance
Commissioner Foster and Clerk Frazer,
all of which tended to show that the
foreign corporation had but portion
of its capital invested in the State, and
had never been taxed on the full
amount of it's capital stocks. This,
they state, had been the case during
their connection with the Auditor
Generals Department, which had cov-
cred long term of years.
In the afternoon session M. E. Olm-
sted continued his statement, conclud-
ing by having fead paper by X. q.
McMurtrue, approved by Attorney
General Dimmick, setting forth an act
of April 24thf 1874, as construed by
the Auditor Generals department, that
did not hold foreign chartered corpora
tions liable for tax by reason of the
pnrchrse of material or sale OF wares
in this State. The argument was ap.
proved by Deputy Attorney General
Snodgrass little before 3o'clock- He
contended that, as great portion o1
the company's capital was used in pros
ecuting it's buinesss in this State, il
should be taxed. He then endeavored
to prove that their business was car
ried on in this State.
Mr.. Ulmsted, in his argument, quo
ted the accounts upon which the claim
is based. Referring to section 4. act
of 1868, which imposes tax on foreign
companies lawfully doing business in
this State, he dwelt at some length up.
on the words doing business and
claimed the company was engaged IN
no transactions save the purchase ol
oil for shipment out of the State. Hi
claimed if the law was as the Attorney
General construed 1t, Pennsylvania
has declared all the world shall be tax
ed. The construction asked for wal
not founded on any known principle o
equality or justice. Pending argu
memt, court ajourned.
The defense submitted the argument
of Judge John j. Pearson. 1t goes TO
, show there was no design in the stat
ute to tax a foreign corporation for
buying or selling in the State ant
that it was beyond the power of thu
State to tax the capital stock or bust
ness done here so far as the same i
admitted or proved by the facts agreed
on. The facts prove no more than the
, carrying on of commerce and interiors;
, between people, companies and corpo
: rations, Pennsylvania and the Stand
ard Oil Company, and being business
of that character in Pennsylvania can
, not be taxed in this State, under th'
, Federal Constitution Admitting tn
possibility that the court would decide
, the company was doing business within
the intention of the statutes, If taxable
r ut all, it was only to the extent o
the business transacted.