The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-11-20
LICENSE TAX
FISHING VALID
Supreme Court UphoIds the Act
Calling for a Fee on Ger
tain Boats.

1t IS constitutional to tax those who
fish for profit in the waters of the
Territory of Hawaii in a boat that
has a beam of over thirty inches. So
decides the opinion of the supreme
court written by Chief Justice Hart
well and handed down yesterday The
decision is the result of the test case
that has been fought out in the lower
courts over Matsubara. He claimed.
when arrested for failure to secure a
license, that the act was unconstitu-
tional. that it was discriminatory leg
islation in So far that nearly all boats
ever the specified width of beam were
owned by japanese and other reasons.
The court held that it was not dis
erimnatory legislation, because it ap-
piled to all boats over that width of
beam, no matter who owned them. The
county attorney admitted that. with
the exception of few Chinese boats,
the 200 boats fishing for profit in Oahu
waters were owned by japanese. The
Hawaiians nearly all fish from outrig-
ger canoes. and therefore are not liza
BILE to the license. 1t was on this
ground that the defendant claimed a
violation of his treaty rights.
In connection with the claim that
the waters of the Territory were free
or should be from a necessity to have
license to fish in them, the court
says:
"We do not infer from this legis-
lation that congress intended that the
business of fishing for profit in the
sea waters of the Territory should be
free from police regulation or taken
out of the taxing power of the Terri
tory, the object of the provisions cited
being to do away with exclusive prl-
waite rights of fishery in those waters.
In this view there is no occasion to
consider the defendants claim that
the act deprives him of treaty
rights.''
The supreme court, in discussing the
ease. also declares that the act calling
for a license fee is not in conflict with
the Organic Act for this reason.
Kellogg Wins.
BY another opinion handed down by
the supreme bench yesterday, written
by Justice Perry, Leonard G. Kellogg
wins out in the suit brought against
him by the Remington Typewriter Com
pany. Kellogg is doing business under
the name of the Hawaiian Office Spe-
cialty Company, a concern which has
passed through three hands and accu-
mulated debts on the way.
1t was originally started by William
L. Gilluly and o. V. Mccarthy, who
in 1905 purchased a stock from the
plaintiff. In 1907 they sold the stock,
etc, of the concern to D. S. K. Pahu.
The latter conducted the business under
the same name and subsequently sold
the property to Kellogg. When Pahu
purchased it, he made no promise to
pay the debts accumulated by the for
mer proprietOrs When Kellogg made
the purchase he promised to pay GER
tain note of $4,000 and "the other and
remaining debts of the Hawaiian Of
fee Specially Company The Rem
ington company brought suit for
$24e0. the value of the goods they
supplied to. the original proprietors.
The court holds "that if an action
is maintainable at all by creditor of
the promisee against the promisor, the
creditor not being privy to the con-
tract or the consideration, the very
foundation of any right the creditor
may have is the promisor S contract,
and that in the case at bar plaintiff S
claim was not one of the debts of the
Hawaiian Office Speciality Company at
the date of the agreement, and there
fore there was no promise by defend
ant to pay it,