The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-10-01


registry making OATH required law that he was
Hawaiian and the sole of the steamer exhibiting
the bill of sale and the mortgage and complying III other re-
spec with provisions of the law thAsubleet The Col
caused vessel be measured and her
correctly asceraned and August 18th st notified the MIN
lister of Foreign Affairs of the appeat; On the 18th of
August said reply Edo not propose to
make inquiry the British Consul at this port IN regard TO any
possible legal mpedment for the that it Is the pohcy
of this Government to grant no further registers to foreign punt
vessels excepting where such vessel have formerly been
under flag and the day respondent re-
fused petitioners application stating his reason Tor cn re-
sa that he was satisfied required by law that no legal
impeachment against the granting such register these
proceedings then instituted.
he true reason as disclosed by the evidence for the
spondens refusal grant the application that the Hawai-
ian Government had assured the unitee States Government
through its that pending the ratification OF
the Treaty Annexao Hawaiian register would be given
any foreign vessels.
"Secon $50 of the Compiled Laws only statute which
defines what entitled Hawaiian registry reads as
follows No vessel shall be entitled to be registered IN this
Kingdom, be deemed Hawaiian esel and entitled to
the privileges apperang thereto unesssuch vessel be wholly
owned by subject subjects of this Kigdom provided how
that vessel fitted out for the prosecution OF the whale
or fishery may be registered the OF part owner
of such vessel actually domced in this Kingdom whether
subject not
"Respondens contention that petitioner Hawaiian
citizen sound my opinion Article II OF the Consttu
ton of this Republic reads All persons born naturalzed IN
the Hawaiian Islands, and subject to tie jurisdiction OF the
Republic are citizens thereof This provision is clear and
ambiguous and must govern 1t may be that under the law Oh
Great the petitioner is also British subject but tins
under Constitutions 1t not
this add to Article H. limitation, restrictions which
the trainers of the Constitution did not tit to insert
The answer to the question of whether not the China
wholly owned by petitioner depends whether or not
the refers only the legal ownership to the exclusion
of all equitable or beneficial interests
In the first place. be doubt that bill of sale
proper for the transfer of the legal
title ship and that it is regarded In maritime courts
Those determine the ownership to be in the traneree by
bill of sale See In The San Jose Indiana, Gall 1885,
The Sisters, Rob. 159
en- my opinion he the of a ship within the meaning
statute who is the holder of the legal tle and matters
that he has, by deprived himself OF the use and
enjoyment of the property which he and protected himself
against liability for the expenditures possible losses conse-
quent upon such ownership Even taking the vew which,
think sustained by the evidence that the transfer OF the title
in this made solely for the purpose of obtaining Hawai-
ian registry for the vessel and that the petitioner practically
in the position of holding the property for the benefit
Pacific Mail S. S. Co., STILL being the holder OF the legal
title he is to be regarded the If it had been the in
of the legislature prohibit trusts In this connection
condition precedent to the obtaining of registry
that all persons equtab benefciay interested in the ship
in its profits should be Hawaiian subjects that intention
would have been expressed Both in England and IN the
United States the statutes concerning registry of vessels contain
specific provisions the point that in the nted States reqr
ing an oath the applicant that there subject cti-
any foreign prince state, directly indirectly by way
Of tst confidence or otherwise interested such ship
sell or in profits thereof With such statute,
be doubt what interests to be excluded
from the enjoyment of the privileges of registry But there
would be certainty under statute 1T were to be held
that the legislature therein referred to other than the legal
ownership For what equitable beneficial interests would
then be Within and what without the provisions
of the law?
Given moreover, the meaning of the statute is doubtful
and that is the least that be said OF IT.
still the holder of the legal title be regarded the
under the rule to conempoaneos Official construc
ton The evidence clearly shows that has been the unvarye
practice of the Department. since the enact
of the statute grant Hawaiian registers to the holders
legal title vessels under lust such circumstances as
exist this case, under circumstances differing only IN this
to wit that those instances the raneree would
the anseer charter of the vessel for SO years instead
mortgage and power of attorney the at bar lhe
construction thus the law by that department. while no
absolutely binding the courts is not to be set ASIDE but To-
the verv of reasons, if such construction cear
It be presumed that the Legislature has beer
construction placed upon the statute and yet ha
fit to enact any amendment
'The practical construction given doubtful statute b.
the public officers of state, and acted upon by the peop
thereof be consdered Is perhaps decisive,
doubt This similar in effect of judicial decisions
legislature presumed be cogzant OF such construction
and after long continuance, without any legislation encng
dissent will consider themselves warranted III adopting
construction and Official uSaS