Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-06-25
|ATTORNEYSDIFFER
| N INTERPRETING
RECENT La "
CONTINUED from page onel

lAOA Po6O OAASJ
thought to the Maui Decision and re-
views the application of the conclu-
sion there to the present situation at
some length.
Authorities Quoted.
THE question you PROFOUND is one
which brings up a difficult investiga-
l.tion,v he writes to Col Mccarthy.
.'As you see from my short statement
, / interpreted the statute in the light
sof the intention of the legislature SO
RS to mean delinquent taxes"
!. He then proceeds with his opinion
, taking up the question point by point.
"The Keola VS.. Maui Auto Com
pany case. the Interpretation of the
word due" in section 1868 was made
under different circumstances. and
. should not control the Interpretation
of the meaning of this section"
In another part he declares that
the act, Act SO, If Interpreted accord
ing to the opinion of the attorney
general would mean depriving the tax.
payer of property without due pro-
cess of law.
I'VE should avoid such an interpre-
tation, which would render the act
void" ne adds.
Opinion Of Weaver.
The following is Mr.. Weayer's opin-
ion, in part:
1t is to be noted that the Keola
decision is based upon facts which
show that the district magistrate may
decide in each case, whether or not
an amount is due and payable, that is,
whether the amount of the tax has
been definitely fixed
The case we are considering is a
distinct one. There is no judicial
power exercised by which either the
tax assessor or the treasurer, when
dealing with the question of giving a
license to tax payer, may decide
whether the tax is due and payable,
as the district magistrate could do
If the case were tried before him.
We are met with a practical diff
Guilty of constituting the statute liter
ally as taxes due in the sense used
in section 1853 If the words are
construed to taxes due" before they
are delinquent, that is, before May
18th and November 18th of each year,
then the new section upsets the
scheme of the statute as whole. 1t
compels the payment of two install
ments of taxes at any time before
May 18TH, at which time the assessor
and the tax payer may come to an
agreement
The tax payer would necessarily
pay both installments in order to OBJ
tain a certificate which the county
treasurer would accept Unless the
tax payer obtained certificate, no
license to do business would issue.
In cases, before. May 18th, when
the tax payer and assessor have not
come to an agreement, but the tax
payer is using his lawful right to
consider the matter of whether or not
he will appeal to the tax appeal
court and there try out the issues of
law or fact between him and the
tax assessor, he could not obtain a
license to do business until he did
obtain his certificate from the tax
assessor that all taxes due had been
paid.
Thus, a tax payer, without license
to do business, would be prevented
from going into business until such
time as he could obtain a certificate.
He has his choice, either to do bust
ness without license or to give way
to the duress of property, which the
government thus used upon him to
pay tax, perhaps unjust. without
waiting for an appeal and hearing to
save himself from great loss. Such
construction results in constituting
this section so as to deprive the in
nocent tax payer of his property
without due process of law.