The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-11-17
FIRE AWARD
WAS LEGAL
Commission Acts
Not Subject to
Appeal.

The Supreme Court by an opinion
handed down Saturday, reversing
Judge Gear in the insurance compary's
suits against the Fire Commission.
cleared away all obstacles in the way
of the first payment of the fire awards
The unanimous opinion of the court Is
written by Chief Justice Frear, it being
held that the power of the Commission
Iii making the awards is final. Whether
this indicates a similar decision in re-
gard to fire fees remains to be seen.
missions action in charging fees for
certificates was illegal and this mat
ter is now also before the Supreme
Court.
The decision of the court will release
the $4,000 received from the United
States as repayment of interest on
bonds, and which is now in the Terri
torial treasury ready to be used in tie
payment of ten per cent of the IRE
awards. Auditor Meyers has pracu-
cally completed the making out of the
necessary warrants, and a payment OF
ten per cent of the total fire awards
will be made, probably within a few
days.
The decision is in the suits of the
Liverpool and London and Globe IN
surance Co., and the Sing Chan CO., to
compel the Fire Commission to amend
their awards so as not to make a &C.
duction for insurance paid.
Judge Gear by mandamus ordered the
Commission to make the amendment
desired, holding it's action to be Illegal
and void.
The question of awards to insurance
companies was first decided adversely
to them by the fire court, the commits
sioners throwing out claims on this
ruling, amounting to about $4,000. The
Supreme Court hold that this court
could not properly in a proceeding OF
| this kind review and correct the action
| of the Commission even if it erred IN
! it's decision of this question"
| The Supreme Courl also holds that
| if the owners of the claims are not re-
| quired as a matter of law to reimburse
| the insurance it could be argued with
| 4 good deal of force that they could not
| justly complain if the amounts already
received by them from the insurers
were deducted
| It is also said that the Commission
proceeded on the theory that the claims
provided for were morally, if not le-
gally, good and that it was only right
| that the public for whose benefit they
were incurred should share them with
! the immediate sufferers. 1t is further
said that even if there was remedy by
| mandamus that inferior courts could
not be compelled to decide a question
| in certain way, as was done in Gears
| order to the Commission.
I'm our opinion" says the court, the
statute under which the Commission
| acted made its decisions final and not
| subject to review by the courts. The
court might interfere if the Commission
declined to hear and decide a claim
that was properly presented to it or if
| it attempted to act beyond it's juris-
| diction, but they cannot review and
| correct it's awards within the scope Of
| its Jurisdiction"
''The subject matter and language of
| the statute as whole indicates inten-
ton to avoid the formalities and de-
lays of ordinary judicial proceedings
and to have the claims adjudicated by
| the application of horse sense rather
| than of strict rules of law
! The court further holds that the Ter
ritory can be sued only with it's own
| consent and suggests the legislature as
the proper body to apply to for relief on
| the part of the insurance companies.
Justice Galbraith writes a brief con-
curing opinion in which he holds that
the statute creating the Commission
and making its findings final is not I'M
constitutional.
The Supreme Court holds that the In
surance companies had no valid indie
pendent claims of their own, and that
| If the total amount should have been
awarded, the awards as made cannot
be corrected by mandamus.
~N0nrn Aa,o.,