The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-14

which if court sustains, nullifies the
whole law, because it would so mutt
| late the act that it would not come
within the intention of the Legislature
are intimately connected, and the court
| believes that the Legislature wanted
| to pass the act as a whole, would the
remainder of the act be valid if it did
not come within the intentions of the
| Legislature?
THE reports show that the classfi-
cation made by corporation must
| be of nature that the Legislature
had right to- make. Congress itself
would be bound in exercising taxing
| powers by the limitations of the con-
| stitution. If the Legislature wants to
tax corporations greater than knder
the general law, let it make franchise
tax but when it proposes to tax prop
erty under the conditions of the income
| tax law, it is going clearly beyond it's
powers
MR.. ROBERTSON DEFENDS LAW.
Mr.. Robertson followed Mr. Lewis in
,, an argument favoring the validity of
the law. There are but two points
presented by the opposing counsel
which would affect the validity of the
act. If the classification of corpora
lions and individuals is held to be I'M
just discrimination, then the whole act
is void | submit, though, that if the
court should hold that the claim of
double taxation be sound, it would not
have the same effect, but would only
exempt the property so affected The
| taxation of the salaries OF justices of
| the Supreme Court, of judges of the
! Circuit Court, and the question of pen
alties. are not directly involved and
would, if overruled, not result in the
setting aside of the act? 1t would not
follow that if these parts were not sus-
tanned, that it would void the act as
| whole. If the court holds that the
I penalty attached is excessive and lille
| gal, 1t does not follow that the law is
! illegal. but only that such penalties
will not be allowed The section which
is declared Illegal will necessarily have
to be stricken out
Congress delegated TO the local
Legislature very broad power, as
counsel on the other side has already
stated. This power extends to all sub
jects of the Legislature. and the power
of taxation is one of them, perhaps the
most important delegated to the LegiS-
iature by Congress, without qualifica-
ton There is nothing to limit the
power Of the Legislature in the matter
of taxation, though there are limita-
lions in many other matters. | contend
lIldl Dy virtue OF the DFOdO powers
conferred the Legislature is untranl-
meled in this power, except as limited
by the fourteenth amendment to the
constitution
This amendment, however, does not
bind any Legislature to any iron rule
The Legislature may still make taxa
ton laws with such distinctions as the
circumstances may require. The levy
of any tax implies an exemption OF
some sort.
IF the owner of a female dog was
taxed 50 and his neighbor, who owned
male dog, was not taxed. he could
not come in this court and say he had
been unjustly disseminated against"
How far do you think the court can
go in considering the classifications |
made by the legislature" asked Judge
Galbraith.
Il don't believe the court can go very
far There is not single case in the
authorities before me where the Leg
islature proceeded on general lines OF
taxation of corporations. and was nor
sustained by the courts.
1T is for the Legislature to de- i
eide who and what shall be taxed, and
what shall not be taxed. If it is the
right Of the Legislature to say what
shall be taxed, it seems to me it is
given also the right to say what shall
u
emption is left to the discretion of the
Legislature
1T seems to me that the 81 900 ex-
is a very moderate classified
ton, and the figure fixed by the Legis-
lature is fair and reasonable. AS To
the complaint regarding insurance
companies, l don't see what charge or
discrimination can be made mere. The
general law provides a tax of I per
IL.
but little choice, when a tax of per
cent on net receipts of other corpora
tions is considered.
IT cannot be said that there is any
exemption of insurance companies. All
taxation laws must be considered to-
gether.
ION the subject of duplicate taxation
lit is in a certain sense double taxa
ton. but in another sense it is not
a double tax on property. Under the
general law of 1896 only tangible prop
erty is taxed When the income on
that property is taxed it cannot be
called double taxation. 1t seems To
me that there is distinction between
capital and income. just like govern
ment bond. That is the capital, but
the coupon you clip from it is not cap
ital but income
Regarding the contention as to pen
atty that does not directly concern
this case, it is only incidental. The
imposition of this penalty is not I'M
| take it that the tax
payer is entitled to hearing before
the tax appeal court under the law OF
1896 There is nothing here to show
that the penalty can be added without
the right to appeal. This act would
stand and be operative even if that
section is void.
L don't believe that there has been /
any objection cited that would hold I
water Perhaps one of these minor
propositions may be affected, but that |
would not invalidate the law as a |
whole
II think that it would be interfering |
with the legislative powers to declare |
this act void. Taxes cannot be levied /
by the executive or judiciary depart +
ments This is right delegated to the