Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-01-25
Officers AUTOS,
NOIESSENTIAE,
ASHFORD FINDS
Are Subject to Taxation BY
Territory, He Says in 0pin-
ion Handed Down Today

In an opinion handed down today,
which has been eagerly awaited by
practically all army officers on Oahu,
Circuit Judge c. w. Ashford ex-
presses the belief that automobiles
used by army officers on military res
ervations are hardly necessary in the
performance OF their official duties,
and that the machines are therefore
subject to taxation by the territory.
The opinion states that, in the be-
lief OF Judge Ashford, the bill for in
junction brought by Capt A.. F.. Cas-
sells, u. S. A., against Tax Assessor
Charles T. Wilder, in which the form
er attempts to enioin the assessor
from levying and collecting taxes on
an automobile belonging to the officer,
should be dismissed. Il find nothing
in the authorities cited on behalf OF
the plaintiff to lead me to different
conclusion, . remarks Judge Ashford.
Kept on Military Lands.
The amended complaint filed By
Capt. Casseis, who Is with the LIST
Field Artillery at Schofield Barracks,
alleges that, on January /, 1915, his
machine was within the confines of
the military reservation at Schofield,
where he used 1t in the performance
Of his official duties, and that the ma
chine has not been without the con-
fines Of the barracks since.
Capt. Cassels made no return for
his machine for, the purpose of tax
alton for 1915. Mr. Wilder, however,
assessed the machine for taxes In the
sum OF $685., which assessment pur-
ported to be the annual automobile
tax for 1915. The complaint further
alleges that, on January 1, 1915, the
machine WAS not within the iurisdfc.
ton of the territory of Hawaii for tax.
alton purposes, nor was It subject to
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 1t 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 1t has been
located on U. 8. military
has been decided against
the plaintiff, on a question reserved.
by Circuit Judge Stuart, for the con-
sideration OF the supreme court.
The opinion says, in part:
"As | understand the plaintiffs con.
it is that the automobile in
question forms necessary portion of
his equipment as a military officer,
and has thereby had conferred upon.
Il the status and condition of an In.
ct government used by
the United ST es. But. ! am unable
to concede this contention. There.
was no serious attempt made to aps
portion the amount or degree or ser
vice rendered by this car for strictly
official as distinguished from nom
or private purposes.
But, even had II 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, would
still be obliged to withhold my assent
from the proposition that such use
-ould exempt the car from taxation
hA fnr 4 hn n
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.
md, as above, were il used exclusive
~ for official purposes, would still
regard the private ownership as de
cisive of the question of its liability to
by the local government
1T may therefore be taken as prov
IN 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
he privately owned automobiles of
officers would be utilized in
The execution of such orders. But |
cannot conceive that such a state of
acts would exempt from taxation
automobiles privately owned by mill
.ary officers which might be taxable
we're 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 adj
nit that our local taxation laws are,
n large measure, subject to virtual
repeal or at least suspension, by the
military officers OF the United States
n command, of the troops in garrison
1ere. II is conceived that neither the
plaintiff or his counsel would serious
y contend for such a result, and yet
his result would and must naturally
low from the application of >the doc
.rines contended for by them.
Il can see no legal or equitable
reason for declaring an exemption
rom taxation in the case at hand. OF
course the argument may. spring to.
every lip that nobody has obliged Cap
ain Cassels to purchase and paw for
IN automobile, and his counsel admit
hat argument, but contend that ire