Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-04-25


ton would probably be most COM
plicated and expensive one that might
well require an authorized commission
and considerable appropriation to
secure its satisfactory accomplishment.
The Governor is dead right in this
suggestion and we think these sug-
gestiOns urged by him as a justifca-
ton for the veto power would hardly
find parallel in any civilized country
where the veto power is known. Since
when in the condemnation of land
were legislators required to make
such Investigations as are called Tor
evidently by the Governor and with
the suggestion that he will exercise
his veto until they do find out these
things and can tell him all about IL?
Isn't the usual and ordinary way IOr
the Legislature to direct condemnation
Of certain property for the public use.
requiring the Executive to investigate
and to determine through the law de.
! partment of the Government who. arc
| the owners, just what their interests
| are, just who have mortgages, how
| require that an order of court and all
other necessary procedure be taken in
order to vest a good and perfect title
in the Government before the money is
paid and the title acquired? And what
warrant is there for the Governor TAX
ing the position that bill providing
| Tor the acquisition of water from the
owners thereof excludes the title OF
| lessees? Isn't a lessee one of the
owners? Does the usual Legislature
attempt to define every element Of
ownership or do they in company with
this Legislature OF sinners provide sim
ply for the acquisition Of property
from the owners. leaving 1t for the eX-
eCutive branch Of the Government to
sc grCgate the different owners without
attempting to rcCite that the word
without attempting to recite the word
owners" covers lessees, remainder
men, reversiOnCrs, estates en- til, trus-
tees. benefClaries, ETC.. etc, etc?
It is true that section 3 provides Tor
q method of eliminating the rights Of
lessees by substitution Of water priv.
ilegcs for coin. But even this is left to
the discretion of the Superintendent OF
Public Works, nor is II at all apparent
from section 3 that lessees are not con-
sidered as owners. 1t is true that the
phraseology of this bill is not entirely
harmonious and If the veto was to ap.
ply to every bill open to this charge
the average Legislature would hardly
get passed an appropriation bill. But
judged broadly and in the common.
sense light II is past reason to believe
that any judge out of Bedlam could be
found who would hold that the author.
ization to acquire this water from the
owners of the water rights would in.
clude only the owners of fee.
We do not mean to challenge as In.
defensible the veto taken as a whole,
but what We do contend Is that the
great bunk of the reasons given by the
Governor, II applied to legislation in
general would simply nullify legisla'
tive action. 1t is a serious question
and one wherein the veto may well
play its part, whether any property
should be condemned by special legis.
: lative action, whether or not all prop
erty acquired for public use, should
not go through the regular mill Of a
, condemnation proceedings under the
Judicial Act, whether or not this
should not even apply to power of eX'
changing lands with private individ'
uals to secure property for public use,
: the exercise of which has lately
brought so much scandal upon the
executive branch of the Government :
The power to exchange Is a useful one,
but some Governors might hold that IL
is so likely to lead to abuse that tne
power should be taken away. So, too,
special legislative action in regard to
certain particular property, may 50
be a bad precedent and therefore
should be avoided except as 1t leaves
! of condemnation. Men may differ on
| this proposition and a veto might in
! tervene one way or the other accord
ing 10 the views of the Governor. II
J is a broad question and one involving
!; general policy wherein resort to the
, veto one way or the other might well
be had, but for the Governor to base
7 his veto on any such twaddle as con
stitutes the great bulk of this veto is
! simply to bring the veto power down
J to where 1t is a laughing stock for the
public at large.
The broad question in this bill, as
It seems to us, Is whether or no the
bill does give the Superintendent OF
Public Works the option, either TO
buy for $4,000 or to acquire by con-
domination proceedings the property
iE question. II 1t does, what possible
harm is there in the bill passes ones
comprehension. If it does not, then,
OF course, it is a question for the Gov.
ernor to say whether he will sign any
law that attempts to fix the price
without judicial investigation.
The bill authorizes and directs the
Superintendent OF Public Works to
purchase or otherwise acquire, and