The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-04-17
IN THE SENATE
AFTERNOON SESSION.

Oh ll'u0t Dill AN'' I'" 'llN 5NhNAol IL
ccuse measure.
VETO MESSAGES.
The following messages were receiv-
ed from the governor, action being de-
ferred until tomorrow at p. m.
Herewith 1 return Senate bin No. A
entitled An Act amending Section 1925
of the Revised Laws of Hawaii relating
to the exemption from taxation of pro-
perty used in certain industries" which
1 am unable to approve
Section 1923 of the Revised Laws now
exempts from taxation until April %
1905. a year hence, all property actual
Iy used i'm the production of sisaI fibre,
| castor oil, vanilla extract, Hawaiian
| starch pineapples and maniocca starch
! Ccassava), The present bill adds to
| this list all property used i'm the pro-
ductfon of copra and arrowroot, and
extends the time of exemption until
! December 81, 1912, with the proviso.
however, that the exemption shall not
apply to any land i'm excess of forty
acres used by any one person, firm or
corporation, for the cultivation or pro-
duction of pineapples
In order to encourage experiments
with new and untried industries, public
opinion in Hawaii has approved of ex-
empting such experiments from tax
alton for a period of five years, in or
der to lessen the cost.
This legislature has shown its be-
lief in such a policy by the passage
of an act with that end in view, eX-
empting from taxation the experiments
now being undertaken in the culture of
grapes for the purpose of wine-making.
But to extend this exemption is chang
ing the policy into a sort of subsidy,
particularly after such experiments
have proven remunerative.
The growing of sisal fibre and the
production of pineapples have already
been demonstrated to be a decided sue
cess and profitable to those engaged
therein. There does not, therefore,
appear to be any good reason why they
burden of taxation.
one extension will mean another
and if this bill becomes law, there will
be no reason against a further ex-
emption being granted to those in
terested in the production of rubber and
the culture of grapes at the next or
succeeding sessions of the Legislature
Another objection to the bill which
will be evident to all is that the
Territory and the Counties are in no
position to reduce their income, the
main struggle now being to satisfy the
demands of the people without flu
rther increase of revenue. The prece-
dent set by this bill is, therefore, in my
opinion unwise.
No industry which, during a five year
term of exemption from taxation, has
thriven and prospered and shown its
capacity to sustain itself should be
! further exempted from it's share in the
| general contribution towards the COM
mon good.
Herewith I return House bill No.
| 147 entitled IAN Act to amend Sec
ton 1878 Of the Revised Laws of Ha-
waii relating to income tax, as amend
ed by Act 81 of the Secession Laws of
1905, which I am unable to approve.
This bill aims to increase the eX-
emption of a persons income from the
operation of the income tax by $500,
making the exemption $1,000 instead
of $1,000 as at present.
! From estimates which have been
furnished me, this will mean decrease
i'm the revenue of the Territory of APP
proximately $4,000, and the financial
condition of the Territory does not war
rant any decrease in its revenue at this
! time
The purpose of the bill is probably in
the main, to afford relief to persons
having small incomes. The estimates
given to me show that this purpose
viii largely fail for of the $1,000 thus
lost to the Territory, only about one
third is being paid by persons having
. an liINblli' u DtlN'tll HlsNNV anu Hlrpv'
the remaining two-thirds being paid by
persons having an income in excess of
81, 500.
A further and still more serious OBJ
lection to the bill is that the definition
of the tax period, now contained in the
last paragraph of section 1878 of the
Revised Laws, is omitted from the
section as amended by this bill. (Se5
page 1856. Session Laws 1900 This tern
is necessarily used throughout the
income tax law. and unless defined
win leave the law i'm a very unsatistac,
tory shape with the possibility Of liti
cation to determine it's meaning. Ever
that portion of section 1878 Of the Re
vised Laws which is reenacted by thii
bin refers to "the taxation periods al
herein defined" and then by the omis
sion, fails to give any definition.
Keeping i'm view this omission /
would Doe unwise to jeopardise the oper