The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-10-27


the investments here bear to all the
property belonging to the defendant.
The Attorney General contends that
| the defendant has an office in this
Territory for the use of its officers,
etc: and that, therefore, inasmuch as
the defendant does not invest and use
all its capital in this Territory, it is
liable for the annual license fee pre-
scribed in Sec. 1925 Or. Ii.
There are two questions involved in
this contention; one, whether or not
the evidence esta blished the fact of
such office, and the other, the con-
struction to be placed upon said Sec.
1928, more particularly the phrase,
does not invest and use its capital in
this Territory
From a careful examination of the
evidence L am of the opinion that it
fails to establish the fact that the de-
PENDANT corporation" has IAN office
or offices in this Territory, for the use
of its officers" etc. 1t appears from
the evidence that there is a small
building on the premises near the oil
tanks in which there are two rooms
one of these rooms was used by one
Baker for a bedroom and in the other
IlS utu d OSSh anu lSlCpIiOAS. bdhSI+
as it seems, was in the employ of the
defendant in some capacity, but it is
not clear just what his position or du-
ties We're or what he used the room
for in which the desk and telephone
were. Presumably as an office. But
whose office?
Captain Miller succeeded Mr.. Baker
in these uncertain and indefinite du-
ties.
Opposed to the contention of the At
torney General on this point there is
testimony clearly tending to show that
all the contracts for the transaction of
the defendants business were executed
in the State of California, and that
nothing remained in the performance
OF these contracts, but to distribute the
oils sold by the defendant to it's pur-
chasers here.
or not the investment and use of cap
ital by a foreign corporation in this
Territory means "all it's capital
zone of the most effectual ways of
discovering the true meaning of the
law, when it's expressions are dubious,
is by considering the reason and spirit
of it, or the cause which induced the
Legislature to enact it." Sec. Il, r. L.
In the absence of a statute of this
character, foreign corporations, with
our mourning the hazard of investing
and using any of their capital in this
Territory and without bearing any of
the burdens incident to the mainte-
nance of our government, would be at
liberty, by simply opening an office
where orders for goods could be re-
ceived, to compete and share with do
nestle corporations in all the benefits
and advantages of the local market.
This, in my opinion, is the sole reason
and purpose of the statute.
I can not agree with the learned At
torney General that corporation
which established an office for the use
of it's representatives and did not use
and invest any of its capital within
this Territory would be an excepted
corporation under the statute as COR
poration engaged in interstate COM
merce.''
The license tax prescribed by Sec.
2625 is not tax upon property or COM
merce, nor is it designed as a regula-
ton of interstate commerce. 1t is
nothing more and nothing less than
license tax exacted as a condition of a
foreign corporation keeping an office
within the Territory for the use of
its officers, stockholders, agents or en-
ployes. 1t is a tax only on the office.
025 U. S. 1874, supra).
To give the statute the meaning con-
tended for by the Attorney General, it
would not only be necessary to read
the word "all' into it, but the clear
purpose and reason for its enactment
must be entirely disregarded. This the
court is not at liberty to do
1t follows, therefore, that when
foreign corporation invests and uses its
capital, or a substantial portion there
of, in this Territory, thus bearing its
share of the taxes and burdens of gov
eminent and placing itself upon plane
of equality with domestic corporations,
the reason of the statute fails.
Moreover, aside from the apparent
purpose and reason of the statute it is
a general rule that revenue statutes
should be construed more strongly
against the government, and their pro-
visions are not to be extended by i'm
plication beyond a clear import of the
language used. Rice VS.. L. s., SO Fed.
$40, L. S. VS.. Wigglesworth, Fed. Cases
No. 1880.
Viewing the statute from this stand
point if there is any question as to
whether all the capital of foreign
corporation shall be invested and used
in this Territory in order to exempt
it from the annual license fee, then
the construction must necessarily be
in favor of the corporation and against
the Territory.
The fact that the Legislature of 1908
(Act $50 did not use the word AL,
and the fact that the Legislature of
1905 (Act 9S) did, and this being the
only change made, it is obvious that
there was a very grave doubt in the
mind of the Legislature in 1905 as to
the meaning of the statute of 1903, or
that the Legislature of 1905 desired to
make the law broader.
There are other questions involved,