The Hawaiian gazette., 1901-08-16

net profits? Why discrimination be-
tween the property of an individual and
of a corporation? 1t makes no differ
ence whether the discrimination IL in
favor of the individual or of the cor
| poration. We claim II is an unlawful
Discrimination capricious one IL you
please A man with an income of $1,000
| Il year may have nothing left at the
end of year. yet he is allowed but a
! thousand dollars The corporation may
have a much less expense proportion
ately. II that b, unlawful d's"rimina-
lion the whole law Is Illegal, and If
that contention br sustained by your
honors it would he practically impus-
shle to enforce the law, without that
provision.
"Inheritanccs are taxed under the
! general Law IL received before January
! lst. vet the innom" tax provides that IN
| horitanCcs shall he taxed, unless the
| neirs have paid the Inheritance tex.
| This in my opinion would be a case Of
I duplicato taxation and consequently IL
/ legal.
| 1T may be argued that the present
| law is not burdensome; no matter how
| inConsiderabe the burden of this law,
| there is no telling how heavy il will
be made in the future If this court
holds that no limitations are placed by
| the constitution upon the Legislature
Of Hawaii. We all know what ii will
| lead to in the end. 1t would be n re-
markablc instance of untrammeled
power if the Legislature could do what
| Congress cannot do. The general tax
| law already taxes real estate, and now
, comes this law and taxes the Income
upon il.
ln ms N,
pay hut per cent while all other cor
porations pay per cent. Has the
| Legislature any power tn make such
distinction in the class or corpora
! lions? If it has. then IL could provide
a separate tax for coffee corporations,
! sugar companies, etc. 1t could say
! that rice planters shall pay so much
sugar corporations So much, and SO
on through the entire list. If one cor
poration is picked out, it is an unjust
| discrimination, not because II would
make SO much difference In the
amount, but because of the principle
of the law"
This concluded the argument, at the
close Of which Judge Galbraith asked
How could proportionate tax, as
provided by the constitution, be
made"
1T is practically impossible" re-
sponded Mr.. Hartwell
MIR. LEWIS ADDRESS.
Mr. Lewis followed the opening
speaker with a more exhaustive argu-
ment, quoting literally from authori-
ties to sustain his points. He began
with the general statement of his
ground Of contention; arguing that the
law was invalid for the following rea-
sons; Discrimination between corpor-
atoms and individuals: unlawful ex-
emptions; unlawful penalties; taxation
of the salaries Of the chief justice. and
associate justices, and of the circuit
judges; taxation of United States
bonds; and in conclusion, because the
act as whole was Illegal ITO begin,
said Mr.. Lewis, the income tax as a
whole is Objectionable, because i,
makes the burden difficult to apportlon
II has never been looked on with favor
because 1t prizes into the private af-
fairs Of individuals and corporations
and has always been the last tax re-
storted to by States or Territories.
|, AS to the discrimination: Corpora
tons are as much entitled 10 have the
protection Of the law as are individ,
uals; absolute conformity cannot b,
obtained under any system, but wheI
there is plain and unjust discrimina
! ton as = the case here, il is In VIC