The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-01-17
PACIFIC Cable CASE.

Oahu appealed from the decision OF the
tax appeal court in failing to find n
valuation of six miles of cable lying
below low water mark and all being
within three miles from land. Robert
son & Wilder appeared for the appel
liant, and Ballou & Marx for the appel
lee. Justice Hartwell is author of the
courts opinion, which finds the cables
assessable as personal property.
at is evident, however" the court
says, that the valuation of s42.Soo
made by the assessor for the six miles
of the two cables within the three mile
limit was excessive. The invoice price,
as shown by the exhibits, is $l2,SS3.S7
on which duties were paid of $5579.5S,
aggregating sls,413.45. We do not know
the life of submarine cables, but as
Stunning it to be twenty years there
would be an annual depreciation of
five per cent. We think a deduction of
ten per cent from the cost price would
be appropriate, leaving for taxable
value sl6,572.1O.
Chief Justice Frear joins in the
opinion. Justice Hatch dissents with
out contributing an opinion.
FIRST AMERICAN CASE.
The case of the Commercial Pacific
Gable Co. is the first in the annals of
United States Jurisprudence to bring
up the question of municipal jurisdic-
ton over sea territory for a marine
! league from shore. An English case
remarked upon in the pleadings ana
decision has an interesting story for
its origin. In the year 1874 a German
steamer collided with British steam
er within the three mile limit off the
coast of England Lives We're lost.
Captain Keyn, commanding the Ger
man vessel, was prosecuted for man
slaughter. The case went up TO a
court composed of thirteen of the
most eminent British judges. Seven
of them decided that the captain was
guilty of manslaughter, and six dis
scented on the ground of want of coun-
ty jurisdiction over the waters where
the accident occurred d
! From this case it was argued by the
Pacific Gable Co., that: 1T is clear
that the English counties do not sharE
the national jurisdiction out to thr
three mile line. In America the
boundaries of counties have sometimes
been extended three miles out to sea
by statute"
the court:
IF we admit that the English law
as held in the Keyn case applies 20 the
space outside of low water mark in
Hawaii with the exception, we viii
say, of the space within the outer
fringe of reefs, which practically is
landlocked, the conclusion does not
J follow that property of a resident In
Hawaii is exempt from taxation which
! lies within that space and outside OF
the reef-line. On the other hand, IL
accordance with the minority opinion
in that case, as well as with the views
of many eminent publicists, the ISLAND
of Oahu would properly include. fol
purposes of territorial taxation its sui
rounding waters to the extent az Tie
three mile limit. ft
THE Importance of this question Il
the Territory is obvious, for II ,fn'
Territory has no jurisdiction for tax
ing purposes over this open sea liili
1t may have none for the punishr.en
OF territorial offenses committed with
In that space, or for service therein o
civil or criminal process. Whatever il
true of the outer portion of that 'in'i
would also be true of the inner por-
ton as far as the low water mark. Al
suggested by appellants counsel, tht
doctrine contended for by the Gable
Company would enable any residen
who wishes to do so to evade pay
ment of taxes on personal property b.
placing it outside of low water mari
, on the first day of January when liza
BILE to assessment. a.
THE inference that Congress did no
intend that the tax laws of the Ter
ritory should apply to property in ter
ritorial waters and that the expression
within the Territory should meal
within its geographical limits woul,
lead to possible consequences of s.
grave a nature that the inference
ought not to be made unless 70
definite and satisfactory reasons. A
stated by Coleridge, C. j.. in the Key
case: The argument alb inconvenient
is perhaps not one which sound logi
recognizes; and startling conclusion
does not always show that the prem
ises from which 1t follows are unten
able. But the Inconvenience here 1
so grave, and the conclusion is 81
startling, as to make 1t reasonable
I think. to say that the burden %
proof lies heavy upon those who DIS
regard the Inconvenience and main
tain the conclusion %
RAPID TRANSIT DAMAGES.
| In the damage suit of NJ. p. Ferreiri
VS.. Honolulu Rapid Transit & Lane
Co., Ltd, where plaintiff obtained 1
verdict of $4,000 for the killing OF hi
son by a car of defendant, the cour
| by the clerk gives the Rapid Transi
Co. five days in which to elect whethe
! to prosecute its appeal on bill of ex
ceptions or writ Of error. 1t having