The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1909-03-13
LICENSE TAX
MATTER TALK
MERCHANTS OPPOSE ACT u AND
DRAFTING NEW LAW no COVER
SUBJECT.


Merchants Association held yesterday
afternoon. President Waldron stated
the important object of the meeting
the report of the special committee
on the merchandise license law mat
ter.
The report called for a fee of 500
for persons or firms doing more than
SIS, 900 of business and a fee of $3.50
for less than $4,000. The report FORM
cd the skeleton off bill which it was
proposed shoud be brought before the
Legislature.
| George w. Smith explained various
points of the bill and stated that out
of twenty-three concerns selling goods
for mainland manufacturers and deal
ers only five paid the license fee pres
cribed by law. The matter of pres
cribing a higher license for persons
doing less than $4,000 was regarded
as proper inasmuch as they were COM
peting with merchants who had to pay
heavy property and other taxes.
In his remarks Mr.. Smith referred
| to class of order" dealers who had
their goods billed direct to the GUS
toner, and another class who, while
taking orders from the trade, had the
goods billed to themselves and rebtlIeo
by themselves to the customer. M.
Phillips said he knew that some brok-
ers did have goods billed to themselves
IN the manner spoken Of Albert Wa
| terhouse seemed to regard his firm
as one referred to and asked for In.
formation. He was doing business as
manufacturers agent billing direct,
and also selling to the trade. Did this
contemplate and require two licenses
Morris Brasch thought it q question
difficult to answer, as it depended up-
on several details of the transaction
or transactions. August Hamburg,
representing Hackfeld & Company,
called attention to the absence OF pen
atty for violations of the law. He
thought the penalties should ne maze
both explicit and heavy. 10 his mind
agents for manufacturers should be
taxed on a basis of commissions re-
ceived, as is done in the case Of agents
for sugar companies. James Steiner
stated that there was no provision for
peddlers licenses, but Mr.. Smith ex-
planned that this was coverd by the
old law, certain provisions OF which
would remain in force. Mr. Steiner
favored the collection OF license fees
by the tax office in place of by the
treasurer.
Mr.. Smith explained several Iicenss
laws before the Legislature. dealing
with different departments of the SUB
Ject, showing that this bill covered a
distinct field and subject, and did nos
conflict with other proposed acts.
Mr.. Waterhouse again asked where
MS concern would get off in the new
deal proposed. His concern WAS :,
manufacturers agent. Another branch
carried on a merchandise business.
selling and billing to the trade.
Il. II. Paris gave it as his opinion
tnat a concern doing both classes OF
business should pay both licenses.
INF. Won Hamm regarded the pro
posed schedule as fair and equitable.
lie called attention to the propertv
ana other taxes to be paid by thu
wholesaler, while the concern acting
as mere middle man." although do
ing, in effect, the same business, patu
nothing. Mr.. Waterhouse was an ex
ample of the class carrying on botb
businesses and paying license for Only
enc.
President Waldron asked the opinion
of Attorney A. G. NJ. Robertson, who
was present, as to the legality OF
proposition of licensing concerns SELL
ing goods to be billed direct. MIR. ROD
ertson stated that the Interstate
Commerce laws was a delicate thing
to monkey with. If goods were billed
agent to the trade, the tax would not
be in conflict with the Interstate
Commerce laws. But if the goods are
billed direct from the manufacturer
to the customer the tax would be in
direct conflict with that law. The
measure proposed brought up was
difficult question in all its bearings
A drummer could not be taxed. That
has been settled by the United States
supreme court.
AS to the other point, Mr.. Robert
son believed it would be difficult to
convince the Legislature Of the Justice
OF making a small dealer pay a higher
license fee than the large dealer.
Again, the law defining wholesale ana
retail dealers was vague 1t was dit
ficult to determine under It where tho
one left off and the other began. If 1t
Is the idea to separate the two, tho
proposed bill should clearly define the
differences between the two classes OF
business. There is no doubt Of the
legality of taxing brokers who them
selves bill to the trade. But If tho
law is so framed as to include drum