Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-06-04
FIGHTING THE TAXES.
A Number of Big Cases Come Up
Before the Supreme Court.
CLAIMS OF A BREWING COMPANY.
1t Does Not Want to Be Disseminated
Against in Taxation.
THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANYS PLEA
fspEc1AL TELEGRAM TO THE p1spArcH.J J

ESPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DIsPATCH.J
HARRISBURG, June 3.-The Supreme
Court heard arguments to-day in a number
of important tax cases. One of these in
wolves the right of the State to tax the
capital stock of beer brewing companies,
while other manufacturing corporations are
exempt from its payment. The Germania
Brewing Company, of Philadelphia, is re-
sisting the settlement of the State against
it, because it believes that the provision in
the Constitution requiring taxes to be uni
form on the class of subjects has been
violated by treating the company differ
emily from other manufacturing corpora
tions.
Samuel Gustine Thompson, of Philadel-
phia, took this view in the argument he
made before the court to-day. He admitted
the right of the Legislature to exempt
manufacturing corporations from taxation,
but when it excepted from this class of cor
porations certain companies engaged in
manufacturing malt liquors, it transcribed
its power. Attorney General Hensel said
he was not prepared to defend the propriety
of the act which exempted manufacturing
companies from taxation, while it exaeted
tribute from other corporations; but If the
Legislature had the right to make this dis
tinction it had an equal right to say that
brewing companies, although engaged in
manufacturing, should be taxed.
Claims for Over 81, 100000
Another interesting case argued was one
of a number which Rufus E. Shapley orig
mated during the term of Auditor General
Norris. The claims under these aggregated
over s., 900, 900, including penalties and in
terest Since then, the courts have decided
against the collection of penalties and inter-
est. Notwithstanding these facts, nearly
81, ,OO0, 900 has been awarded the Common
wealth on account of the settlements made
against corporations at the instance of Mr..
Shapley.
The case heard to-day was that of the
Pennsylvania Company against the Com
monwealth. The company paid tax in 1872
and 1873 of about 8 per cent of its capital
stock, and since then it has not paid dol
lar to the State, claiming that, as it had
paid no dividends, it was not liable for tax
alton. In 1888 Mr. Shapley filed claim
against the company for the State, amounting
to nearly 81, 200, 900, which included penalties
and interest Outside of penalties and in
terest the claim was $500, 195 49, The COM
pany appealed from the settlement made
against it on account of the clause filed, and
the case was heard in the Dauphin county
court, which, through Judge Mcpherson,
decided that the company was not exempt
from tax on its capital tax under its charter,
and that if it was the taxing acts Of 1874,
1877 and 1879 according to court decisions,
has repealed the exemption.
Both Sides Appealed the Case.
In addition, not allowing the State any
thing for penalties and interest, the court
cut down the amount of the claim by ap-
portioning the tax on the mileage basis as
to the company's equipment and leases.
The Commonwealth was awarded S416, 500.
Both sides appealed, the company because
it believed that its charter was still in force,
and that therefore it was not taxable; and
the State because the Judgment rendered
was too small. Wayne McVeagh and Ly-
man d. Gilbert represented the Pennsyl-
vaAia Company, and Attorney General
HeIsel and Mr. Shapley the Common
wealth.
The Boyer revenue BILL although yet in
the hands of the Governor, was brought to
the attention of the Supreme Court in the
Brush Electric Light Company case to-day by
LAWYER Olmsted, of this city, who referred
to its preamble as showing the belief of the
State officers who drew it and of the Legis-
islature which passed it that the present
laws taxing capital stock of corporations are
unconstitutional. Y nuer the acI OF 1913 cor
porations which pay 6per cent or more in
dividends are taxed 8 mills on the part of
their capital, while those which pay less
than per cent are taxed 8 mills on an ap-
praisement of the actual value.
Too Much Discrimination.
This. the counsel contended, was a dis
elimination between corporations of the
same class, and therefore not uniform as re-
quired by the State constitution. Mr.. Gill
bert and Wayne McVeagh both argued to
the same effect. The latter insisted that one
of the large trust companies of Philadelphia
pays under the present law only little
over 1 mill on the actual value of its stock,
while other corporations of the same class
pay as high as 10 mills.
Should the old law be declared uneOn-
stitutional, the Boyer bill will have served
double purpose, not only of increasing the
rate, but afording constitutional basis Of
taxation, as all the counsel agreed that a
uniform taxation upon the appraised value
is constitutional
The State case against the Central Trans
portatiOn Company was argued, in which
the Commonwealth claims a tax of about
S27, 600 bE reason of an alleged dividend
which the company insists was only re-
duetion of its capital stock. Two appeals
of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
from decision in which Judge Simonton
awarded over $500, 900 in favor of the Com
monwealth were argued by Messrs. Lam
berton and johnson on behalf of the COM
pany. The State case against the Delaware,