The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-08-10
Fighting INCOME TAX.
WHY THE LAW is SAID TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Attorneys Present the Issue to the
Supreme Court and Will Argue II
Next Week.

The income tax submission of facts
on agreement to the Supreme Court was
filed late yesterday afternoon, and the
argument will pe heard next week, af-
ter the habeas corpus cases have been
disposed Of The facts are the pay
ments of taxes under protest, by George
H. Robertson and the Waimea Sugar
Company, as published yesterday. The
attorneys for Robertson claim that
the new law is unconstitutional for the
following reasons;
1. The provisions allowing only one
deduction of one thousand dollars from
the aggregate annual income from all
members of one family composed of one
or both parents and one or more minor
children, husband and wife, and in the
case of a guardian of two or more
minors in one family is inconsistent
with the fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments of the Constitution of the
United States.
| O. The provision exempting in
comes under one thousand dollars is in
consistent with the fourteenth and fif-
! teenth amendment of the Constitution
! of the United States.
3. The provisions of the act in so far
as resulting in taxation of the salaries
| of the Chief Justice and Associate JUS
| tees of the Supreme Court and JUICES
of the Circuit Courts of the Territory of
Hawaii are inconsistent with section so
of the Organic Act and other laws or
the United States.
4. The provisions of the act in so far
as resulting in the taxation of bonds of
the United States Government are in
consistent with the Constitution and
laws of the United States.
5. The provisions of the act relating
to cases of refusal or neglect to make
returns whereby the assessor may law
! en- a ny Of a
ton or any person having POSSESSION of
! t. books of the company to produce
| the same and to give testimony under
| oath respecting any income liable to tax
and to add two hundred per cent to the
amount of the tax in case of fraudulent
returns is inconsistent with the fourth,
| fifth or sixth amendments of the Con-
stitution of the United States.
6. Said act arbitrarily, unreasonably
and unlawfully eXempts persons and
! property from 'taXauon.
T. Said act is unconstitutional as re-
sulting in duplicate taxation for the
reason that tne income, gains and pro-
! fits derived from all real and personal
property situate in said Territory is
taxed pursuant to section II and SO of
| act 81 of the Session law of 1896, here
tofore passed and now standing unre-
! pealed.
! 8. That the whole act is unconstitu-
tional, invalid, imperative and void by
reason of the invalidity of the many
provisions thereof inasmuch as it would
result in a subversion Of the Legisla-
tive intent to enforce only the remain
ing provisions of said act.
8. That said Act is otherwise uncon-
stitutional. null and void.
10. That said Income Tax law is based
on no rule or uniformity, nor is it based
on rule of apportionment, such as the
| Constitution iOnnnSl6
by Congress upon the States of the
United States, and is, therefore, incon-
sistent with the Constitution of the
United States as well as with the Or
ganic Act giving the Constitution the
same force and effect as elsewhere in
the United States.
| IL. That said Income Tax law author
ICES taxation which is not uniform and
is not proportionate taxation within the
Territory of Hawaii. and, therefore, is
inconsistent with the Constitution of
! the United States.
The reasons given by the plaintiff
corporation differ only in the first two
provisions, which are as follws:
l. That provisions taxing corporations
| on total net meme without the eX-
emption of the $1,000 allowed individ-
uals is inconsistent with the fourteenth
or fifth amendments to the Constitu-
ton of the United STATES.
2. The provision totally eXempting
insurance companies on percentage of
the premiums under the authority of
another act is an unwarranted discrimi-
nation ana inconsistent with the four
| teenth or fifth amendments of the Con-
stitution of the United States.
The petition is signed by A. S. Hart
well and Smith q Lewis for plaintiffs
and by Robertson & Wilder for defend
ant.