The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1922-11-29

a case challenging the constitution
ality o fthe tax imposed by Pennsyl-
yania upon anthracite coal, and was
rendered by Justice McKenna, no dis
sents being noted.
The Importance of the decision was
emphasized by New York, New Jer-
sey, elaware and the New England
states in denouncing the tax as CIV
ing Pennsylvania a monopoly, and rs
levying tribute upon those states
which do not produce but must have
anthracite as fuel.
Two questions were presented, one
whether Pennsylvania in taxing an
thracite and not bituminous coal had
not illegally Disseminated in it's clas-
sification, and the other. whether it
was not a tax upon interstate COM
merce. 1t was conteided by those
opposing the tex that, if sustained
by the supreme court wheat and
corn producing states could tax such
grains, The Southern states cotton,
and manufacturing states could i'm
pose tax on manufactured products.
The tax in question, while compara-
lively a new method among states for
raising revenues, apparently is grow
ing in popularity and there is now
pending in the supreme court case
involving an attack upon the tax i'm
posed by Minnesota upon iron ore
mined within it's borders.
Sustained by State Courts
The Pennsylvania case was brought
by Roland G. Heisler against the
Thomas Colliery company and others
and officers Of the state. The law
which was attacked was passed in
1921 and sustained by the state courts
after two laws previously passed and
substantially the same is all essen
tial features had been declared by
those courts unconstitutional.
Regarding the contention that an
thracitc and bituminous coal arc fuels
and necessarily, therefore, must be
associated in the same class for tax
alton, and that not to so associate
them was arbitrary and unreasonable,
creating inequality which rendered
the tax invalid, Justice McKenna
after describing the respective uses
of the two fuels, declared that 1T is
competent for state to exempt GER
tain kinds of property and tax others,
the restraint upon it only being
against particular persons and
classes"
Determinations merely are not in
hibited, for it was recognized that
there are "discriminativns which the
best interest Of society requires
The differences between anthracite
and bituminous coal the court found
to be so great as to be "a JUS; basis
for their different classifcations.
They differ even IS "fucls," it assert
ed, and they differ fundamentally in
other particulars. Hence, following
this line Of reasoning it held that the
state could impose tax upon anthre-
cite which would be valid alth ,ugh
bituminous was tax free.
Importance as Fuel
Emphasis given to the Importance
of anthracite as fuel in those states
which attacked the law was reviewed
by the court, which pointed out that in
some of them municipal laws and ordi-
nances forbade the use Of other coal
for domestic purposes. 1t was also
pointed out that 80 per cent. of the
total anthracite production of Pcnsyl-
vania was shipped outside that state.
Whether any state law or action in
fringes upon Interstate commerce, Jus
tice McKenna declared, depends upon
the law or action and not upon what
may be said as to the motive for it.
"a tax upon articles in one state.
that are destined for use in another
state," he said, "can not be called a
regulation of interstate commerce
whether imposed in the certainty of a
return from a monopoly existing, or
in the doubt and chances because of
The action Of the state
as regulation Of interstate commerce
does not depend upon the degree OF
interference; it is illegal in any de-
gree"
The court discussed at length the
question whether the products of q
state that have, or are destined to
have c market in other states, are sub
jestc Of Interstate commerce, though
they have not moved from the place Of