COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY. xix

should so transport suoh coal, liable to account to the State for
the payment of such tax thereon. The third, fourth, fifth,
sixth and eighth sections prescribed the mode of collection of
said tax, and of ascertaining the amount thereof, and the
seventh section provided that when any Coal Mining Company
was bona fide engaged in mining coal for sale, and paid the
said tax on the coal so mined, that then such Company should
not be liable for any State tax on its capital stock, but that .the
tax on the coal so mined should be in lieu of any other State
tax.

A large amount of coal was mined by various Companies,
and the tax paid to the Cumberland and Pennsylvania Rail Road
Company, which latter Company removed the said coal and
transported the same for sale, thus rendering itself liable under
the Act to account for the State tax thereon. The Company
reported to this office the number of tons of coal so transported,
but refused to pay over to the Treasurer the amount of said
taxes. Suit was accordingly brought, to recover the same, in
the Circuit Court for Allegany county, and judgment being
rendered in that Court for the defendant, the State took an
appeal to the Court of Appeals. The case was argued in the
Court of Appeals before seven of the Judges, (Judge Brent
being at the time ill at his home,) and four of the Judges con-
curred in the opinion, that said, tax, so far as it. affected coal in-
tended to be shipped beyond the limits of this State,,was a tax on
transportation, and the levying thereof conflicted with the
power conferred by the Constitution of the United . States on
Congress, to regulate commerce between the States and with
Foreign Nations, and that said tax was therefore unconstitu-
tional. The same Judges also concurred in the further opinion,
that the tax imposed by this Act, was a specific tax on coal as
property, without assessment of value, and so in conflict with
that provision of the Bill of Rights of Maryland, requiring
equality of taxation in proportion to value. The other three
Judges of the Court of Appeals who sat in the case, dissented
from this opinion.

The judgment was not rendered until sometime after the
Session of the Legislature had 'commenced, and as soon as