The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-27

II ualS and corporations, providing i
X the classification is not arbitrary. i
The exemption of $1,000 is not 4
excessive, and the Legislature i
X has the power to place insur- X
ance companies in a class by 4
themselves for the purpose of 4
4 taxation.
X X
. X X X X X X X X X X 4 X X X X O
The above are in brief the holdings
of the Supreme Court of Hawaii in the
test of the income tax, made upon a
statement Of agreed facts. The test as
to corporations was made by the Wal
mea Sugar Company, which paid the
tax andthen appealed from the refu-
sal of the assessor to return the money.
The test as to individuals is made In
the case of George H. Robertson. The
opinion sustaining the law as passed
by the Legislature is written by Chief
Justice Frear, Judge Galbraith dissent
ing. No further move will be made in
the case until after consultation be-
tween the interested parties.
The substance of the findings of the
court is given in the syllabus. which is
as follows;
Parts of statute may be invalid
without rendering the statute invalid as
a whole. No opinion Is expressed as to
the invalidity of certain clauses of the
+nx ial1 oIoiv a TO tn
late the constitutional guarantees against
INSTRUMENTATION, unreasonable searches
and seizures, excessive fines and cruel
and unusual punishments, inasmuch as
no action has been taken under those
clauses, and they would not, if invalid
affect the remainder of the statute.
IF the Territorial legislature cannot
tax the interest from United States
bonds and the salaries of the judges OF
| the Supreme and Circuit Courts of the
Territory, still the income tax law would
| not be invalid as a whole though genera
| in terms and not expressly excepting
such interest and salaries. A law may
| in cases be invalid or implicitly map
| plicable to some of the objects within its
| letter without being void as a whole
| The invalid part, to avoid affecting the
remainder of the law, need not be in a
| separate clause.
THE legislature may classify the OBJ.
| jects of taxation, provided the classified
| ton is not merely arbitrary
| The legislature may place individuals
| in one class and corporations in another
class, exempting the incomes of the
| former up to one thousand dollars In lieu
| of a deduction for personal and family
expenses, and not allowing a similar ex-
emption to corporations, they having nc
| such expenses, deduction of other
necessary expenses being allowed in botr
cases.
AN exemption of all incomes to the
amount of one thousand dollars is not
invalid on the ground that 1t is exces-
sive.
Such exemption is valid though allow
ed only for the aggregate income of al
members of a family composed of one OF
both parents and one or more minor
children, or husband and wife; and for
each ward except where two or more
wards are comprised in one family, in
which case the aggregate deduction shall
not exceed one thousand dollars.
In estimating the income from sales
of personal property, a taxpayer may
| lawfully be permitted to omit products
| produced and consumed by himself and
| not sold.
he legislature may lawfully put for
| eign insurance companies in class by
| themselves, and tax them one per cent
On their gross income and other persons
and corporations two per cent. on their
| net income and one per cent. on their
property"
| Referring to the argument as 10 tht
| illegality of the law because it pro
| vides excessive punishments and pen
alties, the court states that the actor
| is not brought under these provision:
| of the law, and therefore they canno
be considered at this time.
| L. S. BONDS AND SALARIES.
| Referring to the taxation upon United
States bonds and salaries of Justices o.
! the Supreme Court and of the Circuit
Court, the opinion reads:
| These are matters of comparatively lit
tie Importance. The total tax on all suct
salaries would amount to only 500 year
and it does not appear that any United
| States bonds are In this Territory OF
| owned by residents of this Territory
Nor does 1t appear that the pla ntin II
| either of these cases has any interest II
either of these questions except In so RAJ
as they affect the question of the Vand
ity of the Act IS whole. If the tai
on such salaries and interest was PROVO
ed for In a separate clause it is obvious
that that clause would be separable ant
could be held invalid without affecting
the remainder of the Act. But canno
one clause be held valid as TO the bun
of the subjects to which it applies, AM
invalid or al least imperative as to som
subjects TO which 1t would apply if take
literally? We think it can.
As the Supreme Court Of the Unite
Dot mis- Y
Schultz, 1o3 e s. rs, 142, THE strikin
ont is not NECESSARILY by erasing words.