The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1900-07-11
SUGAR COMPANIES TAXED.
CALIFORNIA LOOKING OUT FOR
REVENUE.
Casts Coveteous Eye on the Planta-
tions OF the Hawaiian Islands-What
Assessor Dodge Says.

SAN FRANCISCO, July 1.--Assessor
Dodge has collected the taxes on the
following franchise Assessments:
Hutchinson Sugar Plantation, 1000, 900;
Kilauea Sugar Plantation, $4,000; Uni
on Trust Company, $4,000.
The Assessor States tliat large.
amount of taxes has been collected on
the sugar stocks of those corporations,
whose property and place of business
is in the Hawaiian Islands.
This stock" said the Assessor, be
ing that of a foreign corporation, is
taxable, and has been returned for tax
alton by many taxpayers, according to
law. The stock of a similar corpora
tion also having its property in the ISL
ands, but which happens to have it's
office or corporate home in San Fran
cisco, is, according to our statutes, ex-
empt from taxation. Hence, unless its
franchise is taxed in lieu of the capital
stock, those who have invested in this
stock escape paying any revenue to
the Governmnt which gives them it's
protection. This is not just. Unless
the franchise is taxed we have this con-
dition: A may put 100000 in the stock
of a sugar plantation having it's office
or corporate home, as well as its prop
erty, in Hawaii, and the law compels
him to pay a tax on this capital stock
of $1,000, say, If computed at our last
years tax rate. B also invests 100000
in the capital stock of an adjoining
plantation in the Islands, which, how
ever, happens to be incorporated in
California, but which has only its office
here, and pays no tax here. b claims
his stock is non taxable, as it is that
of a California corporation.
Shall BIS investment thereof 100000
contribute nothing in taxes, while A
pays the city $1,000, simply because the
investment of b is in a corporation
,foI, \, 10 int OF off in
California.
California enjoys no revenue in the
way of taxes from this corporation,
simply because it has an office here.
Why then should it's stock be exempt
from taxation, while that stock repre-
senting the adjoining plantation is tax
ed This discrimination is indefensi-
BILE. When the franchise, however, of
the California corporation is taxed, as
our law contemplates, then each of its
stockholders contributes indirectly his
share of taxes. Has this latter stock
holder any cause for complaint, when
his neighbor is taxed according to law
directly on the capital stock he holds
in the Hawaiian crop? | think not
| Only the taxation of the franchise is the
best system for then every stockhOlder
contributes indirectly his part of the
tax; through receiving dividends which
are slightly diminished. While if the
STOCK is taxed directly one StOcknOldeI
returns his stock to the Assessor and
pays absolutely nothing on it. But as
sess the franchise as representing the
capital stock and not one shareholder
escapes paying his share of the fran
chise tax.
Now, in my opinion" said the AS
SCISSOR. "the franchise system of taxa
ton, judicially carried out, is superior
to the method in vogue in other States
| of assessing the caDital stock of all
corporations, domestic or foreign"
The Board of Health will hold a meet
| ing at o'clock this afternoon.
| Peerlass Preservinp Paint once used