The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1877-11-03
DOUBLE TAXATION.

lclOu Vi llC y pLCLnC NOulI III ~ N"H~
E. Bishop and Mrs. c. c. Armstrong. UersuS
Charles III. Judd, Assessor of Taxes for Honolulu.
The legal point in question has caused consider
able discussion and comment amongst all classes
of this community, inasmuch as 1T seems to
involve a faulty state of our legislation, which
imposes an unjust system of double taxation on
property under certain conditions. In a recent
article, we commented upon the general question
at issue, double taxation which all just legis-
lation universally condemns, and we now propose
to make some remarks on the opinion of the
Court rendered by His Honor Mr.. Justice Nc
Gully, in the cases above cited.
The whole question seems to be reduced to
this Are mortgages and joint stock shares
fairly taxable OF course, if a law especially
provides in any body polite that they are taxable,
a judge charged with the administration of the
laws of the said body polite can only declare
that they must bear taxation, as long as the law
in question is held to be constitutional and con-
tinues in force.
Mr.. Justice McCully finds enactments of the
Hawaiian Legislature which oblige him to de-
clare that mortgages and joint stock shares are
legally taxable in this Kingdom and the Court
pronounces the opinion at the close of its discus
sion of the case, and rendering judgment there
on: :" We do not find the statutes to be uncon-
stitutional." Now, in our opinion, 1t must be
evident to any one Of common sense, that it is
illegal for any government to levy a tax twice on
the same property and wherever such a faulty
state OF legislation has crept into the statute
books, the tribunal of last resort is the one to
apply the proper remedy. Legal bubbles can
not be suffered to stand in the way of equitable
taxation. Each taxpayer is bound to pay his
own fair share towards the general taxation Of
the country but the moment he finds that
he pays a tax two or more times on the same
property, he is then not only justified, but it
is his bounden duty to uplift his voice against
such an injustice, and call upon the judiciary to
sweep away from the statute-boOks any such in
equitable legislation.
Suppose a man has twenty hundred-dollar
shares in a joint stock concern he wants $4,000,
and says to a friend lend me $4,000 and take
these twenty shares as security. or buy them
with the proviso that l am to have them again
when | pay back the $4,000 loaned. Under our
law, it seems from the decision under discussion.
that both those men are liable to be taxed for
those twenty shares, besides the joint-stock con-
Germ itself; and, Furthermore, the shares may go
from hand to hand to several other owners in the
same way, who are all liable to taxation on the
shares according to our present laws on taxation.
The same argument holds good in the case of
mortgage deeds. A man may raise money on
his mortgage deed, and SO the deed may 60 round
from hand to hand, each holder of the mortgage
being liable to pay a tax on it, according to our
statutes. This is an argument ca absurdo on the
late opinion of the Supreme Court, with refer
ence to their not finding the statutes IN question
unconstitutional, the force of which every man
must feel keenly who is taxed twice or oftener
for the same property-a system to which no
amount of forensic bubbles is likely to reconcile
him, at the cost of his own pocket.
A man owns half the shares in a joint stock
concern, valued at 800, 900, and is taxed accord
ingly, so that when the yearly accounts Of the con-
Germ are laid before him, he finds that he has
been taxed for his share of property valued at
$50, 900 but to his establishment and dismay,
the tax collector calls upon him again to pay a
tax on $50, 900, his share Of the joint stock pro-
perty in question. IF this is not double taxation,
with a vengeance, We can only say that no
Turkish Pasha ever levied purses from his Rayas
i bJoEGA SiAh OOOo viz q q
collector under this ruling of the Supreme Court,
in view of statutes which evidently require the
emendation of our legislators-with all due
Difference for his Honor's opinion as to the said
statutes not being l." unconstitutional" As we
have already remarked, we are willing to allow
that, according to the law of the land, Mr..
Serene E. Bishop and Mrs. G. c. Armstrong,
have both been compelled to pay double taxation,
and we believe that not all the forensic eloquence
of the Judges of the Supreme Court or the
Hawaiian legislators to boot, could convince
those two plaintiffs that they own property to
the extent and value of their share of the gen.
eral taxation levied by the collector under our
present laws. We believe, too, that every intel
ligent individual in this community, must see
the question in the same light as the two plain
tiffs so mulcted for being so unfortunate as to
own a mortgage or possess joint stock shares. If
the man in the case we supposed above as halt
gunner in the joint stock concern, bought up the
other half share in the concern just before the
tax collector called on him for his taxes, it is
plain that that official could not then have any
chance Of levying a tax on his shares In the con-
Germ, inasmuch as he wonld have become the full
owner, and no longer a shareholder at all. Now,
it is plain that the taxation of a nation, which
goes to make up it's revenue. should depend upon
something more solid than mere law bubbles,
Sc citing forth as taxable property what really has
no existence or is reduplicated according to law,
for the convenient purposes of the tax collector.
AS a further illustration Of the injustice OF
our present tax law let us suppose the case OF a
man who has a mortgage on a piece of land val
ued at, say, SIC, 900, the mortgage being for
$4,000. The land is taxed for its full value, and
the mortgage is taxed for $4,000. In this case,
the fiscal revenue is raised on $4,000, whereas
there is no more than SO, 900 value Of taxable
property. We recently heard of another case
in point, whereby government will get triple
instead of double taxes from the same property.
The ' plant " of q certain corporation is assessed
as q whole Mr.. A. who Owls a number of