Compare Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co., 282 U.S. 734, 738-9; Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 258 U.S. 377, 382.11 It is sufficient that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus should be denied, because the Trustees may by the common remedy of injunction prevent any interference with the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Compare Ex parte Park Square Automobile Station, 244 U.S. 412, 414; Ex parte Riddle, 255 U.S. 450; Ex parte Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 286 U.S. 533. Moreover, the bankruptcy court might, in the exercise of its discretion, conclude that it is desirable to have the litigation proceed in the state court.12 12 Rule discharged. PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO. v. SEATTLE. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. No. 344. Argued January 12, 15, 1934.-Decided March 19, 1934. 1. A tax imposed by a city upon the gross receipts of a private corporation, engaged in the business of furnishing electric light and power to consumers for hire, can not be adjudged violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the city, under authority from the State, engages in the same kind of business, in active competition with the private corporation. P. 623. 2. With respect to such business and its taxation, the city and the private corporation are clearly to be classed in different categories, for reasons that are in no way affected by calling the city's activity "proprietary" instead of "governmental." P. 624. 11 Compare In re Zehner, 193 Fed. 787; First Trust Co. v. Baylor, 1 F. (2d) 24, 27. See note 12, infra. 19 12 McHenry v. La Société Francaise, 95 U.S. 58; In re Johnson, 127 Fed. 618; In re Zehner, 193 Fed. 787; First Trust Co. v. Baylor, 1 F. (2d) 24, 27; In re Schulte-United, 50 F. (2d) 243; In re Gas Products Co., 57 F. (2d) 342; compare In re Schermerhorn, 145 Fed. 341; In re Locust Bldg., 272 Fed. 988; Field v. Kansas City Refining Co., 296 Fed. 800; 9 F. (2d) 213. Opinion of the Court. 291 U.S. 3. The Fourteenth Amendment does not protect private business from the risk of competition with business carried on by the State in the exercise of its reserved power. P. 625. 4. Objection to the vagueness and uncertainty of a tax as defined by a municipal ordinance, held obviated by its practical construction in this case by a competent administrative officer with the approval of the state court. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Seattle, ante, p. 300. P. 626. 5. Surrender of the power of taxation is not implied in a contract by a city granting to a public utility the license or franchise to use the streets for a term of years; and a later ordinance exacting payment of an annual tax on the gross receipts of the utility company as a condition precedent to its use of the streets does not impair the obligation of the contract. P. 627. 172 Wash. 668; 21 P. (2d) 727, affirmed. APPEAL from the affirmance of a judgment dismissing the complaint of the Power & Light Company on demurrer, in a suit to recover the amount of a gross receipts tax paid to the State, and to enjoin future collections. Mr. Clarence R. Innis, with whom Messrs. Elmer E. Todd, Frank E. Holman, and William M. Allen were on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. Walter L. Baumgartner and A. C. Van Soelen for appellee. MR. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal under § 237 of the Judicial Code from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington, 172 Wash. 668; 21 P. (2d) 727, sustaining a municipal license or excise tax, assailed by appellant as infringing the Fourteenth Amendment and the contract clause of the Federal Constitution. An ordinance of the City of Seattle of May 23, 1932, imposes an annual license tax upon the privilege of carrying on the business of selling or furnishing electric light 619 Opinion of the Court. and power to consumers. The tax is 3% of the gross income from the business "in the city" during the fiscal year next preceding the tax year for which the license is required. The suit, brought to recover an installment of the tax already paid and to enjoin the collection of future installments, was heard and decided upon demurrer to appellant's complaint. Both appellant, a Massachusetts corporation, acting under a municipal franchise, and appellee, the City of Seattle, acting by state authority, are engaged and actively compete in the business of furnishing electric light and power to consumers for hire. By state law the city is given plenary power to fix rates for the electric current which it distributes, and its rates are not subject to regulation and control by the Public Service Commission, as are those of appellant. § 10390, Remington's Rev. Stat. of Washington. Revenues of the city from its electric light business are required by the city charter, Art. VIII, § 9, to be deposited in a special" city light fund," separate from the general funds of the city, and transfer from one fund to the other, except by direction of the city council, is forbidden by the city charter. Art. IX, § 17. Section 6 of the ordinance, in terms, imposes the same tax on the city "so far as permitted by law," as that levied on appellant. But it appears that the city, acting under a state statute, § 9491, Remington's Rev. Stat. of Washington, enacted before the taxing ordinance, has issued bonds, the payment of which, both principal and interest, is secured by the revenue of its electric light business. Appellant contends that by the statute, municipal ordinance, and the terms of the bonds themselves, this pledge is superior to all other charges upon the gross revenue and that the city cannot lawfully pay the tax. It appears that in fact the city has not paid the tax or made any provision for paying it. The state court, in passing on this question, said: Opinion of the Court. 291 U.S. The city has not allocated, and probably cannot allocate, any of the revenues of its power and light business to the payment of such a tax. Bonds have been issued in excess of $30,000,000 against the revenues from that business; and those bonds are a prior lien on the entire income from it-taking precedence even over operating charges. Conceding that the city's light and power revenues could be subjected to the tax, no machinery is set up in the ordinance to accomplish such an end. Furthermore, in making up its budget for 1932, no provision was made for the levy of general taxes to cover the excise provided for in the ordinance. So the problem must be met as though § 6 had been omitted from the ordinance; ." [p. 671] Whether by this statement the court intended to decide that the city could not lawfully pay the tax, or assumed that to be the case for the purpose of the decision, it is unnecessary to determine, for appellant further insists that even though the tax were paid by the city to itself it would impose no actual burden. Asserting that no effective tax is imposed with respect to the business carried on by the city, appellant argues that the taxation of its competing business is a denial of equal protection and deprives it of its property without due process. The tax is also assailed because the measure of it is vague and uncertain and because, by imposing a license tax upon the privilege of doing the business, the ordinance impairs appellant's franchise contract which gave it the right to conduct the business. In sustaining the constitutionality of the tax, the state court found it unnecessary to ascertain whether, under the city charter and ordinances, and state law, the tax if paid by the city must be paid from its city light fund rather than from its general fund, or to what extent moneys may now or hereafter be transferred from one 619 Opinion of the Court. fund to the other, or how far the general fund raised by taxation may be used otherwise, either directly or indirectly, to aid the city's electric lighting business. We do not attempt to resolve these questions here. Decision that the city is not authorized by existing law to aid its light fund by taxation, without disposing of the constitutional question decided by the state court, would entail the decision of other questions, arising under the equal protection and contract clauses, not raised or considered in the case. Moreover the appellant insists that in any case payment of the tax would neither relieve appellant of its burden nor impose a comparable burden on the city, since the same hand would both pay and receive the tax, and there is no constitutional limitation on the power of the city to use the tax when collected for the maintenance of the city's business. Standard Oil Co. v. City of Lincoln, 114 Neb. 245; 207 N.W. 172, 208 id. 962; aff'd per curiam, 275 U.S. 504. All the questions thus suggested are met and disposed of by decision of the constitutional question which the state court decided and which we decide here. 1. There is no contention that appellant's franchise or any contract relieves it generally from the duty of paying taxes. It is not contended that a state or municipality, merely because it fails or is unable to tax its own property or business, is prohibited from taxing like property or business. The contention here is that constitutional limitations are transgressed only because the tax affects a business with which the taxing sovereign is actively competing. For that reason it is argued that the taxation involves a forbidden discrimination and deprives appellant of its property without due process since the combined power of the city to tax and to compete may be used to destroy appellant's business. As appellant asserts that the tax can impose no effective burden on the city, its |