Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-11-18


--------------
ture, in that 1t takes from such Super
intendent a substantial part of such
powers and duties; and (i) Sec. 46.
which provides, among other things
that, except under certain Circumstan.
ces, a bill, in order to become a law.
shall pass three readings In each house
and that the final passage shall be
| by ayes and noes entered on the Jour-
nal in that, as contended, the House
journal shows merely that the report
of the conference committee was adopt.
ed by the House in the manner men.
toned and does not show that the bill
passed third reading in that body.
In sustaining the order appealed from
we base our opinion upon the second
OF these grounds, and express no opn-
ion upon the others.
II is true that the provision OF the
Organic Act that each law shall en-
brace but one subject, which shall be
expressed In its title" should be lib.
orally construed, and that an act OF
the Legislature should not be held
void on the ground that It conflicts
with this provision, except in clear
case. 1t is sufficient II the various
parts of an act have natural con-
nection, are fairly well embraced In
lone subject, though somewhat general,
land expressed in the title See In re
Walker, 9 Haw. III; Carter County v.
Sinton. 100 U. s. SIT.
But is this the case with the Act
| in question? Its title is An Act Pro-
viding for the Organization and Gov.
eminent of Counties and Districts, and
the Management and Control of Public
Works and Public Institutions there
in" We presume this title is unob.
jectionable from the mere fact that 1t
! iE in two clauses, each of which in form
sets forth a separate subject. The
mere form Is of little consequence.
Much room must be left FOR the exer-
else of legislative discretion in the
wording OF the title. 1t is unobjec-
tionable that the first clause of the
title in question there is added the
second in so far as county works and
institutions are provided for In the
Act, and doubtless these might be
provided for incidentally under the
first clause II the second were omitted.
How far provisions relating to Terri
torial as distinguished from County
matters could properly be included in
the Act incidentally or because they
could not very well be separated or
as declaratory provisions in order to
make clear the precise line of separa.
ton, we need not say. In this in
stance the Legislature did not attempt
to do anything of that kind. 1t at.
tempted TO create distinCtively Ter.
ritorial board of public institutions
land to transfer to II from dlstinCtively
Territorial officers matters in respect
OF which the counties were clearly &c
have nothing to do and in respect OF
some of which they In the very nature
OF the case would have nothing to do
II acted as IL the title were AN Ac
providing % for the organization anC
government of counties and districts
and 90 the management and contro
Of Territorial works and institutions.
This was clearly inconsistent with tn
provision of the Organic Act abov,
quoted. Accordingly we must holt
that such portions OF the County Ac
az were designed to create a Territor
ial board Of public institutions and t
transfer to 1t duties and powers there
tofore belonging to the Superintendent
Of Public Works is invalid. namely
Chapter Ga of Act 81 Of the Laws o
1908, and Sections 4s4 and 4S5 and an!
other portions of said Act necessaril.
dependent thereon.
The order or decree appealed iron
: is affirmed.
Attorney General l.. Andrews 70
petitioners.
Kinney, Mechanism 4 Cooper an
s. II. Derby for respondent.