The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-09-11


them out of class to which they belong makes tb kg
ect of capricious legislative favor Such ayor sub
no pretense to equality it would lack the semhano 80
mate tax legislation Cooley Taxation 1872 and 15a s0
1t is contended by counsel for the defendant tbt a.
emption of thousand dollars was provided ~ we eS-
that that sum represented the of providing tho
of life for averagesized family in this Terriory and
cause the legislature had found that these persons
be exempted by this provision were already earnn would
portional share of the burdens of taxation & el pro
wealthy neighbors. The answer to the first Dart Of ~ f
ment given by the Supreme Court of the RemhI WI su
sented by the same counsel in the Campbell case wb W
the validity OF the income law of 1896 in which H.
ton was two thousand dollars is pertinent ~" i; a
sad the Chief Justice, that the exemption Of incomes
thousand dollars is reasonable and in furheranca Of we
purpose because the sum OF two thousand dollars ia tb
annual cost of living of family. This is a mera ,
and IS not to be taken true in community" Cbm
ShdD, II Haw. 121 If the in 1897 refused "a $780,
true the supposton that two thousand dollars was tho
annual cost OF living Of family in this community Il doc
seem that this court will accept as true snn w
one thousand dollars will such expense and that an
ton OF thousand dollars such theory is raasonh
1r ana Is IN the urherance of public purpose If this ss
ton be true why is the exemption allowed 70 tba s; w
without famllyE Under the law the exemption is allowed
the individual without regard to the fact that there NAV b
or many dependent upon him for support unless the nda
is the member of family and then "ony one deduction n
thousand dollars shall be made from the aggregate animal ~
come OF all the members of family composed of one or both
parents and children or husband and W.T.
lhs an unjust and indefensble discrimination against b
man or class OF men in all communities who should have nc
thoughtful of the legislature that is the man Of ar &
lily, and IN favor of the without family In reply to The
last part OF the argument that Is that the legislature fn
that the persons exempted had been bearing more than their
proportion OF the burden of taxation We fail 70 note on.
such hndng by the Legislature and if it had made such finding
we not that the would be bound by it.
that this exemption purely arbitrary and caprcosy maze
No public purpose sought be served by it. Those exempted
from taxation not proper sub ects of charity No GOOD
reason appears why persons whose income less than one thou
sand dollars per year should be relieved bearing their inst
proportion of the burdens of taxation
The exemption of insurance companies from taxation E les
de1ensbe than the class of persons above referred Why
insurance companies should be cassed with charitable religious
and educational corporations faernal societies and exempted
from paying taxes under this law does not clearly appear The
law says because they taxed under another Act The refer
ence to Section 20 of the Act of 1885, under which insurance
companies taxed per gross premiums received
This section provides that such companies shall not be caused
pay any other taxes duties under this Act This exms the
real and personal property of companies from taxation
ana now tins Act 20 exempts the income from all property
owned by insurance companies from taxation 1t claimed
that insurance companies have property the Territory
be protected by its laws This made the basis of the
exemption IN the statute. The says the exemption
made because they taxed under another law and when
examine that other law find that the real and personal prop
ery OF insurance companies exempt from taxation We
know matter of law that companies
hold real and personal property 1t does appear from the
submission whether they much little in this Territory
But 1t does appear that whatever property owned by nsr
ahee coanleo IN thlS Territory wholly relieved from
ery or income tax If the Legislature thus favor insurance
companies by chasing them religious charitable edu
honal corporations there nothing prevent from extend
ing similar favo to other corporations without this asf
ton In the language of Mr. Justice Field the inherent Inn
tatlon upon the taxing fobids the imposition Of taxes
winch are equal IN their operation upon similar kinds OF prop
er and to make such unjust discrimination exemptions
beyond the power of the Legislature.
As to the second objection 1t is conceded that the Legislature
has the to classify the objects of taxation, but equal
y well settled that selections be made of class Tor
taxation and others of the class be exempted Cpfa
Shd6 Id 121 This power of classification must IN the
very nature of the power be limited in other respects When
the legislature has classified the objects of taxato within
its jurisdiction this of necessity exhausts the power the
property be classified twice. there limit to the
number of cassfcatons that may be made 1t cannot after the
first classification complete proceed again to classify par
OF the objects of taxation without repeating the first CLASSIFICATION
otherwise there could be equality and just apporonmen
the burdens of taxation. This is exactly what the Legislature
has attempted in this income law Without disturbing inc
classification made by the law of 1885, it Is ouga
recasy part of the property classified by the law OF %
and under which of per the ful cash v
Is levied and collected of the first day of January OF %
Is a1raa opdo OIL