The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-10-22
INCOME TAX CASE SET
FOR HEARING ON APPEAL
ConstitutionaIity Of Law is Again Attacked in
Higher Court Hearing Will Be Had
on November 10th,

numerous body, although there is no
common title nor community of
right or of interest
Colonel Fitch concludes his argu-
ment by saying:
ANY decision of this court which
shall fail to include an expression of
its opinion as to the constitutionality
of the Hawaiian income tax law will
be measurably profitless, both to the
appellants and to the respondent.
49, THE appellants will be satisfied to
pay the tax without further resistance
if, in the opinion of the judges OF this
court, the law infiicting it is constitu-
tional, but until there shall be in some
way an adjudication of that question
by a federal court, they will resist
payment.
st is therefore respectfully urged
upon your honors by all parties that
the public interest in Hawaii Territory
will be greatly promoted if you will
render a decision, or at least an opin-
ion, upon the question of the consti-
tutionality of the law.
1.-THE appellants submit that the in
come tax law is void for want of uni
defiance of the Organic Act of Hawaii
Territory, and of Section 8, Article l.,
and of the 4th, 5th, 9Th, and 14th
amendments to the constitution of the
United States, and that the void sec
tons of it make invalid the entire law,
for that it constitutes an entire scheme
of taxation.
1.-THE income tax law under consid-
Grafton is marked by discriminating
! features which affect the whole law.
1t discriminates between those who re-
| ceive an income of one thousand dol
! lars and those who do not. 1t thus
| vitiates, by its arbitrary discrimina-
ton, the whole legislation Hamilton
says in one of his papers (The Cont
nentaD: The genius of liberty repro
bates everything arbitrary or discre-
! tionary in taxation. 1t enacts that ev-
cry man, by definite and general rule
should know what proportion of his
! property the state demands What
ever liberty one may boast of in the
ory, it cannot exist in fact while
: (arbitrary) assessments continue. The
legislation, in the discrimination Il
/ makes. is class legislation. Whenever
| distinction is made in the burdens
a law imposes, or in the benefits it con
fers on any citizens by reason of theil
birth or wealth or religion, it is class
legislation, and leads inevitably to op
preston and abuses, and to genera
unrest and disturbance in society. Il
was hoped and believed that the greai
! amendments to the constitution which
followed the late Civil War had rem
4 dered sucn legislation impossible fol-
all future time.
But the Objectionable Legislation
reappears in the act under considera
ton. 1t is the same in essential char
acter as that of the English incomf
statute of 1891, which taxed Protest
ants at a certain rate, Catholics, as {
class, at double the rate of Protestants
and Jews at another and separate rate
Section of the Hawaiian income
4 tax makes discrimination in favor
not merely of public educational insti
tutions conducted for the public good
but in favor of private schools, col
leges, commercial colleges, fraterna
benefit societies, and fire, life and ma
rine insurance companies; all of which
are conducted for private profit.
Concerning similar exemptions il
the income tax law of Congress, Mr.
Justice Field says: 157. U. S. Rep. sos
IF there were any doubt as to the
intention of the states to make gran
of the right to impose indirect taxes
subject to the condition that such take.
shall be in all respects uniform ant
impartial, that doubt should be re
solved in the interest Of justice in IA
vor of the tax payer.
'sAs many as were the discriminat
ing clauses in the income tax law o
Congress, so ably criticised by Justic,
Field. there were other clauses; claus
es which the Hawaiian legislature. Il
blind disregard of the fact that tn,
income tax law of Congress had beer
declared void. proceeded to copy in tbs
Hawaiian law.
Section of the Hawaiian law dis
eliminates in favor of the man who
with his family, consumes the produc
of his field, orchard, dairy, and poultr!
yard and against the man who sell;
his potatoes, fruit, butter, eggs, ant
chickens.
Section 4 makes discrimination be
tween married men and bachelors; be
tween wards living together and ward
living separately; between families
where the husband is the only bread
winner and families where both hus
band and wife earn an income.
Article 5 of the Constitution OF th'
United States provides that no maj
shall be deprived of property withou
due process of law and Article IA pro
vides that no state shall deny to an!
person within its jurisdiction the equa
protection of the laws (and it vii
hardly be claimed that territory ha
greater constitutional rights than
state).
''Are not the determinations herein
before created, each and all. in viola
ton of the articles of the Constitution
referred to? And did not Congress, il
the Organic Act, limit the power OF tn
Hawaiian legislature to the enactmen
of laws not in conflict with the Con
, stitution and laws Of the Unite
States?
-