The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1877-10-31
The Tax Decision.

We are able TO lay before our readers this
morning, the fall text Of the recent decision Of
the Supreue Court in the we'll known ease OF
Serene Z. Bishop and Mrs. c. c. Armstrong
against Charles H Judd, Assessor Of Taxes
Tor Honolulu. This, as most Of our readers
are aware, was 4 test case ul&de up for the
purpose Of obtaining an authoritative settle
msnt Of questions in which large number Of
cur people are heavily interested Il is
safe to say that no case Of equal interest ard
Importance has come before our Supreme
Court for adjudication for long time past,
and or Judges must expect that not ouly the
conclusions arrived at, but the processes Of
reasoning by which those conclusions have
been reached, viii be subjected to close and
critical scrutiny, At the hands Of the large
number Of very Intelligent people whose in
terssts are affected thereby. The points IN
volved IN the case are quite familiar 10 mast
Of our readers, and the decision Of the Court
thereon Was briefly but eomprebensively
stated IN our last issae. For any further par
ticuI2rs we refer to the decision itself, which
viii be found IN the third page. As law
abiding people, we Of course all expect TO
yield prompt and loyal obedience to the die
tum Of the Court. A tribunal Of competent
jurisdiction having passed upou the matters IN
dispute, and that tribunal being also n the
present instance the Court IF last resort,
obedience becomes both necessity and
duty. But although we fully recognize the
duty and necessity Of making cur returns and
paying cur taxes as the Court directs, we do
not recognize any obligation whatever to
change cur uiads, or to hold any different
opinions On the subject, from those which we
held before The strictly legal and technical
points involved. we have no intention Of dis
c1ssing. We leave that TO those whose spe
cal and technical training it them for the
task. But though we 90 not profess 10 know
very much Of law, We DO claim to understand
ard appreciate justice, and if the two things,
instead Of being identical. are often distinct
ard sometimes antagonist;c, the fault certainly
does not lie At the door Of the laity. The
members Of the legal profession, both AZ the
bar and On the bench, are the parties We have
% thank for thai Looking then at the simple
fs5s IN this matter, we find that the recent
decision eompels = large proportion of the
property n tbs country TO pay da155s tl=ss
No legal hair-splitting, however astute, can
alter this plain faet and no legal Ecti0n, how
ever ingenious, can cover Il up or hide It. To
regard mortgage secured by len On real
estate aS property, and TO tax the holder
thereof accordingly, IS probably good law As
Il Is certainly equity, but 70 require the party
II whose nane the TILE Of the real estate
stands, 70 pay taxes o. is full value without
regard to the amount he nay owe On Il, Is to
tax him On what he does not really own, nor
have the beneEE Of, and no amount Of deci-
sions frua aaT nzRher Of Courts cau, ever
uaks Il right OF Just. Substantially The sane
remarks apply 70 the case Of pla1tz-ions and
other property which have been made the
basis Of stock corporziOuz- To compel the
Unforruna-s steckhol5sr 70 pay taxes On his
share Of something which has already been
taxed AZ it, full valus.fn the lamp, Is vio-
lat5oa Of the fundamental principles CT equity, /,
which VII hardly Be rendered any more pals
table BY the bland assurance Of the Court
thar, We mus. regard the creation Of stock
as n certain sense the creation Of nav ra1-
abls property
&c understand how zuere change Of the f5ra
( ~ orgl1zizz1az anong the o~aers Of piece
Of property, q the partners u business; .
ners ehAng On paper, which does not add to
the actual wealth If the nation, 30 uuch As 4