The Hawaiian gazette., 1877-11-14

taxation while in the ownership of different
"persons who derive distinct benefits from its
"use" We admit that when property in
different forms, or in one form, is in the OWL
ership of different persons, it is perfectly pro-
per that all those persons, or, more correctly
speaking, those persons interests, should be
taxed but only condition that they be
taxed upon their several actual interests there
in, and on condition furthermore that the
whole amount so taxed does not exceed the
actual value of tie property. If the law, as
expounded by the Supreme Court, confined it
self to such taxation, no one could object, but
we all know that such is not the case 1t is
useless to lay down sound general PROPOSE
tons to which no one can reasonably object,
and then try to make it appear that they are
applicable to a condition of things entirely
different His Excelency tells us that ''shares
care property in fact and by statute, ana are
"not corporate property" We know per-
fecty we'll the difference between shares in
corporation and property owned by corpora
ton. The shares are not corporate property,
/
ship in that property, and when you tax the
whole property of the corporation and then
tax the shares, which, as we have Just said, are
nothing but an evidence of ownership therein,
it is very much the same, so far as the essential
equity of the case is concerned, as though you
taxed man for the full value of his real es-
tate and then turned around and taxed him the
same amount on his title deeds. We confess
we are very much surprised that the Attor-
ney General should have attempted to draw
the parallel he did between bank notes and
stock in corporations, and TO make the taxa
ton of the former an argument for taxing the
latter. Surely man of Mr. Hartwell's in
telligence and lawyer as well, cannot be
ignorant of the radical difference between
bank notes and stock-the one an evidence of
ownership IA lie corporation and the other an
evidence of debt 0Wsd by the corporotion
The status of the stakeholder in bank and
of the holder of the notes of the bank, so far
from being identical or even similar are in
reality antagonistic, the parties in question,
actually occupying to each other the relation
of debtor and creditor.
We fail utterly to see any point or relevancy
in the following quotation from his Excel
lencey: "As well say that all the Bank of
England notes should be exempt from taxa
" ton in the hands of their unfortunate owner,
because the Bank may be taxed for its cor
"porate property or for the basis of the notes,
or that i'll case all the notes are destroyed
" there would be no loss of intrinsic value "
What is the corporate property of a Bank
1t is all the property of every kind owned by,
vested in the said bank Its, in other words,
the entire bona i'd assets of that Bank, and if
Mr. Hartwell means to assert that the corpor-
ate property of Bank, that is to say the as
sets of the Bank, are taxed in full ,vitE0m de-
Quoting Tue liabilities Of the Bank to the holders
of its notes, he asserts what is not true. Ii
that is not what he means, then his illustra-
ton is wide of the mark and illustrates no
thing. Banks are taxed on their capital tsome-
times on their capital and suTplus), and the cap
ital and surplus represent the corporate proper
ty, that is TO say the assets, Oosr and ADORE all
liabilities except to. stockholders, and the
stockholders are but another name for the
Bank itself. They are in fact owners of the
corporation, or we may say the corporation
itself, and except by fiction of bookkeeping
are not in reality creditors at all, and in this
respect their position is exactly the same as
stockholders in plantation Does his Elk
cellency know of any civilized country where
Banks are taxed on their capital, that is tt
say on their corporate property, over and
above their liabilities, and where the share.
holders are also taxed on the value of theil
shares? If so, he knows a country where
gross injustice is done, and country
moreover with a system of taxation for cor.
porate property, precisely identical with tina
which our Legislature, with the endorsement
of our Supreme Court, have bestowed on us
One more point and we have done. Does til,
gentleman mean to suggest that in case al
the notes of the Bank of England were des
troyed, there would be any loss of intrinsic
value? If so, we desire to take issue witt
him most decidedly. Neither the destruction
of all the notes of Bank nor the destruction
of all the certificates of stock in a plantation
would involve the loss of single dollar o
intrinsic value, beyond the value of the pape
the notes and certificates were printed on, anC
the actual cost of replacing them. The Attor-
ney General of this Kingdom surely knows tn
difference between an existing debt or obliga
tion and the mere written or printed evidenc
of that debt or obligation, and will he under
take to hold that the destruction of the latte
cancels or invalidates the former? If Nj
Hartwell held Bishop & Co.'S note for on
thousand dollars, would he consider that tn
accidental or even intentional destruction G
that note cancelled Bishop & Co.'S obiigatio
to pay the money? What is the legal statu
of the holder of Bank of England notes, or i
fact any other banks notes? They are sim
ply creditors of the Bank to the amount of tn
notes they hold The Bank has receive
value for the same, and the note is simply a.
acknowledgment of the obligation and pro
mise to pay, and even were every one of th
notes destroyed, the position of the Bank as
, debtor would remain unchanged, and both tn
> legal and moral obligation to pay would re