The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-11-01
STAMP ACT
IS VALID
Little Reversed in the
Supreme Court
Again.

constitutional, which was severel!
criticised in a recent number of thu
ST. Louis Law Journal.
The decision of the court Is by judge
Perry, and Judge Galbraith writes {
dissenting opinion, in which, however
he eoneurs with the majority in hold
ing the stamp law to be constitutional
! The syllabus is as follows:
Chapter Ga of the Civil Laws oil
1897, relating to staD-p duties, is not
inconsistent with the provisions OF
Section of Article of the Constitu-
| ton of the United States and was con-
tinued in force by the Enabling Act.
| sThe item in the schedule of that
chapter relating to stamps on deeds
| does not provide for unequal taxation
and is not invalid.
| "A decree in equity required the re-
| spondent to give to the complainant
| a good and sufficient deed of certain
land Held, that the giving of an un-
stamped deed was not full compli-
ance with the decree
| The case Ia which the ruling is made
was that of Temikawa VS. CANA, an
appeal from the Fourth district, In
| which the defendant, who had been
ordered to file deed in conformity
| with a court order, failed to affix the
Territorial stamp. Judge Little held
that the law was contrary to the con-
stitution, which provides that all du-
ties shall ''be uniform throughout the
United States" The Supreme Court
holds that the act in question was not
specifically repealed by the Organic
Act, not even by implication.
The Court adds:
"Taxation-the imposition of stamp
duties for the purpose of revenue is
but method of taxation-is, clearly
a rightful subject of legislation. 1t
was the intention of Congress by the
Organic Act to authorize cur legisla-
ture to pass tax laws. This is further
shown by other portions of the act.
The exercise of this power by the Ter
ritory is not inconsistent with the
clause of the Constitution relating to
uniformity
The decision in the income tax case,
and of Judge Estee in the case of Achi
VS.. Kapiolani, are quoted in support
of the ruling.
In conclusion the court says:
The objection that the adhesive
stamps in use are not authorized be-
cause they are stamps 'tof the defunct
Republic" and not issued in the name
of the Territory, is untenabIe. There
is nothing in the words, figures or de-
vice used, which would render the
stamps invalid. The only words de-
noting the government or jurisdiction
are Hawaiian Islands," The words
Kingdom" or Republic" do not ap-
pear
For the respondent it is further con-
tended that, even though the statute
is valid and in force, the giving of an
unstamped deed is a sufficient compli-
ance with the decree, and that the
statute, if it requires stamps to be
affixed, does not place upon the grantor
the duty of aff1xing them. The record
before us does not disclose the precise
language OF the contract to convey, or
of the decree; still, the proceedings
had, the briefs of counsel, and the
opinion of the court below show that
in substance the contract and decree
required the respondent to give a good
and sufficient deed. The statute is ST.
lent as to whether the stamps shall be
affixed by the srantor or by the
grantee. The question before us is
whether the grantor has complied with
this decree by rendering an unstamped
deed. Section 927, civil laws of 1897,
reads: No instrument requiring to
be stamped shall be recorded by the
registrar of conveyances, or be of any
validity in any court of this Republic,
unless the same shall be properly
stamped Provided, That instruments
improperly stamped may be received
in evidence in courts of record if the
unpaid duty and penalty be paid to the
clerk of the court, and upon such pay
ment being made the clerk of the court
shall forward the instrument to the
registrar of public accounts to be prop
erly stamped" In view of the proyis-
ion that an improperly stamped in
strument may be received in evidence
and, apparently, be considered as val
id upon payment of the duty, a deed |
cannot be regarded as void merely be- |.
cause it lacks the necessary stamps |
A void deed could not thus be given /
force and effect Nevertheless, it IS
clear that an unstamped deed must be |
regarded as Of no validity or force to !
prove, in any court of this territory, a
conveyance to the grantee. We think /
that substantial compliance with the I
decree requires. that the deed rendered /
be such as to be valid for this, as well /
as for other purposes, and therefore |
hold that the duty is upon the grantor |
to affix the stamps. We understand !
that the practical construction of the /
statute ever since its enactment has I
beer in accordance with this view.
The decree appealed from is reversed /
and the cause remanded to the circuit /
Judge of the fourth circuit for such /
further proceedings as may be proper. /
Judge Galbraith dissents, holding I
that the law does not provide who /
shall pay the tax, and that it was not /
incumbent upon the defendant 10 do !
so. In the dissenting opinion it is i
said: 1.-The stamps required to be at
tached to the several documents are /
really only receipts for the taxes levied
and evidence of the payment thereof ,
Judge Galbraith further says:
"a deed properly stamped neither
+bo