The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1904-04-14
BOOTH AND
HIS VALUATIONS
COURT DISCUSSES
PAUOA SPRINGS AND DIFFERS
WITH LEGISLATURE.

The Supreme court, by a majority
opinion, yesterday sustained the appeal
of C. w. Booth from the assessment of
his water rights in Pauoa valley at
800 900. The decision has the fol-
lowing regarding the water rights
which were declared by a House COM
mittee to be worth $25O,OOO which chair
man Kumalae said were worth half a
million and which the whole legislature
attempted to buy for $150,OO0:
"That the entire value of the water
rights alone was not 100000 is clear.
If we leave out of account the Gov
ernors strong condemnation of the
proposed bill in his veto message and
other circumstances that tend to
weaken the evidence adduced in sup
port of the valuation Contended for,
and assume that all the evidence was
not only admissible but entitled to cons
sideratiOn at it's face value, stilI the
proposed appropriation was not for
the purchase, for 100000, of these two
thirds of the water rights, which were
available only in small fractions on
many different particular lands at
many different fixed times but was for
the purchase, for S15O,OOO of all the
water rights with complete control and
the power to use the water when and
where and in what quantities desired,
also for rights of way for pipe lines of
the springs, with the right to increase
the outflow by tunneling or otherwise,
and all for the purposes of the city
water supply, to which use no private
purchaser could put the water"
The syllabus explains the basis of
the decision, as follows:
IF land with water rights appur-
tenant thereto and used solely in con-
nection Herewith, is assessed in full,
including whatever added value it has
by reason of such water rights when
used solely in connection Herewith,
such water rights cannot be further
assessed apart from the land, as to
the whole or a part of their value, even
if they may be worth more for other
purposes than when used in connection
with the lands to which they are ap-
purtenant, and even if the land with
such water rights might have been as
sessed higher because of the other pur-
poses to which the water could be ap-
piled, and even if the water rights
could be assessed separately if they
had not been included in the land"
Justice Galbraith differs from the
opinions finding that the value of the
land assessed included the water rights
the entire valuation having been S43,-
$50, and he holds that the assessor did
right to add 100000 for the springs
Regarding Booths efforts to sell the
springs to the Legislature Galbraith has
the following
by his conduct Mr.. Booth has rem
dered it entirely unnecessary for this
court to speculate or to attempt to APP
| ply some set rule to the facts in order
to ascertain the full cash value of his
property We should assume that he
placed the full cash value on it him
self when he attempted to sell it to
the Territory first for $25O,OOO and later
| for $15O,0O0. Under the facts of this
case the doctrine of estoppel, or COM
mon honesty. ought to close the mouth
Of the taxpayer and forbid him to
question the valuation made of this
| property by the assessor.
1T does not seem to me that Mr.
Rooth has any just cause of complaint
if the same valuation is placed on his
property for taxation purposes that he
so persistently REPRESENTED it to have
when he wish to sell It to the Terri
tory. Such view is certainly in favor
of public morality if not of private
virtue and common honesty"