The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-01-27


quent taxes collected in the said Coun-
ty of Oahu during the said six months
beginning with July 1st and ending
December 81. 1905
Yours very respectfully
(Signed) r, H. TRENT.
Treasurer County of Oahu.
AS the letter itself explains, the de-
mand is based upon the wording of
Section 1, Act 80, of the Session Laws
of 1905, the Act in question being that
which was passed subsequently to the
passage of the County Act, in order
to provide funds for the conduct of
the affairs of the several counties the
revenue section having been stricken
from the County Act in obedience to
the suggestion in Governor Carriers
veto. In addition to the provision con-
tanned in Section 1, Act SO, provides
that the Auditor of the Territory shall
OH the last legal day of each and every
month issue monthly warrant on the
Treasurer of the Territory in favor of
each county treasurer, such monthly
warrants for the half year from July
to December, 1905, inclusive, shall be
in an amount not less than ten per
cent, and thereafter in an amount not
less than fifteen per cent of the esti-
mated tax payable in each county
within every half year.
This act went into effect on the 26th
day of April, 1905. The County Act
of April of the same year, and the
counties themselves were in actual eX-
istence on July 1st, when the newly
elected county officers took their seats,
and county government came into be-
ing.
When the demand for this money
claimed to be due to the county OF
Oahu-and of course, there is the claim
of the other counties to varying
amounts--was first talked about. the
matter was presented to the Auditor
and by him laid before the Governor
and Territorial Treasurer Campbell. 1t
is understood that Governor Carter at
that time was in favor of turning the
sums in question over to the counties. !
but to this course Treasurer Campbell
would be guided by his superior in Of
fee. On the advice of the Governor,
Treasurer Campbell then referred the
matter to the Attorney General for his
opinion. Mr.. Peters department con-
sidered the law in the case thoroughly,
md an opinion in the shape of a letter
vas given to Mr.. Campbell directing
lin to the effect that the claim of the
was not one that could be
Considered in law
1t was held, in effect, that the delin-
uent taxes, due prior to the date
,hen the County Act and the enabling
ct went into effect, formed a terri
orial realization, with which the coun-
les had nothing to do. The counties
nder the several acts creating and
nancing them, We're of course entitled /
} half the taxes that might become
ue and payable after their creation. or
fter those acts went into effect. Taxes
lat were due prior to those dates
1uld not, it was argued, belong to the G
)unties because the counties had no
1istence at the time such taxes were
le The money claimed by Treasurer
rent is for taxes that had become de- :,
nquent on July 1st last, and that has
cen paid into the Territorial Treasury
nee. This money, it was held by the
Generals department, was
lie before the counties had any ex-
tence, although of course it is pay
lie at any time after it becomes due. |
lie Attorney Generals opinion, in its I
xt. follows;
Honolulu, Hawaii, June %, 1905.
IN A. ]. Campbell. Treasurer of the
Territory of Hawaii /
Dear Sir: In response to your re-
est for an opinion of date June II, !
., as to the construction Of Section !
Of Act SO of the Session Laws II /
5, and more particularly a u
lether or not delinquent taxes paid
the tax assessors of the various
unttes after the first day of July,
lich taxes were due and payable prior