Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-09-08

similarly affected by the result there.
of, and in order to avoid a multiplicity
of suits they Join herein.
The demurrer filed on behalf of J.
w. Pratt, as Assessor and Collector of
the Division of Honolulu. Territory of
Hawaii, is based upon two grounds.
namely:
/. THAT the compliments have not
in and by their said bill made or stated
such case as entities them or any Of
them to any relief from or against the
defendant touching the matters con-
tanned therein; and
2. That the complainants are not
entitled to sustain said bill for the rea-
son that they have full. complete and
adequate remedy at law"
Tax Law Reviewed.
The Income Tax Law was passed by
the Legislature of the Territory of Ha-
wall on the Both day of April, 1901, and
provided for the levy of taxes for Ter
ritorial and local purposes only. The
ordinary tax laws Of the Territory evil
IDENTIFY did not produce sufficient rev.
enue for the support Of the local gov
eminent, and therefore the Legislature
passed the Act complained of, provid.
ing for the levy and collection Of this
tax upon incomes.
| There is no question In this case as
to the power of the Legislature of the
Territory of Hawaii to pass general
taxation laws. Under the Act of Con
government for the Territory Of Ha,
wall, passed by the Fifty.sixth Con,
gress Of the United States of America
on the eth day Of April, 1900, and . p.
proved on the Both Gay Of April, 1900.
and which under its terms took effect
on June IA, 1900, It is provided that
the legislative power of the Territory
shall extend to all rightful subjects Of
Legislation not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws Of the United
States locally applicable"
"Rightful subjects Of legislation" are
those subjects upon which Legisla
tres have been In the practice of act
ing with the consent and approval OF
the people they represent. Maynard
VS.. Hill, 1875 U. S. 100. 204; Cope vs.
Cope, 1877 U. s. 6Si; State VS.. Tutty
Al Fed. 1853.
The power to tax is in its very ma
ture inherent In al governments and
is under our political system, vested
In the various Legislatures, and In
Congress for certain national taxes
limited only by Constitutional provi
sions. And II has been held by the
Supreme Court OF the United States
that a Territorial Legislature has all
the powers of State Legislature ex
cept as limited by Its Organic Act, the
CONSTITUTION OF the United States. and
the Acts Of Congress. See Walker VS.
s. p. r. r. Co, 1856 U. s. 594; Board Of
Trustees of Vincennes University VS.
State OF Indiana. IA How. 268; Miners
Bank VS.. State Of Iowa, ~ How. /;
Williams VS.. Bank of Michigan,
Wend. $50; Swan vs.. Williams,
Michigan, 427.
Power Of Legislature.
Therefore, taking into consideration
these general principles, and the deci
sions OF the courts, and in addition
thereto, the language of section So OF
the Organic Act, which is the funda
mental law of the Territory National
Bank VS.. County Of Yankton, 10l U. s
229), there can be no question as to
the general power of the Legislature
of Hawaii to leglslate upon all Ques'
tons of taxation in relation to provid'
ing local system Of revenue to carry
on the government If the Territory OF
Hawaii; the only Limitation being that
such legislation shall not be "incon,
sistent with the Constitution and laws
of the United States, locally appli-
cable" The passage of the Act COM
planned of was undoubtedly within
such legislative power subject to the
constitutional and congressional re.
strictions referred to.
Question Before Court.
This being clear IL alone remains for
me TO consider whether this court sit