The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1886-05-14


be publicly installed at the Academy
of Music.
The New State Tax Law.
THE ACT OF 1885 DECLARED CoNsTITU-
TIoNAL BY THE SUPREME COURT.
The Supreme Court on Monday
handed down decision in the import
ant case of Fox's appeal from the Com
mon Pleas of Northampton county.
The opinion is by Judge Paxson and
is of considerable length. Its rulings
will be of great interest and import
ance to the people of the Common
wealth, as it decides the much-mooted
question of the constitutionality of the
new Revenue act of June 80, 1885,
and incidentally passes upon some i'm
portant questions of constitutional law.
The bill was filed by Edward j. Fox, a
prominent member of the Northamp-
ton County bar, and prayed for an in
junction to restrain the assessors from
compelling him to comply with the act
of 1885. 1t averred that the act con-
hicted with Section / and of Article
TX and Section of Article III, of the
New Constitution, because it exempts
building and loan associations, manu-
featuring corporations and the perso-
nal property of corporations from taxa
tion while taxing similar property in
the hands of individuals and similarly
exempts ''notes or bills for work or la
Dor DONE" Judge Paxson, in his opin-
ion, first discusses whether the phrase
''any or all persons whatsoever" used
in the act of 1885, includes corpora
tions and therefore whether the mort
cages and other moneyed securities in
the hands of corporations are taxable
under the new Revenue act. After an
extended discussion of the authorities
he concurs in the views expressed by
Judge Mitchell and Thayer in recent
cases in the Common Pleas of Phila-
delphia County that the word "person'
does not include corporations and that
mortgages, etc., in their hands are not
taxable under the act of 1885. The
learned Judge then proceeds to discuss
the provisions of the act and their con-
stitutionality at length. He decides
that the provision exempting from tax
alton "notes or bills for work or labor
done" is unconstitutional, but holds
that this does not invalidate the entire
act. He further holds that the act
does not impose unequal taxation; that
there is no such want Of uniformity in
its provisions as to make the act un-
constitutional, and that the provisions
for its execution, and particularly the
provision imposing penalty for non
compliance with its provisions, are also
constitutional.
Judge Paxson, after quoting many
authorities relative to the application
of the terms of the act to artificial per-
sons or corporations, holds that the act
of 1885 is a supplement to the act of
June 7, 1879, by the fourth section, of
which tax is imposssed upon the
capital stock of every company or as
sociation whatever, now or hereafter
incorporated by or under any law of
this Commonwealth, or now or here
after incorporated by any other state
or territory of the United States or
foreign government and doing business
in this Commonwealth, or having
capital employed in this Common
wealth in the name of any other per-
son or corporation, ASSOCIATION or asso-
Citations, person or persons, or in any
other manner except foreign insurance
companies, banks and savings institu-
tions, shall be subject to and pay into
the treasury of the Commonwealth
tax to be computed as follows, etc.:
The tax, briefly stated, is three mills
on the dollar of the appraised value of
the capital stock of such corporations
as declare either no dividends or divi-
dends of less than 6 per cent, and on
corporations which pay dividend of
6 per cent or over one-half mill on the
capital stock for each l per centum of
such dividend and where profits are
made and not divided, but added to the
sinking fund of such corporation, the
like tax is imposed.
The act contains other provisions for
taxing banks, insurance companies,
limited partnerships, ETC., which we
need not specifically refer to.
We have, therefore, by virtue of the
provision of the act of 1879, tax on
the capital stock of corporations, the
minimum of which is three mills on the
dollar, the exact. amount which this act
of 1885 imposes upon mortgages,
moneys at interest and moneyed capital
in the hands of individuals. 1t has
been repeatedly decided in this State,
and is settled law, that tax upon the
capital stock of a corporation is tax
upon its property and assets. 1t
would be an affectation of learning to
refer to the long line of causes assert
ing this doctrine it is sufficient to re
fer to Commonwealth VS.. Standard Oil
Company, where many of the authori-
ties are corrected. See l0l, Penn. st.
Rep.
The act of 1885 being supplement
TO the act of 1879, the two acts must
be read together, and thus read we
have in the one tax of three mills on
mortgages, etc, in the hands of indi-
vidual citizens, ana, what is practically
and legally, although not in name,
similar tax upon the same class of sub
jects in the hands of corporations.
Were the tax of 1885 on mortgages
extended to corporations the result
would be double taxation, which, while
not beyond the power of the Leglsla
lature, is not 10 be presumed.
CLASS LEGISLATION.
The exception of "Notes or bills for