Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-01-25
OFFICERS AUTOS
NOT ESSENTIAL,
ASHFORD FINDS
Continued from page one)

(COntlnueQ from page OneJ
taxation by the territory for the rea-
son that it was within the confines OF
the military reservation, and for the
reason that. it was then and still is
used and operated by plaintiff here
in in the performance and discharge
of his official duties as aforesaid"
Car Not Exempt. -:
Judge Ashford's opinion deals large
ly. with the claim of the plaintiff that
the car was exempt from taxation by
the territory because of the purposes
to which it was chiefly devoted by its
owner, in the necessary performance
of his duties as an officer in the Unit
ed States Army. The point of law
as to the exemption of the automobile
from taxation because it has been
physically located on u. s. military
reservation has been decided against
the plaintiff. on question reserved,
by Circuit Judge Stuart, for the con-
sideration of the supreme court. /
The opinion says, in part: 7
"As understand the plaintiffs con
tentions, it is that the automobile in
question. .fdrmssa necessary portion of
his equipment as a military officer,
and has thereby had conferred upon
it the status and condition of an in.
strumentality- Of government used by
the United States. But l am unable
to conceive this contention. There
was no serious attempt made to ap
portion the amount or degree of ser
vice rendered by this car for strictly
official as distinguished from non.
official or private purposes.
IL Privately Owned.
But even had it been shown that
the car. has been and is being used
solely for the purpose OF promoting or
facilitating the discharge of his Off
cial duties by the plaintiff, l would
still be obliged to withhold my assent
from the proposition that such use
Sould exempt the car from taxation
by the TERRITORY / regard the deci.
sive feature OF the controversy as be.
ing involved in the private ownership
OF the car rather than its partial use
for official purposes by its owner,
and, as above, were it used exclusive.
~ for official purposes. L would still
regard the private ownership as de.
cisive of the question of its liability to
taxation by the local government
1T may therefore be taken as prov
en- that many of the important mill
tary orders issued by the commander
OF this department, and probably
many of those issued by certain of
his 'subordinates, have been based up
on calculation and expectation that
the privately owned automobiles of
military officers would be utilized in
the execution of such orders. But l
cannot conceive that such a state of
facts would exempt from, taxation
automobiles privately. owned by mill
tary officers which might be taxable
were 1t not for the fact that such
orders are so issued and executed.
Mean Law Suspension. +:
To admit the contention of the
plaintiff in this regard would be to ad-
init that our local taxation laws are,
In large measure, subject to virtual
repeal or at least suspension, by the
nlIltary oFhcers OF the United States
IN command of the troops in garrison
mere 1t Is conceived that neither the
plaintiff or his counsel would serious.
" contend for such a result, and vet
tnls result would and must naturally
new from the advocation of the doc
trines contended for by them.
Il can see no. legal or equitable
reason for declaring an exemption
from taxation in the case at hand. OF
course the argument may spring to
every lip that nobody has Obliged Can.
tain Cassels to purchase and paw for
an automobile, and his counsel admit
that argument, but contend that it's
force eyaporates in the light of ad-
civilization. which has now
made the automobile as much of a
necessity as the telephone, the type
writer and the sewing machine.
q We may we'll grant this contention
without impairing the main argument
herein. especially when faced by the
act that neither Congress or the war