The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-11-11

CORPORATION entitled The Trustees
of the Anglican Church in Hawaii,
chartered by the Hawaiian Govern
ment. The respondent is the Presi-
dent of the corporation. The petit
TONERS complain that the respon-
dent has refused their written re-
quest that he would "call a meeting
of the corporation in order that said
corporation might consider, and if it
should be deemed desirable and pro-
per, decide upon the ACCESSIBILITY of
removing a building on said pre-
misses 1.-THE cathedral grounds near
Emma street, in Honolulu, at pre-
sent in close proximity to the church
building in course of construction
for the Chinese congregation" giving
as his reason for declining such re-
quest, " that the purpose for which
the meeting was desired did not fall
within the functions of said body"
The complaint further alleges that
the respondent " as President of the
corporation is authorized and re-
quired by the charter of said corpo-
ration to call a meeting of said cor
PorstiOn upon receiving written
request SO to do from one-third of
the whole body;" and that such re-
fusal {" is without warrant of law and
wrongfully depriVes the complain
ants as members OF the said corpo-
ration of the opportunity to perform
the duties entrusted TO them"
An alternative writ was issued
against the respondent and he
filed his answer, admitting the
request by the petitioners that
he would call meeting of the
corporation, and his refusal to &C
cede to the same for reasons given,
and that the petitioners form more
than one-third of the corporation.
The answer " denies that he as
Bishop of Honolulu, is authorized
and required by the charter to call a
meeting of said corporation upon
receiving a written request 20 do SO
from one third of the whole body"
and denies also " that said refusal is
without warrant OF law and wrong
fully deprives complainants as mem
bers of said corporation of the op
portunity to perform the duties en-
trusted to them"
The charter of incorporation con-
tsins the following section I" The |
trustees shall be presided over by |
the Bishop or his commissary, who |
may or may not be one of the trus-
tees; provided, however, that in case
of vacancy of the See. or if there
be no commissary specially author
lied In this behalf, the Archdeacon
may preside and if there be no
Archdeacon, the Senior Priest and
if there be no Priest, the trustees
shall appoint their own president,
and it shall be the duty Of the said
president to call a meeting on re-
ceiving written request so to do
from one-third of the whole body"
The respondent, at the hearing as
well as in his answer, claimed that
this section applies only to the emer-
gency OF vacancy IN the See, when
the trustees are authorized to ap-
point their own president, whose
duty it shall be to call meetings on
the written request of a third of the
corporation.
We regard this as a forced con-
struction of the sentence. The OBJ
vious meaning is that the presiding
officer of the corporation for the
time being, whether he is the Bishop
or his commissary, or the Arcbdeaeon
or the Senior Priest, or the sppointee
of the trustees, is subject to the re-
quirement of calling meetings at the
written request of one-third of
the members of the corporation.
The proyiso is very evidently
parenthetical. Moreover the con-
struction claimed by the respond
ent would practically destroy the
power given to one third of the
members of the corporation of calling
meetings; for the contingency pro
vided for when the corporation shall
be without q bishop, eommisssry,
archdeacon or priest is so remote that
8 right based upon it would be ordi-
narily of very little account. Nor is
it conceivaae why a distinction
should be made in the charter be-
tween one kind of president and an
other as to their powers and duties
of calling meetings The respondent,
however, accounts for this distine
ton upon the basis of provision of
the bylaws, whereby the power of
calling special meetings is given only
to the Bishop and his representa-
tives, and it thereby became neces-
sary to provide for special meetings
in the contingency of the appoint
ment of q lay president who has no
power given him by the by laws to
call SPECIAL meetings. The argument
has some plausibility, but less so, 10
Us, than the counter argument that
the section was framed to provide
generally for calling special meetings
on the motion of q portion of the
members of the corporation, in addi- |
ton to the right given to the Bishop
and his representatives by the by
laws If there was no uroVision for