The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1900-04-26
Mercantile Tax Under Legal Fire.
Early De cision Wanted.-No Matter How the
Case Goes II Will Be Promptly Taken to
Supreme Court.


Judge Wiltbank on Saturday heard
argument in Common Pleas Court
No. I, Philadelphia on the proceed
ings recently instituted to test the con-
stitutionality OF the mercantile license
act of May 2, 1899. The action is
in the form of a bill in equity.
The defendants ale City Treasurer
McMlchael and the five Mercantile
Appraisers of Philadelphia. The
argument was on motion for an in
junction against the collection of the
tax. Attorneys of the complainants
contended that the mercantile law IN
question is unconstitutional, because
it provides one system for the assess
ing and collecting of mercantile taxes
within cities of the first class and an
other system for the counties, and
further, because it discriminates I'M
lawfully in favor of venders at an ex-
change or Board of Trade as against
dealers who conduct the same bust
ness elsewhere.
1t was also argued that the provis-
ions of the act authorizing the County
Treasurer to issue subpenas and at
tachments to compel the attendance
of citizens with their private books
and papers, and submit the same to
his inspection, are contrary to the
Constitution of the Commonwealth as
well as that of the United States. The
constitutionality of the act was con-
tested before Judge Simonton, of the
Dauphin County Court, who sustained
the act, and counsel in the present
proceedings stated their willingness to
dispense with the argument and abide
by the decision OF the Supreme Court
on the appeal taken from the Dauphin
County Court, but Judge Pennypack-
er said the court could not make any
order in the matter until the argument
had been heard.
Attorney Simpson pointed out that
the tax law requires a wholesale deal
er to pay So for a license and one
half mill additional on each dollars
worth of the whole volume of business
transacted, while each dealer at any
exchange or Board of Trade is not re.
quired to pay any license fee, but a
tax of IS cents is imposed on him for
each $1,000 worth of goods SO sold.
Mr.. Simpson argued that this is an
unlawful discrimination in favor of the
Wholesale dealer who does not, but
Judge Pennypacker inquired whether
was not to be inferred that the Leg
stature intended the tax of IS cents
on each $1,000 worth of goods sold by
dealer on an exchange should be
additional to the fee and tax he was
Iequired to pay as wholesale dealer.
Attorney Simpson said that was
very important question, but in either
event it would be unlawful discrimina-
don. If 1t were as the judge suggest
ed, the discrimination would be
against dealer at an exchange.
Attorney-General Elkin and A. T.
Rfeedley, contended on behalf of the
Commonwealth that there was no un.
lawful discrimination in the imposing
Of the tax because the classification of
the different kinds of dealers was per-
,ectly lawful, and all dealers in any
particular class were obliged to pay
lniform tax. The argument on the
question of the right of the City
Treasurer to issue attachments COM
pelling bookkeepers, clerks or other
employees to produce the books of the
business in order that tax might be
assessed is unlawful, because book
keepers and clerks had no right to
produce property which did not be-
Song to them, was answered by Mr..
Freedley pointing out that the act says
The City Treasurer shall have power
20 issue attachments against all own.
ers of the business or bookkeepers or
clerks, which, he said, made the issu-
tug OF an attachment against a book
seeper or clerk the alternative step to
DC taken in case the owner should be
Iut of the jurisdiction, or for any
other reason was unable to personally
produce the books.
Judge Wiltbank suggested that
hould an attachment be issued against
abookkeeper, his answer would nat
rally be that he had not the power to
;orlply with the order, no matter how
Wiling he might be, as the books were
;ot his property, and he would not be
1olatlng the statute. At the con-
.lusion of the argument counsel re-
luested that an early decision be rem
Tered, so thst the matter could
re taken before the Supreme Court
ghen it meets in Harrisburg next
month.
IL cnpnaIAI,, lAacp't LII ka II