The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-12-09
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ACT.

THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ACT.
If it be true, as stated by R. w.
Breckons, at the town meeting of Mon
day night, that the only attack that
can be made on the County Govern
ment Act that would justify an appli-
cation for it's endorsement to Congress
is because it is claimed to contravene
Section 45 of the Organic Act, which
provides: THAT each law should en-
brace but one subject, which shall be
expressed in it's title" then the trivial
ity of the point refutes the necessity
for the application. Section Sc of the
same Act, empowers the territorial leg
islature to create counties and to pro-
vide for their government. The title
of the law in question, passed by the
Legislature and approved by the Gov
ernor at the last session is: AN Act
Providing for the Organization and
Government of Counties and Districts,
and the Management of Public Works
and Public Institutions Therein" The
object: of the statute, as expressed in
the title, is to organize and govern
counties, and this is too evidently zone
subject even to admit of discussion.
Congress intended that .'one subject "
not the details embraced within it,
should be defined in the title. dis
Ix- sub nf- n
ties and Public Works and 'Institu-
tons within the counties are clearly
within the subject of the legislation.
One speaker at the meeting said that
the Supreme Court had, Knocked OUT
the County Government. This is an er
ror. In that act, the legislature, de-
parting from the subject embraced in
the title which referred only to Public
Works and Institutions therein that
IS, in the counties, undertook to create
a Territorial Board of Public Institu-
fiops," to which it sought to transfer
public duties previously devolved upon
the Territorial Superintendent of Pub
lie Works. This attempted legislation
was contained in distinct chapter.
No. "a, having no relation to or connec-
ton with the organization and govern
ment OF. counties. This chapter the SUI
preme Court declared void. under Sec
ton AZ of the Organic Act, already
quoted, but the court carefully guarded
itself against the assumption that the
elimination invalidated the remainder
of the Act or any part of it, 1t did not
decide the case on the proposition that
the title embraced more than one SUBJ
ject, but on the ground that the Ter
ritorial Board was not within the SUBJ
ject.
We repeat, therefore. that, if the on
IL point of attack is that stated by
Mr. Breckons, it is not worthy of
serious consideration, for neither lay
men nor lawyers will claim that the
elimination of an Interpolation from
statute affects the statute itself The
plain fact is that the legislature had
acted, under authority, directly con-
ferred by Congress and the President,
and it only remains for the law as APP
proved to take effect upon the date
fixed by it's terms. 1t is not for the
Executive Department or any other de-
partment of the Territorial Government
to take the initiative in suggesting OBJ
jections to the law, which has been
regularly adopted, and must stand or
fan on its own merits. All questions
arising from its construction have been
presumptfvely considered by the legis-
iature, the action of which body is
final. unless and until it. is passed up
to the judiciary.
To ask Congress to ratify municipal
legislation within a territory is a dam
gerous precedent. That body is ma
tional and has no power to surrender. or
delegate its own functions. If it con-
firms the act, it passes the act, as
Congressional measure, and it cannot
deprive itself of the power of amend
ment or repeal. The effect of such a
course would be obviously and neces-
sarily to transfer local legislation for
Hawaii from Honolulu to Washing
ton.