The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-03-26

which the Judge the faIbiy of the human ;nd
men will shrink from exercising any he can con-
centiousy and with due regard duty and official oath decline
the responsibility The courts may declare legsla-
1--WE enacents unconstitutional and void not
because the judicial power superior degree or dignity TO the
Legislative Being required declare what the law in the
which before hem they enforce the cont
ton as the paramount law whenever legislative enactment
comes in conflict with it" Cons Lin. p. 1872.
The be attempt cover of the police
power effect appropriation of private property public
use without compensation Can the be upheld either as
exercise of the power of domain the police power
Eminent domain the right power of sovereign
to appropriate private property to particular for the pu
pose of promoting the general welfare 1t embraces all
where by authority of the and for the public good the
property of the individual is TAKEN without his consent for
purpose of being devoted particular use, either by
state itself by corporation, public private by private
citizen Lewis EN-. Dom. PIP and g. The author also
says that every s bound and enjoy his
interfere with the general welfare of the community which
he lives the enforcement of this last duty which pertains
the police power of the far the exercise of that
power affects private property Whatever restraints the le
ure impose upon the and enjoyment of property within the
and principle of this duty the submit and
for any loss which he may sustain thereby he
is without remedy 1t regulation and not taking
else of police power, and of eminent domain. But the
men the legislature passes beyond regulation and attempts
deprive the individual of his property of substantial
interest therein under pretene of regulation then the act be-
of eminent domain and subject to the obligations
limitations which attend the exercise of that power Id PIP
IA and 10.
In all constitutional governments of the obligations and
placed upon the of the power of eminent domain
is the provision written in the constitutions that private prop
erty shall be taken for public without making just
pensation therefor In constitution this provision found
the 5th amendment 1t has been held by the Supreme Court
of the United States that
necessary that property should be absolutely TAKEN
in the of that word bring the within the
protection of this constitutional provision There may be such
serious interruption the and necessary of prop
ery will be equal taking within the meaning of the
sttutlon." PumpeUy o. Green Bay Co.. 13 Wall. 166
In forbiddng the plaintiff underbrIsh, ETC.,
its land within hundred and fifty feet of the govern
ment road there such serious interruption to the
and necessary use of property will taking within
the rule announced by the Supreme Court of the United States
in the above and provision made in the statute for
compromising the plaintiff for the land taken 1t be
claimed that the public morals health the general welfare of
the community require strip of natural forest two hundred and
fifty feet In width along the road The conclusion
that the statute void necessarily follows whether be
dered the attempted exercise of the police power that of
eminent domain.
statute of the State of Wisconsin forbid any o drive
piles build cribs other structures in Rock River. The
Supreme Court of that State said Ths makes
lawful for the defendant who this ground and has the
use under Lppln anywhere
within the river for purpose 1t prevents the lawful
of his property takes away from him without
ton due process of law and denies the defendant the equal
protection of the laws 1t is therefore in direct violation Of
Article and XIV of the amendments of the Constitution of
the United States and of Section of Article of the State
Constitution, and is therefore void Any restriction
interruption of the and necessary of property
that destroys its value strips of its attributes that
the shall not his property he please takes It
violation of the Constitution The City of Jdmesve and
another .. Carpenter, II Wis p 301.
statute of the State of Missouri known the "B0e0drd
Law" under which ordinance of the city of St Louis
passed providing that all houses thereafter erected Forest
Park Boulevard should conform certain building ne 40
feet back from front of and making violation of thus
ordinance punishable a msdemeanor by the Supreme
Court of the State declared unconstitutional and void for
the that it violated that provision of the constitution
which provides that private property shall not be taken Tor
public without just compensation. No provision made