Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1915-10-29
COAL TAXLAW INVALID,
SAYS SUPREME COURT,
AND STATE IS BTGLOSER
-, Provided for by Act of the
legislature Is Rejected and
Companies Are the
Victors

.,-rsRrRGH, Pa, oct 2a-The act
Pll ocisIaturc levying n tax on an
VIZ a,,. coal and providing for the col
uIs and distribution Of such n tax
ecuvn coai mined within the state, was
On ia unconstitutional by tho state
oe.ear,e Court in a decision handed down
tup .,asterdav. The opinion, which was
hg AN nv Justice Stewart, was rem
49, IN the case Of tho Commonwealth
eeD,rst the Alden Coal Company and re-
Wes The Judgment Of the Court OF
v-.,r,on pleas Of Dauphin County JUS
Cou po,ter and Frazer dissented.
uo'e .oon as the act had passed the Leg
t,,,re and been approved by the Cover
W many coal companies began TO charge
H..teeaie and retail dealers an average of
wy. ts cents a ton to cover the amount
he tax. should Il have to be paid. II
estimated by state officials and at
...eys who have followed the case that
uv.aroxirately 1900 900 would have been
,,sllzed by the state had the Supreme
r.nrt upheld the tax and required It to he
tyled.
..,ienged the constitutionallty OF the
.J Complying with this requirement,
A., protesting against It's liability to
.sre a report or pay the tax, the coal
..vnanv filed with the auditor general
!, January 81, 1914, a report showing the
.r,bracite coal mined and prepared for
-.rket during the period beginning June
X 1919. and ending December 81, 1918.
-ss tax charged against the coal COM
Nv was s7.192S6, and from this settle
~snt an appeal was taken to the Com
-on Pleas Court OF Dauphin County
here Judgment was entered in favor Of
ha Commonwealth. In reversing the
aver court Justice Stewart said In part:
"Uben the necessary effect of the leg
,,stion is to create inequality of burden
!, va here see It, are those complaining
A the Injustice to receive no other an
.ver than that, while the Constitution
rromises them equality in the matter of
,pration, that because it failed to place
,sstriction upon the Legislatures right to
distribute the tax it collects, that there
iore the purpose of the legislation is not
n ba inquired into? II constitutional re-
sulrements are to be circumvented by
uIch simple and easy process of reason
lnr the question may yet be asked derls-
lysly of the Constitution, What Is all
this worth?'"
Few, II any, consumers OF coal in this
cty will be affected by the invalidation
d the anthracite coal tax law of 1913,
n was said today by an official OF one
!, the most prominent coal companies In
He declared that the price OF coal TO
the consumer was not raised by dealers
IN this city to cover the amount of the
4 lax under the 1918 act except in few
cases. Indeed, he said, the ultimate con-
umer did not have to pay a higher price
anywhere in the State except in a few
i small towns.
His statement was made In answer tC
. published reports that the price of coa'
4 had been raised by retailers in anticipa.
ton Of having to pay the tax and that
4 the money thus realized was held by re-
llers
"In some cases." he said. coal pro
ducers raised the price to wholesale and
retail dealers, but the price list of the
retailer was not advanced The retailer
& stood the loss, believing the law would
/. be declared unconstitutional In othei
cases the producers billed coal at the ole
price adding the amount of tax as q
separate item and making an arrange
ment that if the law were found invalid
The amount thus paid would be refunded
In such cases the retailers and whole
alers will get their money back from tn
producers. l do not know how much
money was collected by producers in tina
way now becoming subject to refund"