*1 (NEWS AMERICAN THE HEARST CORPORATION DIVISION) STATE DEPARTMENT OF AND TAXATION
ASSESSMENTS Term, September 1972.] [No. August 1973.
Decided *2 argued J., was cause before and C. Barnes, Murphy, Digges JJ. McWilliams, Singley, Smith, Levine, Shea, Jr., Kernan and F. with Robert W. Edward whom Sherbow, brief, appellant. on the Doyle for Shea & General, with Attorney Derby, Stephen Assistant E. brief, General, Burch, on the Attorney whom was Francis B. appellee. by Maryland-Delaware-D. C. filed brief Amicus Curiae Association, Inc., Adkins, Jr., Henry M. Dale Press E. on the brief. Adkins, & Smethurst Rutledge Potts opinion C. Singley, J., Court. delivered Murphy, J., filed a J., C. J., dissent Murphy, Digges, Digges, J., page dissenting opinion in which concurs at 646infra. *3 Court, Maryland Tax is a appeal the case, from
This on Md. Comm’n, 174 Newspapers reprise of American (1938). It McCardell], A. 574 Newspapers v. [American are presents same issue: parties and the same the involves printing in a used raw materials equipment and the City Baltimore exempt taxation under the newspaper from exempts local taxation the from which ordinance manufacturing? in materials and raw printing aof held that Newspapers American years manufacturing. In newspaper not constitute did a decision, have been there since that intervened which have provisions of the developments. The significant number of granted have which ordinance Baltimore printing a equipment used The substantially altered. been sophisticated and more much more newspaper has become have jurisdictions which four fully In the automated. the decision American question since considered a printing of flatly held that the have three Newspapers, year important all, a manufacturing. Most newspaper is Department Foods, Inc. v. State ago, in Perdue (1972), A. 2d 170 Taxation, 264 & Assessments processing highly chicken automated we concluded exemption. It now a manufacturer’s plant was entitled to Newspapers reconsider American necessary becomes developments. light of these The Facts Division) (Hearst) (News American Corporation Hearst city occupies an entire block plant almost owns a American, prints Baltimore News in which it The Baltimore day, and 92 tons daily newspaper. it uses between 86 Each weekdays 200,000 newspapers newsprint print on some employees, 1,000 300,000 Sundays. are about on There operation, directly printing involved 300 of whom are departments payroll mechanical an annual with $3,000,000. about year 1967, Department Assessments the State
For the plant Department) Hearst’s (the assessed and Taxation following portions of city purposes. state tax challenged by petition filed Hearst assessment January on 31 1968: it in the Tax Court Subject to state
Subject to state city taxes tax products Manufactured material
and raw [con-
sisting principally entire Hearst’s
inventory of news- $113,620.00 $170,440.00 print] *4 machinery Tools and Department
[which were not
maintained in manufactur- 3,110,900.00 ing]
3,281,340.00
113,620.00
$3,394,960.00
Total
argued
Hearst
that the raw material assessment included
inventory
newsprint,
of which was located
entire
some
its
plant,
siding,
and some
boxcars on its railroad
some
averaged
year
storage warehouses,
over the
which when
This,
days’ supply
year 1967.
a 17.6
for the
amounted to
contrary
argued,
only
Department’s
was not
to the
Hearst
prior
days’
a 7
practice, which involved an assessment of
compromise,1
apparently
by
was an
supply
reached
but
imposition.
argument was that since all
unconstitutional
Its
newsprint
imported
was
from either Canada or
required
Finland,
of more than was
for its
the taxation
against
prohibition
immediate needs violated the
state’s
imposts
imports
levying
on
contained
United States
10,
Constitution,
I,
2,
Youngstown
Article Section
Clause
see
534,
490,
L.Ed.2d
Bowers, 358 U. S.
Sheet Tube Co. v.
&
Angeles,
(1959)
County
S.
and Virtue Bros. v.
Los
Ct. 383
App.
220,
Rptr.
(1966),
denied,
239 Cal.
2d
48 Cal.
cert.
58,
(1966).
820,
By considered the time the matter was 1970were years 1969and Hearst’s assessments petition which with the also before it were consolidated The amounts of the several the 1967 assessment. attacked considered; they consequence are of need assessments Department year, because in each successive approved by 1. This had been the Tax Court Hearst Consolidated Publications, Department Taxation, Inc. v. State of Assessments & TPC Maryland Rptr. Nos. 2 CCH State Tax 200-455 ¶ *5 adopted approach year it had the followed which for 1967.
By order, its Court affirmed the assessments Department years 1967-1970, entered for products excepting the item “manufactured and raw by including in materials” which it modified the assessable days’ supply newsprint, basis an of rather than an average inventory newsprint, of Hearst’s entire of years. practical matter, of the annualized for each As a this reducing figures $170,440.00 had the effect of the 1967 and $113,620.00 adopted by Department $77,150.00 $51,430.00,respectively, correspondingly reducing and of comparable figures succeeding years. each of appealed order, mounting from
Hearst the Tax Court its heaviest attack on denial of the manufacturer’s exemption, primarily because, successful, should this be it carry an exemption inventory .would with it of the entire newsprint manufacturing. as a raw material used Department cross-appeal, argument entered a being average inventory entire newsprint, Hearst’s simply days’ supply properly an 11 was taxable.
The Issues appeal us, questions: On to Hearst raises three printing newspaper “I. The of a over uses $5,000,000 specialized worth equipment, employs persons over 300 in its departments, mechanical generating department payroll mechanical in excess of $3,000,000 annually day and which each transforms between 86 and 92 tons of raw newsprint into over two hundred thousand newspapers individual newsprint from that ‘manufacturing’ constitutes as that term is used Article Section Sub-Sections 23 Maryland Annotated Code of (1957, Repl. Vol.) and Article Section (1966 83 Baltimore Edition). Code withholding a manufacturer's tax “II. The *6 exemption News American but from the exemption job printers granting to such machinery and raw which use the same products materials, produce as the the same competition American, in with News and are advertising revenue, American the News unfairly against the News discriminates equal deprives it of the American and therefore infringes unlawfully protection of the laws and press in upon of the freedom of the violation Amendments to -the Fourteenth and First of the States and Articles Constitution United 15, 23, Rights and of the Declaration of Maryland. State of the Constitution receiving erred evidence “HI. Tax Court planned was of increased mechanization which shortly during put into after but not use until period.” the end of the taxable The Ordinance (a) (the (1966) City Art.
Baltimore Code § part: Ordinance) provides, in encourage In order exemption “Tax formula. manufacturing development of growth and thereby City promote and in Baltimore
industries City, said inhabitants of general welfare of the equipment used machinery and milk, laundry and processing pasteurization, and equipment when dry cleaning and laundering and employed the business or or dry cleaning, mechanical tools and all or hand or steam implements, whether worked manufacturing machinery, power, other motive actually directly engines, apparatus manufacturing process of a employed hand, manufacturer, material on raw hands of the products manufactured manufacturers, exempt be shall from taxation for ordinary municipal purposes Mayor all City Council of Baltimore . . . .” It should noted that the1 is extended to tools machinery, taxpayer. not to the carefully compared This should be with text of the predecessors ordinance which was considered our Newspapers, supra, American Then, Md. at 58. Balti- (1927) part: more Code Art. provided, § Appeal “The Court authorized and directed upon application, provided, as hereinafter any individual, corporation, actually firm or engaged in the business of articles *7 City in Baltimore, any of commerce the to abate personal all may and which taxes be levied by authority Mayor City hereafter and any corporate Council Baltimore for uses thereof, upon any implements, mechanical tools or by by whether worked hand or steam or other power, upon any motive machinery or or manufacturing apparatus owned such individuals, corporation firm actually or employed in used business manufacturing articles of commerce in the said provided, city; this section shall not be any exempting manufacturing as construed apparatus, machinery tools or used in the business manufacturing generating illuminating or gas any manufacturing apparatus, for sale or tools and machinery in used generating business of or producing light for sale electricity electric or to be power any used as motive or for purpose, other or any manufacturing apparatus, tools, type or preparation, used in the printing or issuing, by printers publishers or thereof, of any daily journal periodical publication.2 or other (Emphasis supplied) appeared Language first similar to that is italicized
2. Both of these pursuant ordinances were enacted enabling legislation which has a history venerable in this State, Kimball-Tyler see City, 90-93, Baltimore (1957). A. 2d 433 At the time of the enactment of the Ordinance Court, which was before provision the Tax Maryland (1957, Vol.) was found Repl. Code Art. (23) and 9
§ § provided, The first part: subsection “(23) Tools, implements, etc. in manu- — facturing farming. (including me- or Tools tools), implements, chanical whether worked hand, power, steam or other machinery, motive apparatus engines or used in manufacturing, temporarily not, whether idle or any county city, (including or as herein defined Baltimore), exempted by whether county in city not, which said any is located or political by law, subdivision in which resolution or may exempt ordinance the same are or from county city taxation; county and the any county any commissioners of city, defined, herein including mayor city Baltimore, council of hereby pass are authorized to such resolution or ordinance.”
The other provided, part: subsection “(24) Raw products materials and manufactured — Raw materials on hand and
of manufacturers. *8 products manufactured in the hands of the any city manufacturer county and/or in which by law, resolution or may ordinance the same are or exempt be county from city taxation; and/or provided nothing that in this subsection shall Mayor City Council, Ordinance No. 1893, 71 of the and enacted in and by (1944), survived until exemption (1950-51) it was omitted 52 Ordinance which added an machinery processing milk; used in see Ordinance 1503 (1950) 37, 50; (1956-57) Baltimore Code Art. Ordinance 643 § machinery laundering; (1965-66), added used in Ordinance 752 dry cleaning. exempt any property such from State taxation or from assessment therefor.” our years Newspapers, Thirteen before American rejected predecessors a manufacturer’s considered and by publishing firm in a Co. v. claimed H. M. Rowe A. Comm’n, 149 M. Rowe Co. Beck] [H. (1925). agreed statement facts that the Faced with engaged preparation Company was Rowe others, printed by manuscripts were and bound which engaged. that Rowe was concluded Court Judge opinion manufacturing. In the course of the which Court, following: find the for the we Offutt wrote if its business could considered “But even be. newspaper, like to that of in its essential features necessarily is follow that it it does not manufacturing, newspaper merely because a together it, with such gathers and assembles news it to the tastes and other matter as deems suited form, readers, in final and then of its demands actually ready printed and made for sends it to be others, by sale is not in the same class as that work on its own newspaper which does labor. machinery and with own conceded, without so may “It however printing, binding and deciding, that business of by preparing use or sale manual mechanical labor, books, pamphlets, forms, stationery and manufacturing, articles, that but similar help appellant, alone cannot because concession itself, things those but has them it none of does others; if appellant and it avail the by done can doing it be conceded that work also it it itself.” Md. at 260-61 hands of another does (Emphasis supplied) repealed Chapter 3. While and 9 of Art. 81 8A the Laws 350 of §§ July 1972, 9, 9A, 9B, 9D were
of substituted, effective 1 and new 9C §§ provisions comparable appear Repl. Vol., (1957, in Code Supp.) (c).(1) (5) (d) (1) 1972 Cum. Art. 9A 9A § § *9 opinion appears Earlier a definition which has way through threaded its opinions later of this Court: “ plain ‘Manufacture’ as used those statutes ais every day use, ordinarily word and as understood process converting means the some material into adapted different form to uses to which original readily applied, form it could not so nearly always is associated with the use of manual energy, ordinarily or mechanical and it is not products by to describe the creation of labor entirely mainly intellectual, literary, or or clerical in character.” 149Md. at 258 P74,
In Co., [Mayor 168 Md. Baltimore v. Hanover Shirt (1935), 177A. 160 Council Baltimore v. Price] Court reviewed the definitions of the term “manufacture” appeared in earlier which cases: 515, Co.,
“In
57 Md.
Carlin v. Western Assurance
[1882]
discussing
meaning
of that
word,
meaning
expanded
this
said: ‘Its
has
Court
workmanship
advanced,
and art have
so that now
nearly
products
industry,
all artificial
of human
nearly
acquired changed
all
materials as have
such
specific combinations,
new and
conditions or
hand,
whether from the direct action of the human
processes
and directed
from chemical
devised
skill,
employment machinery,
human
higher
simple
all is
form the
which after
but
implements with
the human hand fashioned
ages,
commonly
its creations
ruder
are now
’ ”
designated as “manufactured.”
Co.,
“In
County
Carroll
v. Shriver
126 A.
71, 72,
[1924]
this
court,
opinion
by Judge Pattison,
‘It is difficult to
rendered
said:
say in
and what is not a
the abstract what
might
industry.
be a
What
manufacturing industry when defined or construed
tools,
exempting
in connection with a statute
*10
machines, engines, etc.,
taxation, might
from
not be
so held when considered in connection with a
having
statute
a
object
purpose.
different
or
As
said
524:
Cyc.
“There is of course a multitude
particular
of cases which
products
industries and
have
respectively
been held
to be or not to be
manufactured, but it would be useless to cite these
cases under the names
products
of the industries or
* * *
subject
decision;
there the
since the fact
given thing
industry
that a
has been held to be
manufactured under one set of circumstances is no
’ ”
assurance that will
it
be so held under another.”
Md.
at 179-80
Judge
Digges,
W.
writing
Mitchell
for the Court
State,
Amreich v.
150 Md.
(1926),
“The citation
stated,
as to what
does and what does not
constitute
or what does or does
person
not constitute a
manufacturer,
is of little value in determining the
case,
instant
for the reason that all the decided
many
cases have had to do with
different statutes
varying purposes
with
accomplished;
to be
and,
citing
without
numerous cases which have
pro
held
subject,
con on this
it is
say
sufficient to
that
regard
we do not
occupation
of the appellants,
by
record,
as disclosed
as that of manu-
facturing.” 150Md. at 101
only speculate
Department’s
We can
where
long-standing
exemptions
granting
custom of
manufacturers’
job printers
genesis,
to
found its
Tax Commission v.
Co.,
637, 642,
Standard Oil
As we
Court,
the Baltimore
reached this
Newspapers
granting of a
specifically prohibited the
ordinance
by newspaper
exemption
to
manufacturer’s
Obviously,
Newspapers
in American
the Court
publishers.
appellant: to validate
an issue raised
was troubled
exemption
denying the
provision of
ordinance
long-standing
administrative
newspapers, in the face of
printers
who used
granting the
practice of
substantially
virtually
equipment
performed
same
constitutionally
legitimate a
functions, would be to
*11
similar
intimated this when
The Court
impermissible classification.
at
It seems printing by grounding on notion that its conclusion newspapers manufacturing, was which relieved it of the considering proscriptive provision necessity of of melange decisions, which we shall Relying a of ordinance. on printing analyze bit, a concluded that the of after the Court overlooking manufacturing, newspaper did a not constitute quoted Rowe, which we have of most the discussion heretofore. support proposition of the that
Two cases were cited
manufacturing:
newspaper
publishing of a
does constitute
(1876),
held
Fenton, 1
which
Kenyon
Utah
Matter
and
published
newspaper
partnership
a
was
that
engaged manufacturing
and that its note was therefore
paper
Bankruptcy Act;
commercial
v.
under the
State
561,
(1890)
a
Dupre, 42 La. Ann.
Developments Industry have been much of the fact that there Hearst makes printing changes technology utilized in the dramatic particularly years. In the newspapers, the last *12 here, Court, quite properly, think, Tax we the circumstances changes the which had occurred limited its consideration to case, periods in prior during the taxable involved the to or changes planned which were and declined to consider put Department in contemplated, and later effect. As the by points out, Tax is not bound the technical rules Court fairness, must observe the basic rules of of evidence but Supervisor, 523-24, Hiller v. 267 Md. 298 A. 2d Fairchild meaning newspaper] popular come within the term 4. does not “[A unless, indeed, slenderly ‘manufacture,’ when are endowed with its contents cloth,” truth, appear be made out of whole or when its articles Reports at 414. District of Columbia position by nothing taken see unfair We Tax Court. going unnecessary detail, relied into what Hearst
Without technique photo composition upon of a was its introduction advertising printing material produce plates casting manually operated metal machines place hot material was still com- While editorial used. theretofore machines, casting line these posed the use of hot metal tapes through by perforated run were activated automatically hyphenated non-memory computer which semicylindrical plates used on the justified columns. The similarly equipment. presses were cast automated developed interesting comparison from an An can stipulation printed in of facts examination of the elaborate figures Newspapers. While circulation have American relatively constant, seem remained it would that some 3B7 departments people employed in the mechanical then did at the time the case was before to do the work which 300 the Tax Court. increasing testimony regards was this case as
There (from advertising supplements in use 27% of 1966 to 42% 1969) “preprints”: advertising supplements which are printers printed, frequently color, by job tax-exempt on cost) (at equipment order of the advertiser a lesser on newspapers. then delivered to Hearst for insertion regard sophisticated we the introduction of While do not necessarily equipment as determinative of the automated us, the nature and size of the mechanical issues before operation certainly element to be considered.5 As we is Department said in & Macke Co. v. State Assessments 121, 129-30, (1972), 2d whether a Taxation, 264 Md. 285A. operation “manufacturing” depends particular on two operation” and scale and character of the factors: “[t]he understanding There of the word.” can be no common “[t]he Supply, Department In5. Paramount Photo Service and Inc. v. State Taxation, Maryland Rptr. Assessments TPC No. CCH & ¶ years (1968), 200-564 practice the Tax Court itself abandoned 32 of administrative granted processor a manufacturer’s to a film who $120,000.00 employed equipment, persons, processed had invested 15,000 negatives day. each *13 640 test; knotty problem Hearst meets the first
doubt that it meets the second. whether Decisions
The Recent
since
We have
cases decided
been referred to four
Fase,
Publishing
Newspapers:
Co. v.
American
Advertiser
(9th Cir.1960);
Publishing
v.Co.
The first outweigh newspaper far production of a modern times, with creative effort of other intellectual and reasonably newspaper might consequence business that the enterprise, F. at 2d a be considered 4a, manifest error the territorial but found no footnote advertising newspaper’s a impose a tax on court’s refusal to applicable to manufacturers. at the lower rate revenues newspaper flatly printing held the The last three cases manufacturing. to be Impact Perdue Foods, Department In Perdue Inc. v. State As- Taxation, supra, 264 Md.
sessments &
decided a little
which is
year ágo, were
with a dilemma
than a
we
faced
more
reconciling
two of
stranger
appellate
an
court:
no
County v.
that of Carroll
decisions
this Court:
earlier
Co., supra,
with that of Arnreich
Shriver
146 Md.
Shriver,
predecessors
State,
In
our
held
supra,
Perdue Foods plant employed people working processing shifts, represented using machinery equipment which *14 $800,000.00. plant investment of some capability The had the processing 12,000 by placing chickens an hour them on conveyor lines, they automatically killed, where picked, washed, eviscerated, graded. chilled and Amreich, hopes State staked its on and found Judge
comfort in Digges what W. Mitchell said there for the Court, 150Md. at 101: appellants will be seen that what the did was
“[I]t application not the to material of labor or skill whereby original changed the article is to a article, remained, different and useful but it after applied, the labor and skill had been the same article, one, a different to be used for the same purpose, one; further, not a different that the cutting up dividing or of a carcass of lamb or veal portions, may into smaller be known as chops, process steaks or is not the kind of which is popularly regarded manufacturing. known and We, therefore, regard appellants, do not the or them, either as manufacturers the sense that necessity obtaining would relieve them from the a trader’s license.” Judge opinion Oppenheimer,
and on an later a member of Court, Schluderberg-T. this in William J. Company Kurdle in the Circuit No. 2 State Tax Commission Court City (1956), Judge Oppenheimer, relying where Baltimore on Amreich, said, “Butchering butchering, whether carried by person by on one a hundred” and denied the exemption. manufacturer’s Foods, hand, operation
Perdue on other likened its Company’s cannery, concluded, the Shriver where the Court Shriver, supra, Md. at 418: escape conclusion, upon cannot
“[W]e reasoning of Company Carlin v. West Assurance (1882)], foreign Md. 515 it was to the [57 Legislature industry intention of the that the here regarded involved should not be as a law, especially industry meaning within of that corn, when we consider the condition of the cob, appellee, by when received husk and on the appellee, was thereafter at and what done others, great to it and with much benefit to cost expensive machinery through intricate and before cans, placing the corn in which cans thereafter part product, in that became an essential changed their use could the corn its new and preserved.” condition be
We that the nature and size of Perdue Foods’ concluded brought it operation within statute. *15 Early on, we referred to Carlin v. West Assurance 526, acknowledged at which that supra, 57 Md. Company, simple higher but a is “. . . form implements the human hand fashioned its with which ages . .” in ruder . . creations hand-operated press in
Printing
newspaper
a
flat-bed
a
on
may
manufacturing,
century
have
or 19th
not
been
the 18th
simply
dissemination of information.
American
but
intent
legislative
may
have divined
Newspapers
well
court
it,
exclusionary
of
and
clause
the ordinance before
footing.
caution, posited
result on a firmer
excess
an
of
Ordinance,
however, we
faced with a different
Here,
are
deny
printer
publisher
a
not
does not
or
specifically exempts
newspaper
exemption, but
an
processing
equipment used in the
of milk and
superior
dry cleaning.
laundering
court noted
As
Etc.,
Assessment,
Messenger
Property
Co. Board
Pub.
v.
ordinary man would
at
“It would seem that the
supra,
769:
plant, especially if
newspaper
an industrial
one
think
cleaning
laundry
carpet
company
to tell him that a
or
being
purpose here
It
considered.”
are such for
processing nor
interesting
note that neither milk
authority
dry cleaning by
great weight of
laundering
nor
manufacturing.
Dairy
Milk:
is considered
Rieck-McJunkin
13,
362 Pa.
643
App. 626,
Treasury,
(1938);
105 Ind.
“This many (and Court has said times Section 9 so provides exemptions thereunder) with reference to tax-exemption statutes are to strictly be construed, permits but a strict construction a fair one, legislative so toas effectuate the intent and objectives, require does it that an unusual meaning given or unreasonable to the words statute. State Tax Comm. v. *16 637, 640, Co., Standard 621; Oil A. 2d Whitehall, 316, 320, 135 State Tax 214Md. Comm. v.
2dA. 298.” short, In we the in in case, light think that result this of disappearance from exclusory the Ordinance of the language exemption, and the of extension is that Perdue, mandated and not Newspapers, American posture which must be restricted to the in which case that reached Court. While we Newspapers think is American distinguishable, we are mindful of an earlier observation: important
“The decisis, doctrine is, of stare as it is not preventing to construed as us from if
changing rule law we are that the a of convinced in has unsound the circumstances of rule become 348, 354, life,” 223A. King, Md. modern White v. 763(1966). 2d Question
The Constitutional necessity we reach relieves us of the The result which through passing, In thicket. blazing a trail the constitutional however, granting we have serious doubts that by job exemption equipment to owned manufacturer’s instances, printers who use the same materials some product, while at least, produce the the same time at same exemption, can be denying a manufacturer’s Hearst premissible, Admittedly, are but justified. classifications arbitrary, they rational and not must be Allied Stores of 522, 527-28, 480, 79 Bowers, U. S. 3 L.Ed.2d Ohio, Inc. v. E. (1959); Ames, 365Ill. 7 N. City Chicago Ct. 437 S. 294(1937). 2d constitutionally regard as tenable We cannot interpretation which the Ordinance results administrative exemption job manufacturer’s granting of a newspapers others, print print printers who advertising supplements are interleaved Hearst’s exemption. denying Hearst the same newspapers, while Legislative Intent years Department of the fact that makes much The passed Newspapers, the decision have since American City any part Council to on the of Baltimore’s without effort modify opinion. We are not negate the thrust of that us, impressed by this, alternative because to there are hand, rationalizations, equally palatable. On the one both Council, accepting the result assume that the one could statutory Newspapers, concluded that American newspapers printers from the umbrella of exclusion longer necessary. no exemptions was manufacturers’ credible, regard equally counterpoint, which we Council, when it determined to extend the dry processing, laundering milk *17 cleaning, drop exclusionary language to determined contained, prior ordinance had that the which the order liberally might be Ordinance more construed. unpersuaded any placed remain that be
We reliance can legislative acquiescence this on the doctrine since notion all, judicial apposite, interpretation if which runs at to a contrary legislative purpose: by Congress nonaction after an
“Such act [failure adverse affords the court most dubious decision] drawing positive inferences,” for foundation United 304, 310-11, Price, 361 U. S. L.Ed.2d States v. 326(1960).
80 Ct. S. legislative acquiescence “But the doctrine is at auxiliary only interpreting best an tool use ambiguous statutory provisions,” Liberty Jones v. Co., 524, 533-34,
Glass 332 U.S. 92 L. Ed. 68 S. 229(1947). Ct. contrary,
On always the idea that reliance need not placed interpretation adopted on an before statute is substantially germane amended is to this case: statutory rule re-enactment is an
“[The] [that adoption prior interpretation] is no than more an statutory aid construction. While it is useful at in resolving statutory times ambiguities, it does not prior mean that construction has become so Congress embedded the law that can effect a change,” Helvering Reynolds, 428, 432, 313 U. S.
85L.
Ed.
It will be remembered that entered a cross-appeal from order, arguing Court’s inventory entire newsprint, simply Hearst’s and not days’ supply, should be included in Hearst’s assessable basis. *18 unnecessary we makes an extensive
The result which reach Having point. consideration of this concluded that Hearst’s manufacturing, operation and that constitutes mechanical exempt, machinery its used in are tools Ordinance, naturally it that under the terms of the follows similarly exempt. inventory raw materials is Order November 1972 reversed; case remanded for entry order anof conformable expressed to the views in this by opinion; paid costs to be appellee. dissenting: J.,
Murphy, C.
majority’s opening statement
that
Agreeing with the
reprise
Newspapers
a
v. Tax
case is
American
“[t]his
McCardell],
Newspapers
More statutory sound rules of construction preclude position by a shift in this holding Court. Our Newspapers grounded American was not on the subsequently provision deleted the Baltimore expressly ordinance which excluded from the tax “manufacturing apparatus, tools, type machinery *19 or preparation, printing issuing, by printers or publishers thereof, any daily journal periodic or other publication.” At the time of Newspapers, American City’s authority grant Baltimore from local taxation was specifically by conferred the General Assembly, by public general (then law Maryland Code, 81, (25) Article (26)) public 7 and (then local law § 4, (28)(c)), Article 6 both of which Mayor authorized the § City exempt Council to property from local taxation used in manufacturing. On the enabling basis of these acts general language ordinance, of the we refused the appellant exemption, expressly noting: exception
“The
‘any journal
periodical’
or other
depend
does not
ordinance,
on the
but whether in
fact
‘manufacturing
it is a
business,’ within the
meaning of the statute.” 174
59,
Md. at
Our “manufacturing construction of business” as including newspaper publishing became, long-honored statutory rules of construction, binding interpretation on this Court. “Decisions of this court construing the part statute become of the statute and continue to be so changed unless and until statute.” Mullhausen, 104, 115, Shriner v. 210 Md. 122 570, A. 2d 575 also, See Marney, 43, 49, Stack v. 252 Md. 2d 248 A. 880, (1969); 884 Smolin v. Fidelity Ass’n., 386, First 238 Md.
648 546, (1965); 393, A. 2d Nutwell v. Board 149, 151 338, 343, 108 A. 2d 205 Md. Elections, Supervisors of Tours, Motor (1954); Sonnenburg v. Monumental 617, (1951); Baltimore, 227, 233, 81 A. 2d Smith v. App. Jackson, 13 Md. 143, (1913); 120Md. 87A. 824 Jackson v. 725, 654(1971). A. 284 2d News year the American thirty-five since interval
In the showing legislative action case, has been no paper there I cannot in that case. result change the reached an intent to City Council, acquiesce majority’s supposition that the specific exception which the ordinance dropping thereby Newspapers, at the time of American contained liberally with to be more construed intended the ordinance specific newspapers. language of the respect prevented “liberal construction” exception what was not “manufacturing,” in the the term Newspapers; American changed significantly ordinance, not been has context subsequent Nor by any amendments to the ordinance. Assembly an intention to alter manifested has the General “manufacturing” in placed we on term the construction Maryland (1957, 1969 Code Newspapers. See, American Vol.) (23) (24). Moreover, in Repl. Article § Assembly a definition of added General newspaper publishing, Article which does not include § Foods, Dept. (25). As we noted Perdue Inc. v. State *20 672, 689, A. Taxation, 2d & Assessments define, (1972): failure to the inference this is “From legislative determination of intent drawn that the Court’s previous of this meets with the . . . decision Court] [a Assembly.” I, therefore, approval fail to see General any part legislative bodies, evidence on the of the either previous local, change reached in our the result State or to decision, and, therefore, abide it. would vote to have reached I Court should and decided think the persuaded by I I am issue. add that not constitutional majority’s treatment of the the brief dicta contained equal protection interpretation, question. An administrative weight, binding Court, while on this entitled Stuart 440, 449, Supervisors Elections, 266 Md. 295A. v. Board 2d importantly, More without consideration of the job printers differences between newspaper publishers light purpose classification, behind the legitimate judgment no can be made of constitutionality.
I would vote to affirm the Maryland order of the I am Court. Judge authorized state Digges concurs in opinion. this LEE
IN THE MATTER OF LESTER MILES et al. Term, 311, September 1972.]
[No. September 1973. Decided