The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-11-18
PUBLIC WORKS
KEEPS BUSINESS
SUPREME COURT DECIDES A.
GAINsr THE BOARD or TER
B1TOBIAL INSTITUTIONS

ItllbltlAI INSTITUTIONS
The Supreme court yesterday render
ed "a unanimous decision sustaining the
decree of Judge Gear I'm the county bill
case. but hasing the decision on differ
ent grounds from those set forth by
Gear. As to the grounds on which
Gear held the Board Of Public 1usti-
tutions to be illegal and several other
grounds which were argued. the court
expresses no opinion, finding It to be
sufficient that the act is contrary to
the provisions of the Organic act I'm
that il embraces more than one sub
ject.
The suit was a petition by Governor
Dole ct al, members of the proposed
Board Of Public Institutions, asking for
a writ Of mandamus to compel Henry
Il. Cooper, superintendent of Public
Works, to turn over to them the insti-
. tutions which the county bill said
should be under control of the board.
As a result OF the decision the public
works department retains its import
ance as territorial bureau. instead of
being almost legislated out of business
. The opinion of the court by Chief
Justice Frear, is as follows:
This is an appeal from an order de-
nying a writ of mandamus to compel
/ the respondent to deliver to the petit
| TONERS the control of all matters rela-
! tive to harbOrs wharVes, pilots and
towage, and of all property used in
connection herewith and the control
and management of the executive and
judiciary buildings at Honolulu. as re-
quired in terms by Sections ASA and
4S5 of Act 81 of the Laws of 1908, COM
monty known as the County Act
Chapter ca (Secs 3SO-39D of that Act
purports to create a Board of Public
Institutions consisting of the Gov
ernor, Secretary, Treasurer, Auditor,
Superintendent of Public instruction
the Attorney General of the Territory
and to prescribe its powers and duties
1t purports to transfer to it many pow
ers and duties which have hitherto be-
longed to the superintendent Of Public
Works. The defense is that this chap
ter is null and void because it con-
flicts with the Organic Act and more
particularly with % sec. so which pro-
Vides that the Governor shall appoint
and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, certain officers and boards and
, amy other boards of a public character
that may be created by law" in that it
creates board of a public character
not appointed by the Governor at all
as to two of its members (the Governor
.
the PresidenO nor appointed by him
as members of the board as to any of
the members, although all except the
Governor anG Secretary are appointed
by Kim to their other respective offices;
(2) Sec. 49, which provides that each
law shall embrace but one subject
which shall! be expressed in it's title"
go. Sec. IS which provides that there
shall be a Superintendent of Public
al
certain specified matters, though sub
ject to modification by. the Legisla-
ture, in that it takes from such Super
lntendent substantial part of such
powers and duties; and "a 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
adopted by the House in the manner
mentioned 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 opin-
ion upon the others.
1t 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 a clear
case. 1t is sufficient if the various
parts of an act have a natural conneC-
ton, are fairly well embraced in one
subject though somewhat general, and
expressed in the title. See In re
Walker Haw. III; Carter County V.
Sinton 100 U. S. 5l7.
But is this the case with the Act in
question? Its title is AN Act Provid-
ing for the Organization and Govern
ment 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 it
is 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. II is unobjec-
tionable that to the first clause of the
title in question there is added the
second in SO far as county works and
institutions are provided for i'm the
Act and doubtless these might be
provided. for incidentally under the
first clause if 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 a distinctively Ter
ritorial board of public institutions and
to transfer to it from distinctively Ter
ritOrial officers matters in respect of
which the counties We're clearly to
have nothing to do and in respect of
some of which they in the very nature
of the case would have nothing to do.
1t acted as a. the title We're IAN Act