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

DISSENTING OPINION FREAR, J.
respectfully dissent in stating my reasons shall refer
only the three points case which
closely related and upon which the other members
of the Court base their decision upon another of which they
different 1t will be unnecessary
opinion upon the other points raised by counsel The
three points referred the exemption the dis
elimination between incomes and under OOO (2) the
partial exemption of incomes under 0o0 the discrimination
between and under $4,000, and CO the
exemption of corporate the discrimination between
individual and corporate incomes The question these
determinations unconstitutional! Whether they wise
founded good policy matter solely for the legislature and
if they wise expedien the remedy lies with the
stuents of succeeding legislatures Unless they clearly
provision of the constitution the
hold them contended they repugnant
Article which provides Section that No Subsidy
Duty Tax, description shall be established levied
without the Legislature; ~ and, in
Section that Each member of society has the right be
protected the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property
according law and therefore, he shall be obliged contr
butte his proportion the expense this protection
4 : :" This article does prescribe that income
other kind of shaf be levied any particular
In the United States there many special
stuona to the in which particular taxes shall
be laid Under the Federal constitution for instance direct
taxes must be laid by the rule of apporonment among the
several States and duties mpos and must be laid by the
rule of uniformity In of the States property
be dd raloren and proportion value while rules
prescribed for other But by Article II of
constitution each person merely obliged contribute
to the of He do this through
variety of taxes and that
shall pay part proportional part of every particular
there rule prescribing how particular
laid The attributes of equality and uniformity inhere
o'Oi' 0N'0iU
several provisions of constitution the effect that
unjust discrimination socaled class legislation intended
to be allowed in of taxation than in other
Besides Article H. which provides that each person.
has the right be protected the enjoyment of his life liberty
and property and shall contribute his proportion share
there other provisions such
Section of Article which forth that The Government
for the good and not for the profit honor
private interest of family class of men,.
Let therefore, that constitution contains in sub
the general provisions requiring equality and uniformity
OF taxation found the of of the States and
the general provision of the 18th Amendment to the Federal
Constitution which provides that No state shall deny
person within jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
everywhere conceded that these provisions do take from
the legislature the power select classify the subjects of
taxation whether persons things uniformity
complied with if all persons things in the class
treated alike and the rule of equality requires the existence of
the power of classification For if but one kind of tax could be
by of uniformity taxation would fall
unequalv different persons Where natural distinctions
quire discrimination, discriminate works injustice Our
constitution requires real equality of result IN the
aggregate equality form in the of each partcu
lar But when there is selection classification must be
cacation be based reasonable grounds other
wise would not be classcation it would be arbitrary dscm
To arbitrarily discriminate would be exacon exorton,
conscaon taxation And this is the distinction
where taken If there real classification the court cannot
if there is arbitrary cpcous unreasonable dis
the interfere There is always however
strong presumption not only that the legislature intended
constuiona but that succeeded doing and the
declare of the legislature unconsu
tona except very clear few references will make
clearer the foregoing propositions and the time illus
trate their practical application.
In Pacific Express Co. Sebert, 142 u S. $780, special
of transportation and not other
and contention that the rule of uniformity and
destroyed by arbitrary discrimination but the court
held that there was an difference between companies
of transportation and those that did
nasmuch the former possessed property which sub
and the latter would taxation unless
specially and hence the classification justified
Referring a State constitutional provision requiring
uniformity and equality of taxation and the 18th Amendment
TO the Federal Constitution the court said:
hs has repeatedly laid down the doctrine that diver
v of taxation both with respect the amount imposed and
of
burdens from Them not inconsistent with
perfect uniformity and equality of taxation in the proper
sense of those terms that system which imposes the
tax pon every species of property irrespective of its nature
condition or class will destructive of the principle of uniform
v equality taxation and of just adaptation of property