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

may be provided by law.
The question claimed be repugnant other arti
Giles of the Constitution especially Article Section which
reads
The conducted for the good and not
the profit honor private of any family
class of men.
Article No person shall be compelled in any criminal
against himself; be deprived of life,
liberty property, without due process of law
Article Every person has the right be from
all unreasonable searches person. house,
his papers and effects and shall ISSUE except
probable supported by oath affirmation and describing
place be searched and the persons things be seized
urged by plaintiffs counsel that Article II of the Con
which declares that each member of society shall be
obliged contribute his proportion share to the of
this protection that each be obliged to
pay only his proportion share of such that that the
to paid shall be in proportion the income from
property owned by him To in another each per
son can only be taxed on raeaby with the incomes
others The of must bear the ratio TO his income
the tax of others bears to their incomes :
attorney the defendant urges that there ma
ton to power have provision in
the Constitution that shall be equal and uniform as in
Article II of the Constitution not
limitation of the taxing and if it is the Legislature is the
proper judge of what the proportion share that each mem
of society contribute for the OF government
We agree with this contention The to tax for Its
support is inherent every government for it could exist
without such power but this power limited by Article H. for
by only be imposed by the legislature and not by
the executive the legislature only exercise this power IN
the pointed that each shall pay his pro
portion share The inhibition to tax IN any oher way
that which accompshes the result that each member OF society
does differ essentially from provision thar tax
.aon shall equal and uniform Certainly the taxing OF
upon property of the value as that OF more than he
laid upon would be compelling to pay more than ms pro
norton or share and the would be equal and
uniform"
Tn the light of reasoning cent of is
entire annual income exceeds the OF four thousand
dollars and tax only thousand dollars OF his income
il the does exceed four thousand dollars and TO I'M
pose no tax upon if his income be less than two Thousand
dollars would be obgng to more than ms proportion OF
share of the tax and such taxation would not be equal and
uniform To this it is replied that the legislature mas ne
hover 70 EXEMPT from taxation such subjects deems proper
h nv all the authorities the exemptions must be supported by
public considerations and tend promote the genera
Of this is the exemption from axaon ohg ess
in This country TO erev taxpayer property the value OF three
hundred dollars the obvious purpose being not 10 tax at all
who poor property OF only tnat Vaue
or less question does not exempt from tax
alton all incomes to of thousand dollars but I'M
poses upon receives 81 900 year tax OF one
per upon the whole whereas the person whose
less than four thousand dollars pays only on the excess
of income thousand dollars 1t is well settled that the
legislature power classify objects of taxation but
equally we'll settled selections cannot be made out OF class
for taxation others of the class be exempted Inc
effect of this the Act would be to place the burden OF
Tow mon those whose annual incomes four thousand
dollars and who minority OF the community
aroed that the exemption of incomes of two thousand dollars
is reasonable and in futhence of public purpose because
the sum of thousand dollars the average annual cos
of living of family This is mere suppoon ana not 10 DC
taken granted in community But II 1t be once
that exemptions large as this can be maze as |
benefit then exemptions much larger amount can be mde
which MIGHT place the whole upon the rich and pushed
70 an extreme and not the proportional aHao
authorized bv the Constitution.
1t may argued that that part of the statute which pro
vdes for exemptions imperative and VOID because Oh
its repugnancy Article II of the Constitution the rest OF the
section imposing the upon might stand but we
do not know the legislature would have passed that part OF
the section imposing the all persons were not o
,,+ions made To muae section by holding that the
first part which imposes upon an incomes OF persons
CONSTITUTIONAL exemptions being cut Off would be III erect
the making which we have no authority 10 90
The entire expresses the intention OF the legislature au
IFS solidarity must either be preserved or the whole fas Inc
same reasoning will apply to Section which imposes tax 81
- nor cont mon the net income of corporations 1t the
evident intention the legislature to establish genera schne
of taxation place upon incomes OF every description
ber derived individuals by corporations 1t Is not at
all certain the legislature would have passed the ACT II
nnosed incomes of corporations alone ana e
empted of individuals whether alone or IN ASSOCIATION a.
The question before of difficulty upon Whch