The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-08-20
Rep, Thurston was in favor of the

Rep, Thurston was in favor of the
bill in both its points. 1t seemed tc
him that the late Acknowledgement
argument against distraint for rent
applied equally against distraint fol
taxes. That argument was that dis.
traint was harsh recourse, one that
was provocative of bitterness and
even violence against the officer ex-
ecuting the writ. He knew scarcely
case where the law of distraint fol
taxes was put in force, owing to its
very obnoxious nature. This bill
provided for catching the Chinese,
who were, from their nomadic
habits, the greatest shrinkers of per-
sonal taxes.
Minister Dare was opposed to the
bill, first, because it amended the
law of 1882, that infallible measure
which had been the basis of so much
eloquence for the past three weeks
or thirty days. In the next place,
it required the collector to sue the
Chinese in the courts for their taxes,
and his experience with the Chinese
was that they would not pay their
taxes without compulsion. The
first effect of this law would be to
involve the tax collectors in about
two thousand suits throughout the
kingdom. Lawyers knew that every
case would have to be brought
separately. In many districts there
would be no attorney to represent
the Government, and the Chinese
would club together to maintain a
test case, and if flaw was found in
the assessment the taxes might be
lost to the Government.
Keep. Brown was not in favor of
abroagting the authority for the col
lection of taxes by distress, but he
was in favor of the means provided
in this bill for enforcing the
payment of personal taxes. Prob
ably Il quarter of the Chinese
in the kingdom escaped taxa
ton. In his district there were
only two roads forming exits, and
he had seen an officer stationed on a
chair in the middle of each road to
stop Cinnamon who could not show
"a tax receipt. He was at a loss to
know how to amend the bill so as to
avoid its faults and preserve its
good points.
Rep. Kaai liked the bill, but
thought it was incomplete, while
the collector, on being refused taxes,
was getting a writ for the arrest of
the delinquent, the latter might
easily get out of the way. 1t would
be necessary to empower the col
lector to arrest Il taxpayer sum-
marily without wait. While tax
collection was going on the Chinese
were continually moving about to
evade payment.
Rep. Brown moved an amendment
to the bill, to retain the power of
collection by distress, and to make
a warrant unnecessary to the col
lector, in bringing delinquent be-
lOT tlle court.
Rep. Paehaole favored the bill.
Rep. Aholo said it was a very diff
ficult matter to collect taxes from
the Chinese. He intended to have
introduced q law to authorize asses
sors to collect taxes when making
their rounds. At present collectors
detained Chinese and others at ports
contrary to law and were thus MAX
ing themselves liable to actions for
damages. He moved an amend
ment that, where there was no prop
erty to levy on for personal taxes,
the collector could, between the LIST
day of November and the 30th day
of June, order any constable to
arrest the delinquent and take him
before Police or District JUS
tice.
Rep. Hayselden withdrew his mo-
ton in favor of the amendment of
Rep. Aholo.
Rep. Brown did likewise.
Rep. Dole did not think the
amendment would effect its object,
as it only gave power to collectors
over persons assessed in their own
districts. If the house was opposed
to the abolition of distraint, then
Rep. Browns amendment would be
the proper thing. This was a meas
ure that he thought would catch all
the wandering Cinnamon.
Remarks were made by Reps.
Hayselden, Kauhi and Thurston.
Noble Bishop said substitute
bill could not be moved at this
stage.
Rep. Brown moved the bill be
laid on the table, which carried.
He then moved the house adjourn
till 10 O'Clock tomorrow, and the
house rose at O'Clock.
Continued ON page p.