Norwich bulletin., 1922-11-28
LEGAL FOR PENNSYLVANIA
 TO TAX ANTHRACITE COAL

Washington, Nov. 2T-States may inn pose q tax upon products produced with in theft borders before such products en- ter interstate commerce even though other states are large consumers of such prod ucts and do not produce them, the su- preme court held today.
 The decision was Handed down in a. case challenging the constitutionaIity of the tax imposed by Pennsylvania upon anthracite coal and was rendered by Jus tice McKenna, no dissents being noted,
 The importance of the decision was emphasized by New York, New, Jersey Delaware and the New England states denouncing the tax as giving Pennsylva- mia a. monopoly, and as levying tribute upon those states which do not produce but must have anthracite as fuel.
 Two questions were rresented, one whether Pennsylvania in taxing anthra- cite and not bituminous coal had not ille- gally di3criminatsd in it's classification and the other whether it was not a~tax upon interstate commerce. It was con tended by those opposing the tax that if sustained by the supreme court, wheat and corn producing states could tax such grains, the southern states cotton, and | manufacturing states could impose tax | on manufactured products. The tax in question:, while comparatively a new method among states for raising revenue, apparently is growing in popularity and there IS now pending in the supreme court case involving an attack upon the tax imposed by Minnesota upon iron ore mined within it's borders.
 The differences betwee nanthraeite and bituminorS coal the court foundst to be 50 great as to be "a just basis for their diff. | e. .H- sA-. F1E-. as -fueA6." it asserted. and they diffel fundamentally in other particulars Hence, following this line of reasoning 1t held that the state could impose a ta1 upon anthracite which would be valid al. though -bitumincas was tax free.
 Whether any, state law or action i'm. plnges upon interstate commerce, Justics 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" ht -said, cannot be called a regulation o, interstate commerce, whether imposed ii the certainty of a return from nonopol, existing or in the doubt and chances be- cause Of coFnpetition. The action of tn. state as a regulation of interstate com -merce, does not depends upon the vdeSre, of Interference; it is Illegal in any de gree $se ~
 The court discussed at length tn, question whether the products of stat, that have or are deztMed, to have .: market 1T, other States ressubjects of in terstatc commerce. though, they have no nsoved5f from the srlacesot their production or preparation. .,. If the possibility, or certainty, that, al article prcducsd in one State was des ! tined for. markets in another determine, 1t toSbe in interstate commerce befor the } eElnning of it's movement from th gate, the court said, it would seem tt I follow that it is in such commerce iron the Instant of It's growth or production and, in the case ofscoals. as they lie ii the ground Such a ruling would, it add ed, na1ionalize all industries,