The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-03-24
Wateffult Decision in RaTr Of
Ih. Republic.
RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Oahu Railway the CIaimant-Cor-
pora,ion canno, Take Land
From the State.

The case Uf Jas y. kicEs Mt1istrf 81
Iatcrtur Vs. Oahu Railway a Land
Company has az iasl b~ca settled. The
matter. which has b~ca PcndinE sor
some time. Was an appeal on behalf of
the plaintin from the refusal os judge
Stanley to- sssuc an iujuncsiDa caJSsn-
inE the defendant from proc~ciinx
with the condemnation us land IN tio-
noluiu harbor.
This casc is one 90 the mos izPoss-
ant ever tried in the courts of Hawaii
The amount az stake is large and the
laW points raised arc important.
/ The opinion - written BY Chies
Justice Judd. Justice whitinE ooacur-
ring. Circuit JudE- Perry. sitting IN
plac~ % Justice FreAr. disqualified.
writes a separate but assentinE cPin-
ion.
4 The decision j. reached after an en-
hsustivc discussion of The quessIoa-
The effect of d ts that the iniuncsSon
should tr made perpetual
\ distinction is made bclucsn the
right Of defendants to exercise cmi-
ucnt domain over the property of In-
diyiduais and of the property of tbs
Republic. u Was held by pisintin that
the use to which the property Wouii
b. put By the Govcrumcnt would be- a
more public uss than that To which u
would b. put by dcfcadant- This ths
defendant dcnicd and stated morcovcs
that the loser court erred in weighing
this question.
Raudoiph on Eminent Dorrsain d
quoted where he states that the rtEh'
of domain cannot be exercised aEzins.
the state. aa ID ts held for such usfs
az the state may designate. The opsn.
ion proceeds as follozs:
If IN. property IN question is no.
subject tn the defendants rsEhs o.
condemnation. the iniuncsfua uas
properly issued and should - made
perpetual. NoE the right %.
the defendant company TO eoaacnu
privat. property for public usEs exists
only because this right has ben dele.
gated to q by the state through its ieE.
stature
The decision qlot.s freely frors shr
case of the Illinois C~ntrai Railroad
-
Part is a. follows
The position advanced bT The rail-
road company in support % Ste c-ziru
to the ownership us the szsbn~rEes'
lands and the right to the srccston %.
NhaTv~s. piers and docks ss its piezs-
uTc. or for its business Ia the hzrbos
of Chicago. would place every harbos
ir IN. cpuntTy at th. mercy % a major
icy % IN. legislature of ~. state "a
which the haraor ia situated
The state has the p-osscsssoa and
control of the uaviEablc waters nf ths
said hartpoF and ts a trustee thereof Go,
the pub,ic and cannot absolutely slssn,
ate such tutsrcss. The tznds unss,
the naviEab,c uatcrs ia and arouat
"a. territory us the uauaifan Govern,
msnt are hsih ia trust for che psb,s'
Uses % uaviEatipas
After eunsidsrjaE ths haraor fFoas,
age lease 20 The railroad By Miaissss
Thusston. and q coTTuspoatcaor bs-
tween tA- Nlnissrr and 80 corpora,
tion. the drcision Epes on to saYs
- certificate nf approval bT 80
cabinet. ia 2ccorissc. utsh The sat
utes. % The tpcsssna % ths oahu Rail
vay and Land Company. dos rot csrrJ
with it the TiEht 10 cna6rna lsnt
under naviEahtr waters % she hsras1'
q Hoaoiuiu and = right % usF ore,
the harbur. where the coatempoTzae
uus correspondence hrtutsn ths par
ties aed a coutsmp1ranrous lease -
tween them plsiniy indscstr thst sh'
ICpvsrumsnt hsf a eoafr2rY tntratioz
Isvsn though the iocatsoa sraTpEes
covers land uatcr naviEsh,r waferA-
| The derisipa takes uP aap:h@r ca
tenti1n q thc detsndant
-it % aisa nnntrnfsd hr hrfenAan