The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-07-16

nenJS pun lOTJn uUOuJ JleeS uuu
vines were only to influence men,
bers against the bill, because all
those things were IN the old law.
Section ID of the present law said,
"Tbe term real property for the
purposes Of this act shall be deemed
to, mean and TO include all lands
and town lots, with the buildings,
structures, improvements and other
things erected on or affixed to the
same" That included trees of
course, but it did not include mort
cages. And that was what the
hon. lawyers who had spoken against
it did not want. The assessment of
mortgages was benefit to the poor,
that is, not on the borrower, but on
the lender of money. The present
law did not tax the mortgages. The
amendment proposed to tax the
lender and not the borrower. When
the present law taxed the mortgages
it stipulated that the borrower and
not the lender should pay the taxes.
The amendment proposed that the
borrower should not do that any
longer. If, for instance, man had
property on which he proposed TO
borrow $500, he borrowed it from
Mr.. Castle, and Mr.. Castle would
have to pay the taxes, and this bill
put it out of the power of the lender
that the borroweras should have to pay
the taxes. He thought the bill
could be amended SO as to cover the
Objectionable points brought up. He
did not propose to hold out for the
bill as it stood, but would move an
amendment to add to subdivision
one, as follows, "provided that a
claim to land shall only he issued
whenever such claim is made to land
upon which no taxes are assessed to
any person in possession thereof"
He also moved TO strike out the
words ''all fruit trees, nut bearing
trees, ornamental trees and vines"
Rep. Brown was not in favor of
the section or the amendments. This
was evidently a Government
measure. He thought it would be
impossible to make clearer de-
finition of real estate than that in
the act of 1882. This bill endea-
vored to make personal property
real estate for the purposes of
taxation.
Rep. Richardson considered this
was one of the most important bills
that had been introduced. 1t was
very difficult to understand the Sec
ton about mortgages. Although
not II lawyer yet he had done bust
ness, and he wanted to know if they
could legislate that piece of paper
was real estate.
Rep. Hayselden said they could
just as they could make machinery.
Mortgages were real estate under
the present law.
Rep. Richardson said their tax
assessors were men of average in
telligence and he knew that they
had great difficulty in understand
ing what mortgages on real estate
were. A foreigner might under
stand it, but a native would have
great difficulty in doing so. If they
wanted to tax mortgages the sim
plest way to get at it would be to
include mortgages in personal pro-
perty, which would be more easily
understood.
Minister Dare said he contempt
lated an amendment that subsection
3 be stricken out from under real
estate and put under personal pro-
perty.
Rep. Richardson said under the
old law mortgages were personal
property. Mr.. Hayselden had said
that this was to tax the lender, but
man lending money would add
three-quarters of one percent to
cover the taxes. He then gave his
experience as tax assessor to show
the difficulty of getting at the tax
able property, estates in one place
being rated much below or above
those of equal value in other places,
and added that he thought board
of equalization ON the different
islands would serve a good purpose.
Rep. Hayselden also gave his ex-
perience, saying that he had taken
down the names of one hundred of
our richest men and noted the total
value of their personal property.
In 1882 it was between seven and
eight million dollars, and in 1888
about two millions, a loss to the
Government of $40, 900 in taxes, in
the district of Honolulu only. The
total value of personal property in
1882 in all the islands was $l8,521,-
O75, and in 1885, $1S,21l, 059, a
difference of $31O,Ol6. In 1882
the total export of sugar was h.
1898 pounds, and in 1885, Ill.,
350,3l4 pounds, which shows more
than fifty per cent increase, and yet
personal property has decreased.
Rep. Richardson did not think
the difficulty about the sugar would
be diminished by the bill. The
trouble was that the assessment was
made on the first of July. If it was
changed to the first of January they
would get hold of more sugar. The
assessor went round at the worst