Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1914-03-25
ANTHRACITE TAX
IS UNFAIR
[Continued from First Page.]
more to Dauphin county waged vigor-
! ously in the court all daY

more to Dauphin county, waged vigor-
ously in the court all day.
Attorneys for the State and for sew
eral cities and boroughs declared that
the Peoples Coal Company, of Scran-
ton, had shown no grounds for relief
in equity In bringing the suit to test
the constitutionality of the anthracite.
tonnage law of 1913. The Scranton
company is understood to represent
number of other anthracite producers
and the suit, which was filed in jan
unry, will probably go clear UP to the
highest court of the State, maybe even
to the United States Supreme Court
for adjudication.
President Judge George Kunkel,
who has sat in a number of famous
suits to test constitutionality, was on
the bench and the coal company was
represented by Major Everett Warren,
of Scranton: w. Frank Wheaton. of
Barre, and Ralph Reimer, gem
eral counsel of the Peoples company.
Deputy Attorney General Hargest took
charge of the case for the State. seated
at the States table being David J..
Davies, city solicitor of Scranton; r.
A. Zimmerman and Fl. G. Reynolds,
representing the Scranton Board of
Trade; Mark Edgar secretary of the
scranton Board, who appeared in be-
half of the tax at the meeting of the
State taxation commission: Charles
McHush, solicitor of Wilkes Barre; r.
p. Sheridan, Nanticoke; Joseph A.
O Boyle. Pittston, and attorneys repre-
senting Pottsville and other interested
cities and boroughs
The plaintiffs offered an amendment
to the bill in equity at the opening of
the court, charging that in addition to
the reasons advanced some time ago
for declaring the law unconstitutional
70 lo NO. 1o,,i irlp a,,I
being such. it was Illegal because it
had not been advertised.
Speaking for the State, Mr.. Hargest
declared that the company had failed
to show i'll its bill any grounds for re-
lief In equity. The law provides way
for a test without invoking the
extraordinary powers of a court OF
equity, because there are laws which
allow appeals from tax settlements by
the State which are used every day
and which have been employed to Sc
cure adjustment of cases involving
millions of dollars. Mr.. Hargest at
tackled the averments that the law
offended against the constitutions of
the United States and of the State be-
cause of loss as not we'll taken. TAX
ing up the contention that the law was
a ''makeshift" and that n portion of
the income might be used for payment
for surface damages, he said that such
a statement was "scandalous' and that
the plaintiff had no right to attack
the State on such an assumption. AS
to the great and irreparable injury
which it was averred the company
would suffer II compelled to file re-
ports and comply with the law by
February l, he said that the statement
was absurd because the companies had
complied with the law and had filed
reports. He remarked that the plain
tiff does not come into court with such
clean hands as it should have in equity
during his remarks on this section,
| The deputy attorney general went
all through the bill and attacked each
averment. On the amendments he
said that If the tonnage tax was local
legislation, then all anthracite laws
were also local.
In answering the demurrer of the
State to the suit Major Warren made
the remark about hard and soft shell
crabs to support his contention that
the classification clause had been
ignored. He argued that the Dauphin
County Court can take jurisdiction in
the case and asked what earthly diff
ference 1t made whether the case was
settled on the legal or equity side of
court Equity. he asserted is the place
to settle the integrity of the law and
cited proceedings in valuation of coal
lands In Lackawanna and Luzerne
counties in support of his contention,
Taking up the answer of the State
that there was impertinent matter in
the bill. he denied ii and said that if
the Supreme Court could go into the
history of the school code the bill
could go into the history of the act.
and that If the States highest court
called the coke "a subterfuge" in a
dissenting opinion the present act
might be styled a "makeshift" in q
bill Indications were given that the
case may go to the United States
courts by references made by the
| major to the fact that all but s per
cent of the anthracite is sold outside
of the State.
The law, he said, added tax to coal
and did not relieve the land from local
! taxation; it has a defective title, and
the penalty for failing to make a re-
port he styled "a club Throughout
his argument Major Warren resented
the attitude of the state and once said
that the State was to blame for the
delay in getting a hearing because of
length of time taken to file its de.
murrer
The main argument against the con-
stitutionality of the act was that II
violated the classification clause, the
major contending that it draws q hard
and fast line between anthracite and
bituminOus. Taxation, he said, must
be uniform, and the coal produced In
| eight counties is to be taxed and that
| produced in twenty-eight others is eX-
empted.
No decision is exDected to-day