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

that
other Act only foreign insurance commands; 80 I the
thus donese insurance companies (of which there ara A
aFo poe ACTS the same other companies and
only foreign Insurance companies are taxed one m CO., u
Their gross premiums While other companies are taxed ono nor
their net income 1t does not appear that for @
s own any property IN these islands They must be nre
,Ime office furniture used bv tbe;r 900 -
ras would not exceed three hundred dollars in H.
AMOUNT OF the general exemption the property tax Act hut
IL ooup' Il we can assume that they more As the
court said IN. CargH Co. Minnesota supra. at l. rtb
observation IN this connection was neither aaood NOV
proved that there the State any elevators or
that were not situated on the right of way railroad The
% aC e dlstincon Is confined to foreign insurance com
a@ would seem to indicate that the opinion of the leos
ature there was ground upon which suc conon;o
should De taxed IN different from other eomnanies
and W" can readily assume that it because such companies
doing much business and had little property here In
our opinion there was sufficient ground upon which the egsa
e could classify IN the present Similar cassicaons
nave been recognized proper elsewhere Com a. Del Dir
tdhdt Co., supra, the said: Nor classification neees
a based any essential differences in the nature or in
deed the condition OF the various subjects be based as
veil the want of adapaby to the same methods Of tax
on or upon the impraeticabiy of applying various
subjects the methods produce Just and reasonably
uniform results may be based upon wegrounded eonsid
ons Of public policy Hence it is that corpo
ranons are taxed upon net earnings, income 9th
upon their gross receipts companies upon the
gross amount OF their premiums Foreign insurance
companies have been distinguished from domestic companies
and taxed independently and differently" In Pacific Express
10 a. Ses6eT, supra the court upheld discrimination In
law based upon the principle, nonownehp of prop
ety TO any great extent, saying, other things:
The Legislation in question be invdi
y discriminating against the express companies defined by
and IN favor OF other companies that
Express certain other conditions under different
There essential difference between express
companies defined by this and railroad steamboat
panies other companies that their of
porJaton The vital distinction this Railroad companies
pay their roadbed rolling stock and other tangible
property well as generally upon their anchise and
boat companies likewise upon their tangible property
This necessarily dd Ddlorem at the rate
paid other private property the State belonging
individuals Generally indeed not but is often determined
and different according the will OF
The State Legislature Kentucky Railroad Tao Cases lis u
On the other hand, express companies such
defined by this have tangible property of conse
quence subject taxation under the general laws There
therefore, by which they be taxed all unless by
upon receipts for business transacted This distinction
clearly places express companies defined by this separate
from companies owning their OF transpora
They do do business under the conditions or
similar In the nature of things and IRE
pective the definite legislation in question, they belong to
different classes There be objection therefore, TO the dis
made between express companies dehned by thus
and other companies persons incidentally dong similar
by and methods in the manner in
which they taxed Their different nature character and
of doing business justify the discrimination IN this
spect which the legislature has fit to impose The lega
question does not discriminate between companies
brought within the class defined the first secon and such
companies being entirely dsmiar, in vital respects
cards purposes and policy of taxation from railroad com
panie and owning large Of tangible and other
subject taxation under other and different laws and
upon other and different principles, do not how under
principles of the many decisions of this court upon the sub
e it can be held voave either of the Fourteenth Amend
nt of the Constitution of the United States OF the
vision IN the Constitution Missouri relative equality and
Uniformity of taxation
Duplicate taxation is necessarily Invalid IN construng
statute there is no doubt presumption against intention
on the part of the Legislature produce such result and
tax that is duplicate may be invalid because 1t operates as an
unjust discrimination Cooley, Taxaions, 15S ct seq But
or not IS not the test It's validity Some
Individuals and corporations generally have to taxes that
others do not Some taxed several meonce under each
Of several laws while others taxed only once under one Jaw
That must be the case under any scheme that
Guides different methods of taxation In the present instance
is reasonable basis Tor
The classes taxed they properly might De- o ~
emf oetb Ono i; taxed one per cent property value and
per cent ON net income the other per cent on gross
income The court cannot say that this produces inequality IN
results There would be inequality perhaps greater i'
Of result Is both classes were taxed per their prop