The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-11-01
THE SUPREME COURT
AND LITTLE
DISAGREE
TERRITORIAL COURT QUOTES a
DECISION BY JUDGE ESTEE.
STAMP DUTY is ONLY A
TAX.

Judge Littles decision that the Ter
rtorial stamp act is unconstitutional
was reversed in a decision handed down
this morning by the Supreme court in
the case of TOmikawa VS.. CANA, APP
pealed from Hilo. Judge Little enter
ed a decree sustaining a deed which
was not stamped with the territorial
tax. holding that the law calling for
such stamps was unconstitutional on
the ground that territory has no right
to collect stamp duties.
Justice Galbraith in a dissenting Opt
Mon agrees that the stamp law is con-
stitutional, but says that the deed
should have been sustained anyhow, on
the ground that the failure to place
stamps on it is not such u defect as
would invalidate the deed.
The opinion of the court, by Perry,
says: Taxation, the imposition of
stamp duties for the purpose Of revenue
is bu. method of taxation, is, clearly,
a rightful subject of legislation. 1t was
the intention of Congress by the Or
ganic Act to authorize our Legislature
to pass tax laws. This is further shown
by other portions of the Act. The ex-
ercise of this power by the Territory is
not inconsistent with the clause of the
constitution relating to uniformity.
THAT the Act under consideration is
ed by United States District Judge Es-
tee in the case of Achi VS.. Kapiolani
Estate, Limited, decided April "a, 1901.
See original records in that case.
THE objection that the adhesive
stamps in use are not authorized by
law because they are stamps of the
defunct Republic and not issued in the
name of the Territory, is untenable.
There is nothing in the words, figures
or a wi, 1 h.,
stamps invalid. The only words denot-
ing the government or jurisdiction are
Hawaiian Islands" The words
Kingdom or Republic" do not APP
pear"
Justice Galbraith after stating his
concurrence in the view that the stamp
tax is constitutional, says:
at does seem anomalous, at first
view, to find an American Territory col
lecting Stamp Duties" when the Fed
eral Constitution reserves to Congress
the power to levy and collect such taxes
However, upon consideration, it is clear
that the objection to the legality Of
these taxes is more to the form than
substance. The revenue collected I'M
der Chapter 64, is a tax and the several
objects on which it is levied are each
proper subjects of taxation by the ter
ritOrial legislature. The legislature of
a Territory has the indebted power to
require the payment of a fee, or tax
the amount Of the stamp duty pres
cribed by the statute,-as a condition
precedent to the right of any citizen or
subject to invoke the process of its
courts, and likewise to demand the
amount of the stamp duty for the prl-
vilege of having muniments of title
placed of record by its Registrar of
Conveyances and to prescribe as pen
atty for failure to pay that the title pa
pers shall not be used in it's courts I'M
til tax or duty is paid.
The fact that these taxes are de-
nominated in the statute, STAMP
duties does not bring them within the
inhibition of the provisions of the Fed
eral Cons titution so long as the objects
on which the taxes are levied are pro-
per subjects of taxation by the Terri
tOrial legislature. The stamps required
to be attached to the several docu-
ments are really only receipts for the
taxes levied and evidence of the pay
ment thereof"