The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-01-25
DECISION PLEASED
ALL THE PARTIES

II s unusual FOR the attorneys repre-.
sonting the plaintiffs and defendants, re-
Fpcctiyoly TO have agreed upon sub.
mission Of facts and hope for the same
decision. This was the case In the ac-
tiOn brought by the Puma Sugar Com
pany against the Territory of Hawaii.
When Attorney General Dole represent
ing the Territory, and MIR Hatch, repre-
scnting the plaitin, submitted their ar
guments. they both practically agreed
that the law was unconstitutional and
should be so declared This was their
assumption, but the Attorney General
desired that the Supreme Court decide
the question OF its constitutionality or
.unconstitutlonality.
The question arose as to whether "A
property owner should be prohibited from
clearing his land within $50 feet of any
natural forest as covered by the penal
laws. The decision was in favor of the
plaintiff.
The Supreme Court yesterday rendered
its decision, the opinion being written by
Justice Galbraith, and concurred in by
Justice Perry and a. G.. NJ. Robertson,
sitting in place of Justice Frear
/ The syllabus says: Sections 1917, 1918 and
1919, penal laws, making 1t INSIDE
meanor for any one ito cut, mutilate or
destroy any forest tree or growing
shrubbery, or underbrush within 2JO feet
of any road which may have been, or
hereafter may be, constructed by the
Government through any natural forest"
without providing any method for COM
pensatng the owner thereof, constitutes
"A taking of private property for public
use within the inhibition of amendment
8 to the United States Constitution, and
for that reason are void.
] The facts set out in the submission are
as follows: The Puma Sugar Company
is the owner in fee simple of a tract of
land at Waiakahula, in Pahoa, District
of Puma, Hawaii. The land borders on
a road constructed by the Hawaiian Gov
eminent in part through a natural for
est
The Puma Sugar Company within the
three months just past has been engag-
ed in cutting and destroying forest trees,
shrubbery and underbrush on it's said
land within $50 feet of this highway. I re
company claims it has full right, and
lawful authority to SO cut and clear the
forest, shrubbery and underbruSh
The Attorney General, however, claim
ed the company was liable to prosecution
and fine for so doing, Notwithstanding the
same are growing upon land of the sugar
company, in accordance with the penal
law sections quoted above. The compa-
ny. on the other hand claimed these
sections We're unconstitutional and void,
as they would deprive the company of
it's property without compensation, and
without due process of law, and was
contrary to article of the amendments
to the Constitution of the United States.
1t was agreed by the parties that in
case said law was held to be unconstitu-
tional, that judgment would be rendered
in favor of the company, otherwise in
favor of the Government of the Territory
! of Hawaii.
The opinion says: "1n forbdding the
plaintiff to cut trees or underbrush, etc,
on its land within $50 feet of the Gov
eminent road, there is such a serious in
terruption to the common and neces-
sary use of property will amount to
a taking within the rule announced by
the Supreme Court of the United States.
and no provision is made in the statute
for compensating the plaintiff for the
land SO taken.
at cannot be claimed that the public
morals, health, or general welfare of
the country. require strip of natural
forest $50 feet in width along the Gov
eminent road. The conclusion that the
statute is void, necessarily follows,
whether it be considered as the attempt
ed exercise of the police power. or that
of eminent domain. Let Judgment be
entered for plaintiff"
Hatch & Silliman for plaintiff: ID. =.
Dole, Attorney General. for defendant
-