Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-07-17

who protested vigorously against any
such enactment II was urged that the
| burden already carried by the business
men was all they could bear, and that
license for the privilege to do BUSH
ness was unfair and contrary to the
custom in vogue in the large cities OF
the mainland, except such business
which called for and required police
supervision. II was represented that
II was unfair to license those doing
business locally while commercial men
from the mainland had free access to
| our markets without taxes or expenses
OF any kind.
| We represented that we we're taxed
on our real estate, our stock In trade,
and a tax on our incomes That we
had to pay rents and clerk hire. That
we had to meet the demands of charity
and other subscriptions, and that COM
under-selling us by the taxes imposed
on us, they being absolutely free of any
tax, income or otherwise.
| We were listened to attentively and
courteously, but the consensus of opin-
/ ion was that license of some sort
should be imposed, not only as a mat
/ ter of revenue, but as a possible check
to Oriental competition which was
considered as, and is, serious. We were
promised an opportunity to present our
views before the legislative committees
during the session, but apparently this
promise was overlooked as we were
never given an opportunity to appear,
but through the individual efforts of
your committee, the County Bill was
passed levying license of the least
Objectionable nature. and which on the
whole may be benefit to the business
men on the lines suggested already.
The law as It now stands yeads that
on the annual gross sales of less than
Ten Thousand Dollars the fee shall be
$50. For sales exceeding $4,000. and
not more than 100000, the fee shall
be 800. For sales exceeding 500. 900
and not more than 100000, the fee
shall be $3.50. and on sales exceeding
100000, the fee shall be $500. Your
committee feels that in view of the evi-
dent determination of the law-making
bodies to impose a license. the terms
as outlined above are not as severe as
they might have been, and we would
urge that the efforts Of the Association
be continued looking to the eventual
repeal OF this tax, in conformity with
the practice in vogue in the older and
larger cities of the mainland
nur affnrtg wnra naxt Jfrn,tnI a., IA.
repeal or amendment of the Income
Tax, a tax which, without doubt. Is
the most Objectionable of any levied
, on the business and other interests of
the community. Not that the business
men Of the Territory desire to shirk
!, any just tax levied for the interests of
, the country, but because they object
, to the inqulsitive and prying nature of
the Income Tax Law, which is al
most wholly paid by the business men
whose books and accounts are arbitra
|. rily opened for public inspection. II is
= notorious that large percentage OF
!. those who should pay income tax es
cape because they claim to have nj
c books and have no knowledge of VIVA
thrown on the business man who Il
easily accessible and is made to stant
u and deliver.
: Your committee regrets to stat,
. that they have been unable to do any
thing owing to the decision of the u
$. Court of Appeals, against IN" npnoa
OF citizens to repeal the Income Tax
al N n In ~
duCed at the present session of tn
Legislature TO repeal this Act wa
summary killed.
J. The next matter to engage our atten
= ton was the law providing for garni
shee of salaries of government en-
" plOyees, which was rendered obsolet
% when the drawing of drafts was chang
y ed from the individual departments I
s. the Auditors Office. A new law wa
r drafted and in spite of vigorous oppC
le slttcn from members Of the Hous
ID was eventually passed exactly a
N drawn by your committee and Is nov
ir In active operation, several hundre
m cases having already been passed M
10 on and delinquents made to pay thei
Is just debts. In this connection It Nigh
l. be said that the Government itself ha
h taken advantage Of this law, and ha
70 entered suits against many Of its ow
re- employees to compel payment OF take
ID due.
in We next took up the matter OF ga
nishment Of salaries of other than go'
eminent employees, and succeeded 1
repeating the Act passed by the Legi
lature Of 1901, which practically e,
cmpted the average wage Garner frol
suit OF any sort.
As in the former case. we had draf
ed, an amendment to the existing Law
which met as In the other case, wit
vigorous opposition from members {
the House, but which was finally pas
al exactly as drawn and has alread
been put in operation In many case
and will be Of great value to the bus
resG community, where most OF OF
business Is done on the credit system