Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-02-13

Nbll AlbhOAulN b'Nl Nh-
der licenses which are to be paid for
at the rate of $3.50 per annum. upon
condition that they do not either store
or sell upon the premises any foreign
manufactured beer or other spirits.
From the testimony of the defend.
ant, w. II. Wright, 1t appears that %
OF these licenses were issued between
July !. 1901. and November %. 1901
and the testimony further shows that
certain Of the licensees are now doing
business Hereunder.
Demands on Treasurer.
It further appears from the testimo-
ny of Mr.. Wright. that before the com.
menCement of these proceedings. the
plaintiffs. through Mr.. Robertson. one
of their attorneys made a demand up.
on him for license to Pll foreign
brewed beers for the sane fee requir.
ed under the law for license to sell
Honolulu brewed beer, to-wit $3.50
per annum, and the said defendant tes-
titled that he refused to issue said II.
Cense.
Thereafter. on November 10, 1901.
application was made in writing by
the compliments through their attor.
news, upon the said defendant. re.
questing the issuance to them of II.
Cense to sell beer by the glass and
in any other quantity less than five
gallons under the provisions of chap.
ter 40 Of the Session Laws of 1883 Csec.
tions i79-iS3, Penal Laws, excepting
therefrOm that provision which pre-,
vents the sale and storing on the
-
beer manufactured In HOnDluu: "
/ Thereafter. on the 2lst day of Novem.
Der, 1901, the said plaintiffs through
their attorneys, addressed another
communication to the defendant. in
4 which they complained OF the fact
that chapter 46 of the Session Laws OF
| 1883 was in conflict with the COnstitu
ton of the United States and void. as
discriminating in favor OF local beer
and against beer made on the Main
land in regard to the amount of the
license fee, and requested that he
cease to issue any further licenses un
der the conditions imposed by said
statute. tO.wit: those conditions
which prohibit the licensees from sell
ing other beer than Honolulu beer:
which said communication was &C
lnowledged by the defendant in let
ter dated November 2G. 1901 in which
he states that mo more licenses will
be issued for the time being"
No licenses as demanded were ever
issued to the compliments or any one
of them, as in the language of the de
PENDANT in his answer on file herein
lin the exercise of the discretion vest
ed in him. he refused to issue the II
censes hereinabovc requested and still
refuses to issue the same
Jurisdiction Of Court
While the real issue in this case Is
whether chapter 46 OF the Session
Laws of 1883 (now part V. chapter Al
OF The Penal Laws of the Hawaiian
Islands, 1897 Is unconstitutional and
void by reason of its discrimination
against the beer products of the othel
States and Territories OF the United
States, yet the jurisdiction OF the
Court on other grounds has been as
sailed upon the hearing, although NJ
plea thereto was raised by defendant
answer.
In the matter of Jurisdiction tive
questions are to be considered by tn,
Court:
First: Is there constitutional ques
ton involved in the case? and Second
DO the facts in the case shown al
amount of injury sufficient to enabl
the Court to assume and retain juris
diction in accordance with the prov
siOns Of the law giving jurisdiction T.
Circuit Courts in certain cases?
Section | of the Act of 1883 CVol
20, Statutes of U. s., p. 434D amenda
tory of the Act Of 1875, provides as To-
lows:
The Circuit Courts of the Unlter
States shall have original cognizanc
of all suits of a civil nature at CON
mon law or in equity where the mat
ter in dispute exceeds exclusive of II
terest and costs the sum or value G
$1,000 and rising under the Constitl
ton or laws of the United States"
There Is no doubt as to the bill {
complainants showing upon its face
sufficient case for the Court to TAX
Jurisdiction originally, alleging as
does both the statutory amount of II
jury and the fact that the Territorii
statute complained of Is in violatio
OF the Constitution of the Unite
States; and no plea having been file
r on the part of the defendant to tn
Jurisdiction. AS was said by the 81
preme Court of the United States
i the case of HartOg VS.. Memory, II
O U. S. 5SS, parties cannot call upon tn
Court to go behind the record "eXceI
by a plea to the jurisdiction or som
d other appropriate form Of proceeding
g The case is not 10 be tried by the pa
ties as II there was plea to the ju
isdiction when no such plea has bee
n filed"
{. This is not an action at law. 1t
an application for an injunction al
B., therefore within the equity jurisdi
ton of the Court. The injury cor
T. planned of II any be shown, is a co
tinuing one, and It has been frequen
ly held that in suit in equity whel
an injunction Is asked for, the amour
in dispute Is not the amount in contr
versy but rather the value of the o
ject to be gained by the bill.
In the case of Humes VS.. Smith,
Fed. SG2, where an objection was mat
to the jurisdiction of the court b
cause the amount did not exceed Il
sum of $1,000, the Court held that