Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-11-25
CAN TAX ELECTRIC STOCKS.

All the Courts Decide Electricity IsNot .
Substance or Manufactured Product
Opinions Handed Down by Judges Will
Jams and Simonton.
Some people who have been knocked
silly BY contact with an electric current end
who have heard of others being killed
thereby, will probably be somewhat aston
| ished to learn that the judiciary of this
State regards it as something less than an
| airy nothing, but such is the case. The
companies mentioned below sought to es-
cape taxation on the ground that they were
| manufacturers, but the courts cannot ind
that electricity is substance and the COM
| panies interested have not been able to
show that it is, though it would seem, ac-
cording to some definitions of the
word substance" that the sub
tie fluid might be so denominated.
The different definitions given are body,
matter, material, that which is real; that
which makes a thing actual, that which
constitutes thing really thing. and not a
semblance of imaginary existence. In ad-
dition there are philosophical and theological
| definitions of the word substance There is
certainly reality and an actuality about
recognize its existence legally One of the
conclusions OF law found by Judge Simon
ton, of Dauphin county, and by the Supreme
! Court also, in suits determined recently was
as follows:
A company that produces electricity and
sells it is not a manufacturing company
| within the meaning of the act of June 80,
1885, exempting the capital stock of manu-
featuring companies from taxation.
This was the decision of the lower and of
the Supreme Court in the cases of the Com
| monw ealth vs. the Northern Electric Light
and Power Company, Brush Electric Light
U. S. Electric Light Company and Chester
Electric Light and Power Company. Their
discussion and statement occupy over 13
pages in Weekly Notes of Cases.
Judge Simonton ruled that whatever cleo
tricity may be, it is manifestly and admit
tedly not material substance, and what
ever electric light companies do, they do
not, in generating or evolving electricity,
make changes or notifications by art or in
dustry in the form or substance of material
articles. They do not make wares of any
kind nor reduce raw materials to form fit
for use"
Justice Williams adds somewhat to the
discussion and an inquiry is made as to
"NeNo SohosAeueSS AASAoJ oouhus oVS. S
agrees with an expert witness, but adds,
"but when all has been heard that can be
said on the subject, nothing has been said
to lead to the belief that electricity is a
material substance, therefore its production
or generation or evolution does no come
within the authoritative Photographic,
scientific, or loyal definition of the terms
manufacture or manufacturing and hence
we cannot say that the defendant manufact-
ures electricity
The cases were all the same, and the de-
PENDANTS must pay tax on their capital un-
til they can show that electricity is a SUBJ
stance or get a curative act of legislation.
The object of the law of 1885 was to, keep
capitalists disposed to manufacture from
seeking other fields of action, but the profits
of making electricity are probably great
enough to hold the makers here. Should
they all quit, We will be forced to set the
rivers to work and save the coal from which
the present energy is derived.