The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-10-24

ing every vessel arriving from q for
eign port at any Of the ports OF
these islands with passengers on
board to a tax Of one dollar for
each passenger. The new law enacted
that this tax SHOULD form a part OF
the port charges and shall be paid TO
the Collector OF the port, and no Col
I lector shall grant a clearance to any
such vessel until the same be paid.
This legislation was accomplished by
an amendment OF the Act Of May ID,
1859, and the proceeds were to be de-
voted 10 the same purposes as when
the tax was paid by the passenger.
There being some doubt whether
this tax should be paid directly TO the
Queens Hospital, the Legislature Of
1892, Chap. 40, OF the laws of the
year., enacted that ''all moneys here
tofore collected and now unexpended,
and all moneys which may hereafter
be collected under any existing or fu-
I ture statute authorizing the collection
! Of any hospital tax, shall be paid into
the Public Treasury and held by the
| Minister Of Finance, as a special de-
/ posit to the credit and for the benefit
\ OF the Trustees OF the Queens Hospi-
I tai. Such special deposit shall at all
\ times be subject TO the order of said
I Trustees, or such officer thereof as may
/ be by them authorized, and shall be
/ by such Trustees devoted TO the pUr-
| poses Of said Queens Hospital" With
this law in view, showing that the
Legislature considered the Minister Of
Finance as the mere agent by which
/ this fund should be collected, the Leg
islature did not appropriate the Hos
pital Tax. 1t did not consider it as
public revenue subject to distribution
by the Legislature. In addition to
this special tax the Legislature has,
without interruption, from 1862 to
1892, appropriated biennially various
sums as aid to the Queens Hospi-
tai" This, we believe, is all the leg
islatiOn on the subject. To summarize
it: From 1862 to 1890 a tax OF two
dollars was levied upon all passengers
for the benefit of the Queens Hospital. |
Since 1890 port charge of one dollar for !
each passenger brought is levied upon /
all ships bringing passengers here for I
the same object. 1t Is urged upon Us |
that since the Government has uni /
formly, with but one exception Gin /
1871, not collected this passenger /
tax" whether imposed upon the pas
seDger or the ship, in case the passen-
gers were immigrants or labOrers
coming hither under contracts with
the Board OF Immigration, it has thus
put a construction" upon the law,
holding that "passengers'' who are
contract labOrers are not passengers
within the meaning OF this tax law.
We admit the principle laid down in
Co. v. Telephone CO.,
Haw. $50, that "the contempOraneous
and uniform Interpretation of an act
Of the Legislature by an Executive
is entitled to great weight
and in case of doubt ought to turn
the scale" But the Government had
nothing in this statute to construe.
There was nothing doubtful in the
law. The Government simply de- .
cided that they would exempt this
class of passengers from this tax. The |
motive for so doing was, as stated TO
rs in argument, the unwillingness on
the part of the Government to add TO |
the planters anu others employing
these laborers the burden of paying
two dollars apiece which might or
might not be chaTgeable to the labor {
eTs, according to the contract between I
hem and their employers. As we have s
seen, the situation is now materially
The passenger does not now
1ay the tax. So the argument as to l
tightening the expenses of the en- I
)loyer of labor fails. The reasons for i
he former exemption do not now ex- {
ST. Then, too, the tax does not now t
70 into the Public Treasury as gen. [
raj realization, TO be appropriated to d
he Hospital by vote of the LegisIa- V
ure. 1t Is now, when collected, a
pecial deposit and not subject to leg t
,lative distribution so long as the T
yet of 1892 is unrepealed. The
is mere depository +.
{ the fund as the law now
lands. BY the statute there is no dis L
retion vested in the Government
ither as to the collection of the tax or
IS distribution. =,
The duty asked by the petitioners to +
e done by the Collector General is a =
duty. Mandamus is there
IRE the proper remedy. Chapter 80 of n
ne Acts of 1876, sec. D, authorizes the =
rit TO be directed to public officers TO
Dmpel them TO fulfill any OF the duties
ttached to their offices, or which may
z legally required Of them. In Castle
kapena, Haw. %, it was held that j
laudamus lies against cabinet min te
ter to compel the performance of n
urely ministerial duties. This leads .
; To the defense made by the Collector iu
General that he may not be compelled dt
, exact this tax because he was in pl
ructed in writing by the Minister OF pl
,lied upon is sec. 523 of the Civil Code II
'omp. Laws, PIP. 149 and 1901 "In iv
,latiOn TO the collection of duties, and l.
l all other matters relative to the eN. K
,utiOn OF the revenue laws, the col. of
ctorS, and other officers of the Gus VI
'mS, shall obey the written iustruc.
ous Of the Minister of Finance: and n
case any difficulty shall arise as To III
lie true construction, or meaning of OF
~ part OF such revenue laws, the
ritten decision of the Minister OF FL N
ance shall be conclusive and binding m
DOu such collectors. and other officers IA
the customs We do not under 50
and that IL is claimed that construc-
On OF a revenue law made by a Min ~
ter OF Finance is fiual and conclusive M
] all persons. This would in effect 81;
cate legal tribunal higher than this
Durt. The statute merely makes / OF
ch construction binding upon the 81,
iniSter's subordinate officers Ii can o.
" be commended for one rnnnsrf that O.