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

| from it's very nature and from the fact
| that it might include amounts that
had become delinquent for a NUMBER
| of years past could not be estimated
| with any degree of accuracy. To this
| it might be replied, although ii might
| not be conclusive. that there could not
be an accurate estimate in any event,
since there would be during each pc
riod a greater or less number of de-
linquencies in the payment of taxes
to become payable during that period.
and that the estimate might be far
from accurate in any event was con-
templated by the legislature, for it
provided for the payment of only ten
and fifteen per centum respectively
per month of the estimated amount in
each half year. thus leaving consider
able leeway for errors in the estimates,
the balance, if any, to be paid after
the expiration of the period of six
months. Moreover, as practically al
ready stated this provision relates
merely to the manner of payment, and
even if the Auditor were to estimate
merely the amount to become payable
during the period in question, without
reference to delinquencies occurring in
that period or payments of prior de-
linquencies, this would not necessarily
show that the counties We're not to
share in the amounts collected on prior
delinquencies. But what perhaps is a
conclusive answer to the argument is
that, if it is sound at all, it applies as
well to subsequent periods of six
months as it does to the first period
after the establishment of county gov
eminent. There is nothing whatever,
either in the language of this sub
division or in the supposed practical
difficulties that the Auditor might eX-
per.ence in making his estimates, upon
which distinction can be founded be-
tween delinquencies occurring before
the first period and delinouencies oc-
curing after that period, but before
any subsequent period; and yet it is
clear, and also conceded, that it co1ld
not have been contemplated or intend
ed that the counties should not share
in the taxes which became delinquent
in one period. but which were collect
ed in a subsequent period of county
government. If, for instance. this
subdivision showed that taxes delin-
quent prior to July 1. 1905. but after
wards collected were not to be shared
by the Territory with the counties, it
shows equally that the counties would
not be entitled to any of the taxes
which became delinquent during the
latter half of 1905 or the first half of
1906, but which were collected during
the latter half of 1906, which would
be absurd.
1t is contended further that section
4 also supports the contention of the
Territory. 1t provides, THAT out of
the taxes payable after July 1, 1905,
for the year 1905. the Treasurer of the
Territory is hereby authorized to re-
serve out of the share of each of the
several counties for the benefit of the
Territory the following sums naming
them. The object of this was, of
course, to enable the Territory to pay
liabilities incurred before county gov
that is, during the first half
IF 1905, out of the taxes collectable dur
ing the last half of that year, mas
much as at that time the bulk of the
axes assessed during the first half of
he year were collectable during the I
asst half of the year, while now col !
ections have been more evenly divided
between the two halves of the year. It
s argued that this section shows that
he counties We're intended to share I
)nly such taxes as were payable for
he particular year that might be in
question or that at least that was the
as to the year 1905. No doubt f
he section does point in that direction
md yet it is not sufficient to control t
he clear, unambiguous language of sec
ion 1. and is not inconsistent with it. G
t provides merely for the payment of
ertain sums out of a particular fund. | r
IN the other hand, it points, though
erhaps not to the same extent, also .