The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-03-26
OPINION OF THE COURT BY GALBRA1rH. ].

Sections
inclusive of the Civil Laws The facts the subm
are as follows:
First That there is a question in difference between
parties hereto which might be the subject civil That
the parties hereto have agreed upon the following statement of
facts upon which said controversy depends and have agreed
submit the to the decision of the Justices of the Supreme
Court without suit
Second That said Puma Sugar Company the in fee
simple of of land Waiakahula Pahoa in the Dis
of Puma Island of Hawaii That tract of land borders
road constructed by the Hawaiian Government in part
through a natural forest
Third That said Puma Sugar Company within three months
last has been engaged cutting and destroying trees
hrubber and underbruh its said land within hundred
and fifty feet of said highway That said Puma Sugar Com
pany claims that has full right and lawful authority
and clear said forest, shrubbery and underbrush.
Fourth That it is claimed by said Attorney General that
said Puma Sugar Company liable prosecution and fine for
so cutting and destroying such forest shubbey and under
brush Notwithstanding the growing upon land of the
said Puma Sugar Company in accordance with Sections 1917
1918 and 1919 of the Penal Laws
Fifth That it is claimed by said Puma Sugar Company that
said Sections 1915 1918 and of the Penal Laws are
constitutional and void and that said sections said Penal
would deprive the said Puma Sugar Company of property
without compensation and without due process of law and that
said sections contrary the provisions of Article Fifth of
the Amendments the Constitution of the United States.
Sixth 1t agreed by the parties that in said law is held
be unconstitutional that judgment shall be rendered in favor
od Puma Sugar Company otherwise favor of the Govern
ment of the Territory of Hawaii
The of the Penal brought question as
follows:
Sec 1917 From and after the passage of this Act it shall
not be lawful for any person cut muae destroy any
forest growing hrubbery underbrsh within hun
ded and fifty feet of road which may have been here
after may be constructed by the Government through any nat
ural forest"
Sec 1918 This Act shall be construed prevent any
person may have already cleared and planted land
and underbrush hererom sufficient extent to properly
nue such cultivation prevent the holder of such lot
from constructing road o the of such lott
'Sec 1919. Any person violating this Act shall be fined
less than dollars than fifty dollars for each oense
The submission rece that the question in difference between
the parties might be the subject of civil action and thus
brings the within the provisions of the statute Sec 1885,
and counsel for each of the parties agree that this true
matter of law However, whether civil action between
these parties determine the consuonay of penal statute
could be successfully maintained matter free from doubt
and which need be decided There authorities
both sides of the question In favor Of Central Trust Co.
Citizens Street Ry. Co., so Fed. 225; Lattery Co., o. Hs
patrick, Fed Cases. No S541 Contra. Chon d Co. Com
mlssion1s OF Gasboro II n @. 2; G. B. O. Ry Co. o.
City of Otaa 14S Ill Those in favor of the uria
diction equity to be sufficient upon which to base
prma facie argument support of the maintenance of civil
action Even though should be finally held in such
that relief could be granted in civil proceeding between
these parties still the question of difference between them would
have been in fact the subject of civil action.
The plaintiff contends that this statute making INSIDE
meanor punishable with fine imprisonment for it o cut
mulate destroy any srubbey undebruh
its land within hundred and fifty feet of the govern
ment road contrary the Constitution of the United States
and vod that the effect of the statute to take its property for
public without just compensation in fact any attempt at
compensation that under the h amendment the Constitution
private property only be taken for public after just
pensation has been made for the same.
this contenon in fact comedies it be Still this does
not relieve the Court from responsibility in the premises
We recognize be of the highest duties of the Court
proper proceeding aside and annul void statute but
understand that should of its way to do this
declare law void its legality with judicial pro
prey be upheld at be evident" says Cooley to any
that the power declared legislative enactment void is