Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1922-02-02
COAL TAX UPHELD
f. BY DAUPH|N COURT
,Revenue-R aising Bill Passed by
Last Legislature Declared
Constitutional
PROMPT APPEAL EXPECTED

Harrisburg, FcD. Z. - tohSt'"
tionality Of the Anthracite Tax LAW
Of 1921, the major revenue act OF
tho last legislative session md counted
upon to add millions TO the income OF
the Commonwealth. was upheld by the
Dnuphin County Court today.
The decision Is signed by the three
Judges sitting as chanccllors. and goes
cxhaustivcly into the arguments heard
late last year and the litigation over
the similar act of 1913. declared un-
constitutional by the State Supreme
Court.
Steps for collection of the tax Of a
per cent nd valorcm for tho last ha'f
Of 1921 have been in progress ut the
Auditor Generals Department. the
blanks for the reports having been sent
out some time ago. and the tax WIN be
reported will be taken by the com
pluinants, Is made n supersedeas.
The period for coal companies to re-
port their production expired on jan
uary 20. but the Auditor General Is
empowered to grant fifteen day cX-
tension, which will be done.
f,HuaOelpnidu Dekdu cub
The action decided today was
launched in the form of bill in equity
to restrain assessment and collection OF
the tax by officers of the Thomas Col,
Iiery Company, the Auditor General
and State Treasurer, the plaintiff being
Roland G. Hcisler. Of Philadelphia,
shareholder Of the company.
Attorney General George Il. Alter ar.
gucd the case for the Commonwealth.
The coal tax law occupied much attcn-
ton in the last session and people con.
nected with coal companies predicted
at the time Of it's passage prolonged
litigation to test constitutional lity.
In the decision the Court adopts the
view that anthracite and bituminous
coal are different commodities.
Judge Hargest's Opinion
President Judge William NJ. Hargcst
in his opinion said. in part:
"Wc find that anthracite coal differs
from bituminoua coal in its physical
properties. namely. the amount of fixed
carbon. the amount Of volatile matter,
color. lustcr and structural character.
"Thc percentage of fixed carbon in
anthracite is much higher and the per-
centagc of volatile matter much lower
than in bituminous coal. Anthracite
coal is hard, compact and comparatively
clean and free from dust. while,
bituminous coal is softer, dusty and
dirty. defendants fifth request for
finding of fact.)
."Thc fuel rate of bituminous! coal
differs from that Of anthracite coal. The
fuel ratio Of bituminouS coal rises as
the coal is more soft. while the fuel
rate Of anthracite coal rises as the coal
is more hard. tThe defendants sixth
request for finding Of fact.)
Geography also cmpha sizes the diff
ference between bituminous and anthro :
cite coal. because where one is prSent
the other is absent. No county in Penn :.
sylysnia produces both anthracite and
bituminoms coal. defendants eighth
request for finding of fact,
Both bituminous and anthracite coal
were originally deposits of vegetable
matter, but anthracite coal has been
subject to process which has not been
applied to bituminous whereby, through
the application of heat. large propor-
ton of the volatile matter has been re-
moved. Defendants ninth request fo'
finding of fact.)
Different in Uses
The decision further points out ina
61 per cent Of the anthracite produced
in PENNSYLVANIA Is used for domestic
Durposes and substantially all anthra
cite is used for fuel for the produc'
tion of heat for domestic purposes
while bituminous is used almost ex'
clusiyely for manufacturing purposes.
The Judge further points out that thu
physical differences between anthracite
and bituminous were not before the Su'
premc Court in the Alden case and main
tains the law does not violate the Consti'
tuition which specifies ''No tax or duties
shall be laid on articles exported froI
the State nor does it violate the FED
eral constitutional clause empowering
! Congress with authority to regulate
! commerce with foreign nations an'
| among the States.