The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-08-27

printed and ready for distribution.
Noble Robinson reported from the
Committee on Commerce on the bill
relating to the storage and delivery
of liquors in the. bonded warehouse,
that the bill be laid
on the table, and that another re-
sponsible assistant he employed to
better facilitate the work connected
with the storage and delivery of
liquors. Adopted.
Noble Smith read report from
two of the Judiciary Committee on
the petition of ii. A. Widemann re-
ferred to it relating to double taxa
tion, recommending that the sum
of S56.04 be refunded Mr.. Wide
mann and they also offer an amend |
ment to the present law relating to
the collecting of taxes.
Rep. c. Brown read report from
two of the same committee on the
above petition, recommending that
it be laid on the table. They think
that Mr.. Widemann should seek re-
dress from others than the Govern
ment.
Noble Widemann said that he was
sorry that he had given the com
mittee so much trouble. He did not
bring this petition in for the purpose
only of recovering the S56, but he
thought by so doing he might call
the attention of the House to the
fact that such things could and did
exist, and that they might amend
the law so that it would be impossi-
bic to impose double taxes on any
one. Section 4 of chapter 81 Ses-
sion Laws of 1886 provided that:
Every agent for any person tempor-
arily or permanently absent from
this Kingdom, and every banker,
broker, money lender, attorney at
law, trustee, treasurer, executor,
administrator, or guardian, shall be
assessed separately in respect of
each property or trust which he re-
presents, etc., etc. Section ) of the
same Act directs that: All the above
mentioned parties shall for the pur-
poses of this Act be deemed agents
and shall be answerablc for the
performance of all such acts, mat
tiers or things, as are required to be
done by virtue of this Act in respect
of the assessment of the property
which he represents and the pay
ment of taxes thereon; and makes
him subject TO the like penalty or
liability for any neglect, refusal or
default as any other person.
The Minister of Finance in his
answer to this House of my question
addressed to him stated: That he
had given no special instruction to
the parties named in the resolution
either directly or through the tax
assessor relative to the assessment
of taxes, except in two cases of bank
ers in Honolulu (the only two) when
the question came up as to whether
the law called upon them to return
the list of their depostors and to
pay taxes on the amount deposited,
charging the same to depositors.
Both these bankers-Messrs. Bishop
& Co. and Claus Spreckels q Co.
disputed the proposition that the
law obliged them to do so. The
question was brought before the
Cabinet and it was decided that the
law did not so compel them to pay
the taxes on the amount deposited,
charging the same to depositors.
AS both banks returned to the tax
assessor the list of depositors they
evidently did not dispute the pro-
priety of furnishing the list of de-
positors provided in section as
above quoted, and the Cabinet de-
; cided that the law did not compel
them TO pay taxes on deposits.
(Were these the deposits that the
: depositors had already assessed
themselves withO My question was
in regard to assessment and not il
regard to collection of taxes. HaC
e the question of assessment been de
e cided first by the Cabinet the pay
e ment such as it ought to have beer
It would have followed as matter o
S of course. All then that 1 can SCI
!. or find relating to assessment direc
q is in letter to me of the Ministe
= of Finance where he says: "Especi
Vt ally as the Government gave up tn
: claim to oblige bankers to furnisI
l. such document" This is clcarl,
d setting aside the obligation creates
t. in Section 4 above quoted. His EX
r cellency further says that he per
e sonally saw Mr.. Damon of Bishop
Is Co. and Mr.. VIM. G. Irwin of Clau
l. Spreckels & Co., and agreed wit
= them in accordance with the deci
'e sion of the Cabinet that they shoul
return their actual cash on hand an
A. pay taxes upon that and not til
ID much larger amount standing to tn
credit of depositors. There is nc
t, thing in our statutes to warrant an
t. such action and | must call thi
< making a new law. Then we hav
the statute set aside and a new la
4 enacted of which the tax payers ha
N no knowledge whatever. In rdgar
|, to the merits of this new law | woul
J. say, that as far as depositors ar
concerned it cannot be argued this
Is the full amount of their deposits
Se | mot In the hanks and thaV have