The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-02-10

4
confirmed. Gilbert, judge, wrote tn
decision. Opinion in other cases later
POND.
The above cablegram, received b.
Dunno yesterday, brought the new.
| that the decision of Judge Estee in the
income tax had been affirmed by the
San Francisco court OF appeals, and
tax payers who have been delaying set
Element with Collector Pratt will now
have to pay their income tax with the
added penalty.
The cases in which there has been
would also be decided yesterday. are
those of the Honolulu Plantation Com
pany and the Primo Beer case. Mr..
Dunno stated yesterday that, as rule,
all opinions were handed down by the
court of appeals on the opening of the
term, and he could not account for the
delay in these two cases.
The title of the income tax case is
w. C. Peacock, ct al. VS.. w. H. Wright,
treasurer, and J. w, Pratt, assessor.
The suit was Instituted by about forty
- 1850. J., 49, TTni+ad CfataS ooIIrt
They asked for an injunction to re-
strain Treasurer Wright and Collector
Pratt from collecting their income tax,
alleging that it was unconstitutional
and void The matter was decided up
On demurrer in Judge Estee's court.
The Territory, which was represented
by J. w. Cathcart and A. G. Robertson,
demurred on the ground that there
could be no combination of plaintiffs
in this case and that each plaintiff had
a complete and adequate remedy at
law.
Judge Estee sustained the demurrer,
without going into the question of the
of the income tax law.
He held that even if the act COM
planned of was unconstitutional, he
could not interfere. In his decision, the
court stated:
1.-THE passage Of the act complained
Of was undoubtedly within the legis-
Iative power. subject to the constitu-
tional and Congressional restrictions
referred to.
This being clear, it alone remains
,or me to consider whether this court,
acting as a court of chancery, has the
bower or Jurisdiction to enjoin the coll
ection of this Territorial tax, which c
vas regularly levied under an act or
he Territorial legislature, while acting q
within the general powers granted by a
Congress. Can this be done, even II il
uch act is unconstitutional and void? e
do not think it can. 1t certainly can n
o+ he done il there is an adequate i:
emedy at law; and it seems clear to
be court that in this case there is a g
onnIete and adequate remedy at law. e
One of the questions before the court is
,as as TO the right of the complain L
nts TO act jointly, in order to avolo
multiplicity of suits, and Judge Estee
lled against them. h.
The question of constitutionality was d,
ut taken into consideration at all by fc
10 court. and the attorneys here are II
,ubtful as to whether the appeal court c.
assed on the question. The sustaining Gu
Judge Estee will have the effect or CO
,,nnelling the immediate payment OF ne
Ia outstanding tax, which is quite ca
roe Colonel Fitch, who represented III
10 complaining taxpayers, said yester- ca
~ that the case would not be carried di
,rtber. He thought it possible, how eli
,ar that some of the taxpayers might co
70 70 recover their tax, and in this A
AZ test the law. He suggested that in
"a court of appeals may have sustain w
Judge Estee's rulings, and yet de- he
dad that the act was unconstitutional W
ough he did not have much hope OF ar
lis. OF
The income tax law was held TO De
Institutional by the Hawaiian Su-
,eme Court last year. and that decls- 3.
n will still stand as law. n