Lehigh Iron Co. v. Lower Macungie Township

• Decision Date: 30 March 1876
• Citation: 81 Pa. 482
• Parties: Lehigh Iron Co. <I>versus</I> Lower Macungie Township.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 482

81 Pa. 482

Lehigh Iron Co. versus Lower Macungie Township.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 23, 1876.

March 30, 1876.

March 23d 1876.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county: Of January Term 1876, No. 149.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

H. C. Hunsberger and E. Harvey, for plaintiffs in error.

E. Albright, for defendant in error.

Chief Justice AGNEW delivered the opinion of the court March 30th 1876.

When the question upon the constitutional power to levy such a special tax as this was here before, this court affirmed it with a very positive dissent, however, by the present Chief Justice, and a qualified concurrence on part of READ, then Chief Justice, and WILLIAMS, J., excepting to the extension of Hammett v. Philadelphia, beyond the case itself. It was believed by the majority that the former decisions of the court supported the power, though its exercise was apparently unjust and unequal. For the same reasons the court, as now constituted, feel bound by that decision, especially in view of the constitutional restrictions upon the power of taxation, which it is hoped will hereafter prevent local and unequal impositions. The only question now before us is, therefore, upon the effect of the first section of the ninth article of the new Constitution upon such legislation. It is contended that this section is a repeal per se of the act under which this tax is sought to be levied and collected.

It is a question of very great concern to the whole state, for if the position taken by the plaintiff in error be true, some of the most important laws of the state have fallen long since, and all acts done under them have been unlawful and void. An example may be found in the act known as the Venango County Tax Law, enacted many years ago, and extended from time to time to other counties, until now it is the law of probably one-third of the counties in the state. This is the law which makes the treasurer of the county the collector of the state and county taxes, sends him out into the different townships to receive from the people, and requires him to place all uncollected taxes, on the first day of September, in the hands of the several constables for collection, with an addition of five per cent. to the taxes of such person to pay the expense of collection. It allows the taxpayer a reduction of five per cent. for prompt payment before the first of August, and grace by payment of the simple amount between the 1st of August and the 1st of September. The constables give bond and sureties for collection. This is undoubtedly the cheapest and best system of collection in the state, but it is unquestionably special. Many other laws for particular localities might be mentioned.

In view of the wide and extended effects of an immediate repeal, ipso facto, by the adoption of the new Constitution, it behooves us to be careful in the interpretation of the sections mentioned. Upon all the consideration we can give to this subject, after a very careful argument to assist us, we are of opinion that section 1 of article 9 is not immediately operative, but was intended by the convention to be mandatory upon the legislature to enact laws framed upon its special intent, and to repeal all laws inconsistent therewith, leaving the...