The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-10-04
10 H1l SESSION NEEDED
Icou,inued Prom F1rss Pase-l

! XIV lNA DS5<A aIc rAkAc>S4f AK 1e4t----@
But an ex post fzcso iz~ Is one whiei
makes an act punishable II = uznasl
in which il vas not punishable xhsr
il was committed Fletcher v Peck
Crarch. 1sS Ex post facEo laxs IL
late to penal and criminal proceedings
which impose punishments or forfs.s
ures, and not 10 civil process iinss
which Affect private rights resrospee-
lively Retrospective laws and sl2Es
laws divesting vested rights. unless Il
post fzrto Or impairing the obligztioc
Of contracts. do not fall within Ile
Isprohibitiye contained In the eoasticu-
ton OF the United States. however r.
pugnant they may be to the principles
ton OF the United States, however re-
pugnant they may be to the principles
OF sound legislation
| calder :. Bull, Dallas. 3ss: SAT
terlee vs. Matthewson. Pet. as: Wat
son v. Mercer, Pet. So.
The foregoing is quoted from the
| opinion OF the court by Judge Shars-
wood, 81 Pa ST 436
| The following unanimous decision
was rendered by the supreme court
os the United States. Carpenter. ct al.
vs. the Commonwealth OF Penrslyvs-
MIA, II How $50. / quote the opinion
/ Of the court in full:
Mr. Justice Campbell delivered the
opinion Of the court:
THE legislature OF Pennsylvania, in
| 1926, adopted a law by which ali in
heritances, being within this common
wealth. which. by the intestacy OF the
| will of any decedent, should deyolve
upon other than the father, mother.
wife. children or lineal descendants
of such person should be subject TO the
| payment OF tax, now fixed at 5 per
cent
Purd. Dig, 1SS, Sec. 1.
The assessments under this act were
confined to the property which might
be within the commonwealth"
The Commonwealth v. Smith, 5 Barr,
142
I'm March, 1850, by an explanatory
act, it was declared that the words be-
ing within this commonwealth, shall
be construed as to relate to all persons
who have been at the time of their de-
cease, or now may be, domiciled within
this commonwealth, as well as to es-
tates, and this is declared to be the
true intent and meaning of this act
William Short, a citizen of Pennsyl-
vania, died within the state few
months previous to the passage OF this
act, leaving his property to friends and
collateral relations. the principal Of
whom, the residuary legatees, reside
beyond the limits of the state. The
will was proven by resident executor
in December, 1S49, before the registers
court in Philadelphia. and a settlement
was made with that court, in June OF
the following year. In that settlement
the executor represented that a portion
of the estate consisting of securities,
stocks, loans. and evidences of debt
and property, was not within the COM
monwealth and offered to pay the tax
for the property within under the &C,
OF 1926, and denied the validity OF the
assessment under the act of 1850. The
tax was assessed upon the entire per-
sOnal estate, without reference to its
locality by the court, and its Judgment
upon this subject was affirmed by the
supreme court, to which it was re
moved by certiorari. That court says:
More pointed words to make the acJ
of 1850 retrospective could not be
chosen, and it will scarce be said the
legislature had not power to make it
so, at least while the assets remain in
the hands of the executor as admins
traitor. No clause of the constitution
forbids it to extend a tax already laid
or to tax assets not taxed before AMI
in establishing its peculiar interpreta-
ton it has only done indirectly what
it was competent to do directly The
supreme court thus interprets the acl
of 1850 as if it read: That assets in
the hands of an executor for distribu-
than among the collateral relations Vi
or strangers to, the decedent shall be
subject to tax of 5 per cent
This court has no authority to re-
wise the act of Pennsylvania upon any
ground OF justice, policy or consist
eney to its own constitution. These
are concluded by the decision of the
public authorities of the state The
only inquiry for this court is, does
the act violate the constitution of the
United States or the treaties and laws
made under It?
The validity Of the act. as affecting
SUGGESTIONS to open after its enact
ment, is not contested; nor is the au
thority Of the state to levy taxes upon
personal property belonging to its citi-'
Eens but situated beyond its limits de-
MED, but the complaint is that the ap-
plication Of the act of 1926. by that o.
1850, to a succession already in the
course of settlement, and which had
been appropriated by the last will of
the decedent, involved an arbitrary
change Of the existing laws OF inherit
ance to the extent of this tax, in the
sequestration Of that amount for the
uses OF the state. That the rights OF
the residuary legatees were vested at
the death Of the testator. and from
that time those persons were non-resi-
dents and the property taxed was also
beyond the state. and tina. the state
has employed its power over the execu-
tor and the property within its bor-
ders to accomplish measure OF wrong
and injustice. That the act contains
the imposition OF q forfeiture or penal
y. and is en- post faefo- II IS in some
under a win are vested at the death of