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


Even the found many of the State Constitutions
that taxes sha be equal and uniform does not CLASH
fcaton of the objects of taxation
There is perhaps no necessity of relying either the 5th
Amendment or SIS of the Organic Act to show that
while the legislature may classify it cannot arbitrarily dscrmi
nate in matters taxation The restrictions inherent in the
nature government and American institutions well as
in the very definition of tax be sufficient to prevent
lust discrimination AS said in the dissenting opinion OF
Campbell Sha SUPRA that opinion in this respect arriving
on general principles the conclusion that the majority OF
the court drew from certain provisions the constitution of
the Republic of Hawaii, abrogated: "Ihe attributes Of
equality and uniformity nhere however, to some extent IN the
very idea of and referring to the 18th Amendment and
to State constitutional provisions requiring equality and uni
ormity everywhere conceded that these provisions do
take the legislature the powerto select classify the sub
ec of taxation whether persons things The rule of uni
formity complied with if all persons things in the
class treated alike and the rule of equality requires the
existence the power of classification For but kind of
tax could be laid and that by rule of uniformity
alton would fall unequaly different persons. Where
tua distinctions require discrimination not to discriminate
works injustice Our constitution requires approximate real
equality of result in the aggregate not equality IN form
in the of each particular tax But when there selection
or classification be real classification it be based
reasonable grounds otherwise would not be classification
To arbitrarily discriminate would be exacton extoron, conf
cation; taxation. And this the distinction everywhere
taken IF there is real classification the Interfere
there arbitrary unreasonable discrimination,
the may interfere There is always, however,
strong presumption not only that the legislature intended to act
consttonaly but that succeeded in doing and that the
court should declare of the legislature uncons
tona except very clear references will make
clearer the foregoing propositions and the time illus
trate their practical application.
In Pacific Erpress Co. Sebert, 142 o. S. $50, special
laid upon express companies which did their
OF transportation and not other
panie and the that the rule of uniformity and
equality destroyed by arbitrary discrimination but the
held that there esseno difference between companies
that owned their of transportation and those that
did not nasuch the former possessed property which
subject other and the latter would escape taxation unless
taxed specially, and hence the classification justified
referring State constitutional provision requiring
formity and equality of taxation and the 14th Amendment
the Federal Constitution, the court said:
This court has repeatedly laid down the doctrine that d.
versy of taxation both with respect the imposed
and the various species of property selected either for bearing
its burdens for being exempt from them inconsistent
with perfect uniformity and equality of taxation in the proper
OF those and that system which imposes the
upon species of property irrespective of its
condition of class will be destructive of the principle
foity and equality in taxation and of just adaptation of
property to its burdens See also West I'm Tel Co. Indiana
165 g. S. 3O4 800
sIn CON- Dir Canal Co. 1913 Pa 594 corporate oblga-
tons taken of the general designation of subjects and
taxed upon different standard of valuation and with differ
emit method of collection The court found several why
corporate and individual obligations might be distinguished in
classification among which were the fact that the former
class capable of conceament and the fact that they
had of commercial quality and sub
fluctuations in value and in sustaining the consutonay of
the tax said:
Absolute equality of unattainable mere ap
proxmate equality all that reasonably be expected
diversity the methods collection how
ever II these methods provided by general laws violates
rule of right when these methods applied the results
practically uniform. If there is substantial uniformity how
ever different the procedure there compliance with the
sttuonal provisions; when there may be disparity
OF results, uniformity the purpose of the legislature there
substantial compliance Nor classification necessarily
based any essential differences the or indeed the
condition OF the various Subjects be based we'll upon
the want OF adapably to the methods of taxation
upon the mpraccabiy of applying the subjects
same methods to produce just and reasonably uniform
suits or it be based upon weounded considerations of
public policy.
Hence it that classes of corporons taxed upon
net earnings ncorne others upon capital stock the value
thereof be ascertaned by their annual dividends
tain event the actual value of the shares others
gross receipts insurance companies upon the gross of
their premiums; coal and mining companies specific sum
for every ton of coal mined, etc.
Real estate for taxation, has been classified and
unseated and for municipal purposes may perhaps admit of
further classification Collateral nherances distinguished