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

shall 200 per cent to just valuation Of the income
Of such taxpayers It contended that the last provisions
these two sections conflict with the provisions the
saution which designed protect persons
ans searches and seizures from giving testimony against them
from fines and cruel and unusual punhments
ana from deprivation of property without due of law
NO action has been taken in these under these
the law and hence for pass upon their
validity nvady except far the other portions of the
Act which question might be affected thereby In
our OPINION If these provisions void they do affect the
validity of the remainder of the Act for they separabe
We cannot say that they such essential parts the Act
that the legislature would have passed the remainder if it
had known that these could not stand
Next points 90 and Co. Section of the Act provides
tax OF and above thousand
dollars derived by persons residing the Territory prop
ery owned, and business trade &c, carried the Ter
rtoy, and by persons residing without the Territory, from
property owned and business trade &c. carried in the Ter
ntoy and by and officers of the Territory wherever
residing Section 3, prescribing how the shall
mated provides that there shall be included among other things
all income derived from interest notes bonds &c. except
such bonds of the Territory and municipalities shall by
the law of their issuance be from taxation Section
prscrbes what shall be deducted but does mention
teres United States bonds the salaries of the Justices of
the Supreme Court Judges of the Circuit Courts
1t apparent therefore that such and
within the letter of the Act We may also that
legislature without tax such interest because that
would be tax the borrowing power of the Federal govern
ment (see Pollock Farmers Loan Trust Co., supra)
such salaries because of the provision in Section so of the
Organic Act that, "The salaries of the chief justice
and the justices of the supreme and judges of the
shall be diminished during their of Office See
opinion of Mr. Justice Field in the page
Vol. 157.
These matters of comparatively little Importance The
total all such salaries would only 500 year.
and it does appear that any United States bonds this
Territory owned by residents of this Territory
appear that the plaintiff either of has any interest
either of these questions except far they affect the
question of the validity of the Act whole If the
such salaries and interest provided for in separate
it obvious that that clause would be separabe and could be
held invalid without affecting the remainder of the
clause be held valid the bulk of the subjects
to which applies and invalid least imperative to some
subjects which it would apply if taken ieraly We think
it
As the Supreme Court of the United Railroad
Companies Schultz 103 g. S. u.s. 142, 'Ihe striking
is not necessarily BY erng words The question Of The
intention of the legislature If the statute when held napp
cable subjects which beyond the power Of the legislature
tax may still operate give effect the main purpose
of the legislature may stand properly within
scope No doubt eer rule applies to criminal statutes
But this civil statute Nor the striking of part Of
what is within the of the striking
invalid exemption exception named in the statute
the former the Legislative will would merely be given effect
while in the latter strike exception would be to
extend the operation of the what the legislature had
expressly excluded The court cannot legslate
In Supervisors Stanley los q. 3O5 act the
State of New York permitted debts be deducted all
sona property another provided for upon the shares
of banks whether national but contained provision
for similar deductions The Supreme Court OF the United States
held that the latter invalid holders of shares in national
banks where such deductions could be made but that
that did render the invalid holders shares
other banks at all holders of shares national
banks where such deductions could be made The
Mr. ushce Miller said is he staute) for that
absolutely vod2 This be full for there
why it should not remain the law to banks
banking associations organized under the laws of the State
private bankers which there doubt exists large
number of both classes.
What is there render it void a shareholder in
oa bank who debts which he deduct from the
shares The this right
affect him. He the amount of tax that he would If
the law gave him the right of deduction He would be
better condition the law expressly authorized him make
the deduction. What legal interest has he question which
only affects ohers Why should he invoke the protection of
the act of Congress where he has rights protect
Is sit and decide abstract questions of law which
the parties before it show interest and which, if decided
either way, affect right of theirs2
ut would that if the valid rule of
for shares of State banks and for individual bankers 1t
should also the rule for shareholders of national banks
who debts deduct and who could not therefore,
deduct anything the confomed the requirements OF