The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-09-04

1t fixed the limit between might be considered as belonging
TO class and what to the other This was necessary a.
practical guide the ASSESSOR
hese principles have repeatedly applied under our
constitutions To notice only Of general
imposes different import upon different
commodities another different occupation or license taxes upon
eret businesses another stamp duties upon different
ocneh' and even general internal law full of
1t imposes different specific dogs
carriages and other kinds personal property
ana without regard to their different values and although these
classes of property by some persons and not M Others
1t imposes poll school and upon males between GER
tam ages and females certain clergy
men, bremen and soldiers in its definition personal property
Tor purposes of taxation I'D certain classes
ana o other classes of personal property imposes special
income tax upon insurance companies wholly exempts
glasses OF property devoted to educational religious and
DIE purposes and property to the extent of $500 by whomso
ever owned whether it be the a property of
the individual No one has questioned far am aware
the consutonaty of these determinations When an
innovation made is apt be looked upon suspicion
and there IS tendency regard involving principle
OF no Prlncpe from the mere fact that accustomed
o The points in question:
new applications of old principles may sustained bv an
application of those principles
First exemption of So 600 The objection 70 this
that too large 1t conceded that exemption NAV be
allowed on the principle that exemptions
ed under our general property Exemptions of up
70 certain amount have been allowed everywhere else far
know The legislature alone amount The court
can interfere only when it obvious amount large
as 10 result IN arbitrary discrimination Certainly
say that the fixed by representatives
OF the for the purpose of taking unfair advantage the
few There indication of such either on the
face of the act eXraneous facts The presumption is that
the legislature did its duty There would naturally be differ
ence OF opinion to the proper In of this
where limit be placed somewhere weight must
the opinion of the legislative BODY discretion of
that body controlled by the courts except in clear
of abuse See Lec Bmlingt0n supra and The King
Tong Lee Haw 1885, 343 In Massachusetts exemption
of ncomeis recently So OOO the
f"6 SIS 90 In the Federal statute recently before United
States Supreme Court pollock a. Farmers Loan G Trust Co.,
157 o. S. 429; 15S e. S. GOD and from which
largely copied, the exemption noteworthy that
though counsel in that urged that the exemption
large the did aude the point Several Justices
ered to the point in individual opinions Mr. Justice Field
thought the exemption of $4,000
500 Mr.. Justice Harlan said (15S Z. s. 675):
I'm this connection and ground annung provi
taxing incomes counsel for the appellant refers to the
exemption of incomes that do exceed said
such exemption is large in That may be
ceded But the for that alone declare the
exemption be invalid Every take will
Congress- in taxing incomes rghtfuly allow exemption
in That done in the income laws of 1861
and subsequent laws and questioned Such exemp
tons rest upon grounds of public policy of which Congress
Judge; and that determination be nterfered
by the judicial branch of the unless the exemption
of such character and unreasonaby large authorize
the court that Congress- under the pretence merely Of
legang for the general good has put upon few bur
dens that by principle of justice and under every sound
of drdon ought have been placed upon all upon the
great of the people If the exemption had been placed
ST. OOO few think would have contended that
Congress- doing had exceeded its powers In of the
increased of living this day. compared with other times,
the difference between either of those amounts and not
great to Justify the in striking down all of the in
tax provisions The basis upon which such exemptions
rest that the general welfare requires that in taxing incomes
such exemption should be made will fairly the annual
of the family and thus prevent the members
of such families becoming charge upon the public The
allows corporations when making returns of their profits
income deduct actual operating and business Upon
like grounds suppose Congress exempted incomes under
$4,000
Mr. Justice Brown said (Ib. $685.
Irrespecve however, Of the Constitution, which is
wanting in uniformity members of the class is
may be- invalid But this does deprive the legislature of
the power make exemptions provided such exemptions
upon principle and purely arbitrary created
solely for the purpose of favorng body OF
Thus every civilized country there exemption of small
which would be manifest cruelty and the power
make such exemptions granted the amount within the
of the legislature, and long that power
wanony abused the bound respect it. Tn this
there exemption of $4,000 which indicates purpose
Congress that the burden of this should fall
the wealthy, least the weltodo IF who have
property beyond their pressing needs the