The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-08-04
MR.. BOOTHS VALUATION.
Honolulu. Aug. 3, I

Honolulu, Aug s, ISo7:
Editor Advertiser: In your issue OF
this morning, you state that IN my
sworn statement to the Assessor, put
the value of the Pauoa springs at $4V,
425. This / positively deny, no such
figure as the above was mentioned oy
me in any statement, sworn or other
wise.
C. w. BOOTH.
= why did not Mr. Booth deny the
statement at the time when the court
reports contained a circumstantlal
story? Here is the Advertisers account
in the issue of Aug. Is, 1903. which STOOD
unchalIenged for nearly year 1t was
obtained by the reporter in attendance,
with those of other papers, on the meet
ing of the Tax Appeal Court and was
not objected to then by either Mr.. Booth
or bis attorney. 1t was the subject OF
much editorial comment:
Charles w Booth appeared before
the Tax Appeal Court yesterday morn
ing TO fight against paying any taxes
on the amount of $12o.7S5 valuation OF
realty He returned his real estate at
saD.4 25 and Assessor j. w. Pratt raised
the assessment to s131,21 OF this IN
crease 500, 600 represented two-th1rd
interest in the Pauoa water rights. 1t
win be remembered that Mr.. Booth,
through the Legislature, tried to sell
these water rights to the Territory Of
Hawaii for s250000, that the Legisla-
ture after strong fight voted $4,000
for such purchase and that. but for the
veto of Governor Dole. the transaction
would have been consummated.
Before the Tax Appeal Court, by the
mouth of his attorney, Mr.. Booth
pleaded total exemption from taxes or
this realty asset, so highly valued
when he wanted to sell it to the Ter
rftory, on the following general
grounds:
1. He had returned the land contain
ing the water for all it was worth.
2. The water had no value whatever
Mitl1out the land.
8. He had made an ''error Of judg-
ment'' in asking the Legislature
large price for the water-ais counsefs
actual words being here quoted.
4. Members of legislative committees
who investigated the water sources Of
fered by him for sale to the Territory
were not supposed to know anything
about the subject of their investigation |
8. The records of the Legislature |
were not evidence. but members OF |
committees that reported on the Pauoa |
water proposition ought to be examln-
ed by the court individually under
oath.
s. An assessment based upon value
set by the Legislature was absurd and
without parallel even by analogy 1t
H. rtafN
for $50. 600 attempted to enforce judg-
Ynent following a verdict in his favor /
against a defendant after the Supreme
Court had set the verdict aside. In this
case the Legislature represented jury,
while Governor Doles veto was the
of a decision of the United |
States Supreme Court.
z. The attempt to make Mr.. Booth |
nay taxes on these water rights, on the
ground that he had offered them to the |
Government for $4,000, was tanta-
mount to prosecuting him for the IN
tent to commit an offense.' which MS
counsel contended was something IN
known to jurisprudence.
1T is certainly remarkable that Mr. |
Booth. with vital interests at stake
should have allowed the statement that |
he had returned his $25O,0Oo tract to the
Assessor at $1O,425 to stand, assuming |
that the story was untrue. Day after |
day the figures were used against him, |
but not word of denial or explana- |
ton came Such neglect of opportunl- |
ties is unusual with Mr.. Booth.
We may add that the report of the |
sic, AIS return was not confined to this
paper The Star reporter heard the
same thing at the Tax Court and wrote:
BOOTHS total return of real property, |
including the land and springs was s1O,-
425. Pratt made a raise of $120.7S5 and
from this the appeal was taken. The
hearing was concluded at noon and the
case was submitted