The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-14
THE STATUS
Of HAWAII
Is MidwayBetwee
Territory and
States.
ARGUMENTS MADE
IN INCOME CASE
Discrimination Between lndivid
uals and Corporations Would
lnvalidate the Law.

| The constftutionality of the income
| tax law was attacked before the Su-
preme Court yesterday on half a dozen
diff erent grounds. The point generally
thought to have the most weight in the
arguments to the Supreme Court was
that of discrimination between corpora
| be illegal is admitted will throw out
] the entire law. If, on the other hand,
some of the minor objections to the law
are sustained, the defense claims that
| ing remedied to the extent of striking
out these sections, and the law would
| still remain in force.
A new and novel fact brought out
by the arguments yesterday was that
the powers delegated tos the Territory
of Hawaii far exceed that of any other
wall is midway between that of State
and Territory.
Both cases. that of the Waimea
Plantation Company, a corporation. and
of G. H. Robertson. were presented to-
gether.
GENERAL HARTWELLS ARGU-
MENT.
General Hartwell opened the argu
ment with a general statement of the
agreed facts in the case at bar, the
reading of the papers being waived. He
stated that the tax had been paid on
the agreement that the money would
be held by Assessor Pratt subject TO
the order of the Supreme Court
Il am aware" said Mr.. Hartwell. "of
the extreme caution with which court
always approaches a question of legis-
Iative power. 1t may be assumed that
the court will not declare this act in
valid, unless the reasons for such ac-
ton are clear; but I take it that the
tax law will receive strict construction
by this court.
I'm 1897 an income tax law was pass
ed by the Legislature of Hawaii, fol-
lowing closely the law of the United
States adopted in 1894 The Supreme
Court of Hawaii declared this law I'M
constitutional because of its lacking in
uniformity, and because of its being
against the Constitution of Hawaii.
which,. however. is no longer in effect.
The provisions of such a law so far as
proportionate taxation is concerned, is
inherent in the taxable power of any
country. This proposition is admitted
by Chief Justice Frear in the decision
quoted, he dissenting from the opinion
of the majority
Mr.. Hartwell quoted from this opin
ion of the Supreme Court of Hawaii on
the first income tax law, and also from
Cooley on the powers of States as re-
CARDS taxation being subject to limita-
lions, also on the uniform ratio, pro-
lection against exceptional taxation,
etc. He argued that the law laid down
in this case of Campbell VS.. Shaw was
to be considered as the law of Hawaii
today, the Organic Act providing that
judgments in force previous to annexa
ton remained in force unless different
Iy specified in the Organic Act.
IF it does not he said, such deci
sion cannot be as effectual as if the
Organic Act had not been passed, and
as long as it is not unconstitutional,
it shall serve as a precedent. This law,
no more than that law, has the proper
uniformity and equality.
The Legislature has no inherent
power of taxation, no other power than
that granted in the Organic Act, which
gives the Legislature power to enact
laws not inconsistent with the Consti
| tuition. Congress itself would be bound
| in exercising taxing powers, by the linn
| itations of the Constitution, and the
| Legislature of Hawaii could not ex-
coed the powers of Congress, which it
attempts to do in this act
THE Organic Act of Hawaii is diff
| ferent from that of any other Terri
tory in the United States. In other
Territories the Organic Act requires
that all laws passed by the Legislature
must be submitted to Congress: there
is no such requirement for Hawaii In
every Territory there is provision
that there sail be no tax on public
domain, or discrimination against nom
residents. The later acts providing for
the government of Territories contain
the provision that taxation must be in
accordance with the valuation of prop
erty; there is nothing of that sort in
the Organic Act of Hawaii Is 1T to be
inferred that Congress did not intend to
place limitations upon the taxable pow
er of Hawaii? Did 1t intend to give the
Legislature greater power than that
held by Congress? I think not. The
Limitations of the Constitution and of
the laws of the United States were also
to have effect here. 1t was no doubt the
intention to place Hawaii midway be-
| tween the status of a Territory and
that or State, and give it certain ben
efits not allowed other Territories
Mr.. Hartwell then quoted the taxa
ton provision of the Constitution and
argued that in view of this section the
rule of proportionment and equai1ty
was necessary to make the law valid.
| For instance, the provision imposing
q renaJtv of 200 ner cent by the collect