The Hawaiian gazette., 1901-08-16

lat!on OF the constitution OF the United
states. The tax Is not upon Il fran
chse or business of a corporation,
which the government giving the fran
chse to these corporations may have
the right to tax, but this Is simply
a question OF whether the property is
owned by an individual or by cor
poration. 1t may BE- said by counsel
on the other side that the 1000 exemp-
ton makes hp. little difference in the
general distribution OF the tax, but this
has no bearing, IL is the principle that
is in violation of the law.
AS To the unlawful exemptions OF
insurance companies the underlying
principle of taxation is that any such
exemption must result from some pub
lie service. What have the insurance
companies don" that they should be
subject to such exemption?
The supreme Court has held an ex-
omption of $1,000 to be unreasonable
Is this exemption of $1,000 any more
reasonable" Is II purely for living eX-
penscs? Ii il is. why should only one
! in family be exempt? | think tins
| is a case of special legislation against
| the married men in favor of the single
men. If woman is teaching school
| why should she not be- exempted, be-
| cause her husband happens to be work
dustry.
The law is unconstitutional in that
II violates article i. which provides
that no person in a criminal case shall
be compelled to testify against them
selves, and also grants the right OF a
speedy and public trial. This law re-
quires corporations and individuals tC
produce their books, and the assessor
is given authority to summon witness.
es who must give testimony. 1t pro,
vides for the determination Of self, and
gives no protection to n person brought
before the assessor to testify. This
makes the act Illegal in that the con.
! stitution provides that no man must
testify against himself" Nr. Lewis
made numerous citations in support OF
/ this contention.
After the noon hour court resumed
with Mr.. Lewis still speaking.
! Il wish to lay particular stress OF
the words false and fraudulent in the
/ law, the word false may mean untru,
] or incorrect, and yet the assessor may
/ add penalty of 200 per cent II thi.
is found To be the case This punish
ment is extreme and unlawful. anC
violates the constitution, which pro
Vides that no excessive fines shall b,
levied or any undue or unusual pun
! ishmcnt inflicted. The taxpayer in
this instance has no defense. \ ECO pc
cent penalty is taking property with
ont due process " law
The estimates OF income includes al
notes, mortgages and BONDS, eNceptins
those of the Territory of Hawaii.
does not say particularly that United
States bonds shall be taxed but /
would seem that when exceptions ar,
made in the case Of bonds, and United
States bonds are not included II mus
mean Ia tax United States bonds
which is also clearly unconstitutional.
Judge Galbraith--"It seems that tn
Legislature did not mean to tax Unit
ed States bonds, as the returns do no
show that"
"One point in my contention" con
tinued Mr.. Lewis. lis that II this &C
is void in parts IL is void as a whole
We have pointed out Inconsistencies
which II court sustains, nullifes tn
whole law. because il would so mutt
late the act that II would not com
within the intention OF the Legislature
which drafted the law. Where part
are intimately connected, and the cour
believes that the Legislature wante,
to pass the act as a whole, would IN
remainder Of the act be valid il II di,
not come within the intentions OF tn
lie gislature?
The reports show that the classic