The Hawaiian gazette., 1891-11-10

Lao0- cOoErsc-S Srs no. tsNScts, Dos oSlnS
zSS5S1zols ard having no sSSSSSSols
vzIGs II themselves
orNoS O. TIE ooVRr PES !VnD. c J.
The LeSislStare Of 1856 sdded to
the definition Of WHIST shsn be
deemed personsl property, for the
Purposes Of tszStlon, - !ewelry,
watches. mSchirexy, franchises, psf
ents. cootrsetsS All but the lsst
three items xre eleSrly goods, chst-
tsIs. wsres snd merchandise" by the
previous lsw tsxSble, Snd the psrtieu-
lzr enumeration Of -iewelry, watches
Sni machinery sided nothing TO
the lSw. Franchises Snd patents SIRE
not tsngible objects bat in so far IS
they hsYe y1lue Il msy be thst they
sire tsxSble- They sire not question
Sd N these Gases In the cases be
fore Is We hsve 10 consider whether
certain contracts SIRE tSxsble- The
contract introduced IN evidence be-
fore Us Is sn sgreeusnt IN three
parts. between the owner OF eertaln
lard On ksQzi, the prOpZietors OF e
sugar mill snd the planters Of sugsr
esne- This contract together with
some lsboE contracts have been
assessed to the mill prOprietors as
worth 70 them. So, 600 in 1859 and
$4,000 II 1880. snd 10 the planters
IS worth 10 them $1,000 IN 1889 and
S9I67 n 1890. The record shows
inst the taxes thereon have been
paid under protest by both these
PARTIES for the years 1889 snd 1890,
and the object Of these suits Is 10 re-
cover the taxes thus paid, with IN
terest-
L L commended by counsel for the
GoveEuua1s that the Legislature
having made contracts" as such
taxable. II L not for the Court to sn-
rul this law.
Mr. Hatch for the plaintiffs sub
uits that 10 assess contracts would
De 3 EioIstlOn Of the rule sgsinst
double taxation laid down in Castle
V Luce, I HsE- g. All OF the
tangible property in regard TO which
8 contract = made Is taxed Ii the
contract De To build 8 house, the
land On which the house Is 20 be
built Is taxed. 50 are the building
usteriGls which are TO 60 into the
house Whist remains 10 be taxed.
Nothing. Human labor Is not TO Be
taxed unless men are treated as
ehsttaLs- HoE then can an sgree-
nsnt 90 perform labor be a proper
subject OF taxation 4 contract
creates 10 new value. Il Is sn agree
uaas 10 do sOueshing or 10 refrain
huu doing something. L Is not
property which can pass from hand
to hand and Dc sold II open market
Profit nay be made ont OF contract,
hui mans profits, industry, fore
sight, intrepi1ity and hopes are not
TAXABLE What Limit can be placed
upon the tern contracts for taxa
be UuposesE Il cannot be restricted
70 contracts II writing II any con
tract i 10 Be taxed then Why not all
g thoss for the sale OF
goods oEer z counter, that between 2
physician sad patient, z householder
and his cooke The value OF contract
cslno5 Dc sppoEuoHed between the
parties to II The full value cannos
De taxed TO bath In so far Is the
contract Is peculiarly beneficial to
ocs party It i burden 10 the other.
Ii ths case az bar besides the labor
contracts Is the contract for making
sugar. Il L tupartite- Il Is IN
sgreenent for doing work- Yet the |
and the cane the mill and machin- |
~ arg al taxed The work can
MY Be dOzs az that mill
Every Iten Of property which |
makes tbs contract Of any value has
1een taxed
"A contract. moreover, Is merely |
he evidence Of a agreement; the
ItIe upon which one may demand
hat sousshing shall De done It Is
70 uogs taxable than title deeds OF
lther eTidsnees Of rights"
If Z contract Is assesssble. Why
Tot tie breach Of Il A breach Is
.spabls Of exact computation This
EouId lead TO the taxation Of chooses
Z action
Without going into the general
question Ehether contracts may Be
s1sd under Cur statutes, ve fail to
g ho= the principal contract be-
lZe u has any value separate and
.pzrt from the tangible property
o. the management Of which |
! vas ENTERED into The land,
be crops Of cane, the mill
Id machinery are al assessed and
axes on them have been paid And,
presumably, the fzeS, that the land
Tzs belrg cultivated and the cane
,roEn and ths nil run 70 uzn1fzc-
zrs sugar. under contract 10 do 30
a sntsred into the assessed Tsl1s
Z this property. To tai every item
I tangible property and then tax an
engagement foE the management O.
sc Of tins property would under
ness circumstance Be double taxa
4