The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-08-09
pliance with it is optional with the

taxpayer.
1t is not enough to say that these
so called rules have been distributed
to each taxpayer, and that the plain
tiff has had notice of them brought
home to him. The statute prescribe:
that ''No written law shall be obliga
tory without being first printed anG
made public" Section /, Civil Code
page 1, Compiled Laws. A rule of &
department of the government made
IN pursuance of a statute must be
printed and published as general
rule obligatory on all persons and
cannot be put into operation by
piecemeal by giving notice of it to
one individual after another.
No provision is made in the Goth
section of the Taxation Act of 1882
for the publication of these rules,
although such provision is common.
Vide, the publication required of
regulations made. by the Board OF
Health, p. II. Compiled Laws.
But we regard the general pro-
vision in the first section of the Civil
Code as q sufficient declaration of
the principle that all laws and, for
ti0ri, all regulations that have the
force of law, shall be published. They
should be framed in manner that
they speak for themselves, and pur-
port to be regulations made in pur-
suance of the statute and have the
force of law. - ~~ ~
We are unable to hold in favor Of
the position taken by the Govern
ment in this case, that the regula-
tions printed on the blank returns
furnished to taxpayers are either
framed so as to be authoritative or
that they have been published so as
to be obligatory.
But it is urged by respondent that
the return in question does not COM.
ply with the statute (Section 33,
Compiled Laws, page 123) that re-
quires statement of the "descrip-
ton, situation and value" of the real
and personal estate, belonging, etc.
The return states the number of
acres of each kind OF land, to wit.
2161 acres of cane land and their
value at $4,000 per acre; 2167 acres
of bush aud waste land at $1.OO per
acre. Total, 1928 acres. And on
another schedule, c., the names of
ten lands, under the heading LANDS
and parts held in fee simple by the
Hilo Sugar Company, with the gross
acreage repeated as above.
The cane lands In schedule A are
further classified 1868 acres crop
cane.
$40 Un-ground.
$50 Young plant.
1886 Young stools.
Another schedule B, gives the
names of the lands leased to the
Hilo Sugar Company the names. Of
the lessons and the statement that
the company covenants to pay taxes
on these lands and that they are
returned among the cane lands In
the body of this return"
The schedules have blanks which
were not filled by the plaintiff for
the numbers of the royal patents and
of awards of the Land Commission,
estimated yield in tons of sugar per
acre, and in the schedule for leased
lands are columns also for rent per
acre, term and time of expiration OF
lease. The respondent has treated
the statement in question as no re-
turn with the particulars required
by law, and has undertaken to doom
the plaintiff because the columns In
the schedules requiring the numbers
of the royal patents and awards,
ETC., are not filled out. We regard
this as unwarranted.
The statute requirements Of 4" des-
cription, situation and value" were
complied with by the plaintiff in
giving the particulars it did give.
If the amount of the property or
the valuation were deemed INSULT
Gent by the assessor he was author
lied to add to the amount and In
crease the valuation, and if this was
not conceded by the plaintiff corpo-
ration it had the right Of appeal and
before the appeal board, on the
proofs taken, it would be made to
appear which was right.
Holding as We do that the parti-
cnlars required by the printed
blank returns were not authorized
by a valid regulation of the Minister
of Finance and that the plaintiff
company has complied with the par
ticulars required by the statute IN
the statement made, We do not
feel called upon to say if rule re.
curing taxpayers to give details OF
their titles to real estate and est,
mates of the prospective yield OF
their growing crops would be in con-
PREVENTION of the stat1te. 8
The plaintiff corporation has beer
denied it's appeal from the increased
assessment. The Tax Appeal BOARD
has been dissolved by etfiux OF time
and the plaintiff has no remedy ex
cept that prayed for in the bill. Lei
this be granted it. -
F. M. Hatch for plaintiff; a. T
Peterson for respondent.
| 0RAh 1901