Kupau v. Richards

6 Haw. 245
CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1879
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Haw. 245 (Kupau v. Richards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kupau v. Richards, 6 Haw. 245 (haw 1879).

Opinion

Decision of

McCully, J.

Assumpsit for $5 for defendant’s personal taxes, for 1878. By appeal from judgment of the District Court of Koolauloa, and tried by the Court without a jury. The only matter in controversy was if the defendant be exempt under this provision found in Section 513 of the Civil Code, viz.: “The following persons shall be exempt from personal taxes: All clergymen of any Christian denomination regularly engaged in their vocation.”

The defendant gave the following testimony: “I am a minister or clergyman of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and was in the exercise of that vocation in July last (date of assessment) in Koolauloa, Island of Oahu; I profess [246]*246the doctrines of the Christian religion; I do not know of any tax being assessed on our church sites; the Church at Waikiki and that of Honolulu have not been taxed, nor that of Laie; I never heard of a church site of our denomination being taxed; our creed is shown in this pamphlet (quoted below) ; we are not authorized to practice polygamy in the Hawaiian Islands; I am in all respects ordained and licensed regularly as a clergyman of the church to which I belong.”

The witness exhibits a license from the Minister of the Interior to solemnize marriage in which he is entitled “Elder,” the witness saying that the Minister of the Interior asking him if he would be styled “Reverend,” the witness had replied that he would be styled “Elder.”

Also exhibited a certificate that “Elder Henry P. Richards has been duly appointed to a mission to the Sandwich Islands, to preach the Gospel and administer all the ordinances thereof pertaining to his office, etc.” Dated Salt Lake City, Territory of Utah, November 29, 1876, signed by Brigham Young and two others, as the “First Presidency.”

On cross-examination the witness said: “I believe in the revelation contained in the New Testament; I believe in other revelations since then; I am not a Mohammedan; I don't accept the Koran; there are many revelations we believe that have been given through Joseph Smith, the founder of the church; there are no later revelations than those published in the pamphlet (above spoken of) ; we believe all that God has revealed,- and that He will yet reveal more than He has revealed; we preach faith, repentance and baptism by immersion, for the remission of sins and the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost; those are what we term the first principles of the Gospel as taught by our Savior Jesus. Christ; we claim there are Apostles now, succeeding the Apostles of Christ, naming twelve men; we believe the Book of Mormon to be a revelation written by the prophet; I am one of the travelling Elders of the church; polygamy is believed in by the church; I don’t know of any of our church sites being taxed.”

[247]*247Direct examination resumed. “We are not authorized to practice polygamy, except at the head-quarters of the church; we believe if it was necessary for the Lord to speak, that He would communicate as He did of old; I have no other business here than this ministry of our church; I am supported by the members of our denomination resident here.”

Hanai, a witness for defendant, testifies that he was in charge of the Mission Church site in Waikiki, and that to his knowledge it had not been assessed during his time, three years.

The following is the creed exhibited by the defendant: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ,- and in the Holy Ghost; we believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression; we believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel; we believe that these ordinances are, first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost; we believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by laying of hands by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof; we believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, viz., Apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.; we believe in the gift of tongues, prophesy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, etc.; we believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God; we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God; we believe in the literal gathering of Israel, and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion will be built upon this continent; that Christ will reign personally, upon the earth, and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaic glory; we claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same [248]*248privilege, let them worship how, what or where they may; we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law; we believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say, that we follow the admonition of Paul, we believe all things, we hope all things, if there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report, or praise-worthy, we seek after these things.”

Taking the testimony to be true, and there is nothing offered to contradict it, why should not a Mormon Minister be held for the purposes of this statute to be a Christian Minister? I find no difficulty in holding that the defendant is a minister. The counsel for the Crown argued from his taking the title of “Elder,” and not “Rev.,” that he had disclaimed holding ministerial office. But he testifies that such is the designation of a minister or clergyman in his denomination, and that he is a clergyman or minister. It does not appear why the use of the term “Rev.” should be the test of the class of persons intended by the statute. It is the custom of some other denominations to style their ministers “Elder.” The Baptists and Methodists do this to a considerable extent. The ministers of the Roman Church are usually.styled “Father.”

It is equally clear from defendant’s testimony, that he is in the exercise of his calling. He has come to this Kingdom for that purpose. He exercises no other employment, and he is supported by the people of his denomination for the reason that he gives them his time and labor in exercising the ministerial office for them. The evident intention of the law is to exempt Christian ministers from the burden of taxes, on the ground that they must be supported by portions of the community, and to tax them is to impose an additional tax on the public in the support of religion and morals. For the same reason church sites are exempt. The question remains, is the defendant, being a Mormon Minister, a Christian Minister.? Upon the proofs offered and the creed presented, he must prima facie be considered such. He believes in Christ and preaches Him. [249]*249The church is styled the Church of. the Lord Jesus Christ. They accept the Old and New Testament.

It was urged, per contra, why this is not a denomination of Christians:

First, Because they accept other revelations than those contained in the Holy Scriptures.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Haw. 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kupau-v-richards-haw-1879.