The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-07-19

in the opposite direction. for it tends
| TO show that the legislature had in
MIND the distinction between taxes as
| sessabIe and taxes collected during a
| particular year and enacted this sec
ton with that in view and yet it did
not make any such distinction in sec
| ton l. TIE fact probably is thai in
! enacting section 1 the point now in
| dispute did not occur to the legisla-
| ture- The question is what does the
| language that was used mean. For
| these reasons, SO far as the language
| OF the act is concerned. the contention
| of the Territory can not be sustained.
| 1t Is. however. contended that the
| legislature must have so intended on
| general principles on the theory that
| as business arrangement the Terri
tory would naturally collect all
amounts owing TO it prior to the es-
tapllshInent of county government and
tnat 1t and the county would natural
~ snare amounts to become due there
AFTER But a general consideration OF
TINS KIND can not control the plain
language of the act. No part of the
taxes were to belong inherently after
the establishment of county govern
ment to the several counties nor was
the Territory to retain the portion
that it did on the theory that that
belonged inherently to it. The whole
belonged to the Territory and was
thereafter to be divided in the way the
legislature thought best between the
Territory and the counties which were
thereafter to share the duties and ex-
penses which previously had been
borne by the Territory alone. No pro-
vision was made for the assessment
levy or collection of taxes by the coun-
ties The whole arrangement was of
an artificial nature by which the Ter
ritory was to pay the counties certain
amounts with which to meet their ex-
penses. In the long run it might not
make much difference which way the
provision was made The amount of
delinquent taxes collected during each
period would probably be about the
same percentage of the whole. If the
counties received in the first period !
an amount that had become delinquent /
prior thereto the Territory might like
wise acquire after a change in the
system, if a change should be made.
like amount that had become delin-
quent during the period of county gov
eminent. The legislature may have
figured on the average amounts col
lected in the past without analyZing
them with reference to the periods for
which their various parts We're as
sessed. The act throughout shows the
artificial character of the division as
one based mainly on considerations Of
what the Territory and the several
respectively required, except
ing that the amount to be divided be-
tween the Territory and each county
should have been collected in that par
ticular county. An equal division was
made of certain classes of taxes, but
the Territory was to receive the whole
of certain other classes. The counties,
on the other hand, were, provided
in section 3, to receive the entire road
taxes whether they had become delin-
quent before the establishment of
county government or not and even
though they had already been collect
ed by the Territory but not paid out.
The county was to receive fifty per
centum of the school taxes, which
would naturally be expected to be
levied for school purposes, and yet the
counties were to have nothing to do
with the schools.
It is contended also that the act
should not be construed retroactfvely.
There is no constitutional provision
against retroactive legislation as such, I
md if there were it would not prevent ,
provision of this kind. Peacock VS..
Republic, IL Haw. 400. And, as a
question of construction as distingu- I
shed from one of power, the provision '
n question when construed as contend f
ID for by the county is not obnoxious ,
o the rule against retroactive legis- :
alton. 1t provides merely for a divi-
ion which it was entirely competent S
Or the legislature to make; and, y
hough this is unimportant, the divi-
ion was to be in the future and, so
ar as the taxes in question are con-
erned, the counties were to share on
Y what was to be collected in the flu
ure. The legislature might reasonably F
ave provided either way. 1t provided c
ne way though perhaps unconscious :,
s to which way.
The offer to show the actual inten-
ion of the legislature by the testi- g
1ony of several of it's members was
refused.
The judgment appealed from is af- t
rmed. G.
E. A Douthitt. County Attorney, for n
he petitioner.
NJ. F. Prosser. Deputy Attorney Cen
raj, for respondent. h
Under this decision the County of 81
ahu will come into possession of about G
5000, which will be Of material as Ii
: - - -