The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-12-31

gave to the electors of each County
similar powers with those of Hawaii
ian electors by the Hawaiian County
Act now before the Court.
AS to the County Act containing two
subjects
This subject was very elaborately
argued and was decided in the Cooper
case above mentioned. There is no
doubt about the general rule that where
two subjects are contained in an Act
and only one of them is expressed in
the title the Act is good so far as that
portion of it which is expressed in the
title. AS the Supreme Court say in
Unity vs. Burridge. Is Otto AL, In
such case the provisions of the law
touching the object which is expressed
in the title must stand. Those rela-
ting to the other objects not expressed
in the title alone fall" By such a
construction applied to the County Act
only that portion referring to the Board
of Public Institutions is void.
This court has held in the Cooper
case that the requirement of the Or
SAINT -ASt tIe1l Set(it iein SiicAI CAiioAo
but one subject which shall be ex-
pressed in its title" is mandatory and
not directory
s That decision also held that the por-
ton of the County Act which provides
for "the management and control of
public works and public institutions
therein is void, being a separate and
distinct subject from the main subject
of the Act as shown in the title, to-
wit: An Act providing for the organ
ization and government of Counties
and Districts" a separate and dis
tinct subject with which the Counties
We're to have nothing to do"
i
But it does not follow either on prin-
ciple or authority that the rest of the
Act is void for, this reason.
The rule that the whole of an Act
is void if it contains more than one
subject applies only in those cases in
which it is impossible to choose be-
tween the two subjects, holding the
Act valid as to the one and void as to
the other.
But this rule VIII apply only in
those cases where it is impossible for
oh ilSDeClIOn Ol TIE ACI 1lSSiI G6-
terrnine which Act, or rather which
part of the Act, is void and which is
valid. Where this can be done the
rule does not apply, unless it shall app
pear. that the invalid portion was de-
signed as inducement to pass the valid,
so that the whole taken together will
warrant the belief that the Legislature
would have passed the valid part
alone.' Ib. Sec. 103.
All this is explicitly recognized by
the Court in the Cooper decision in
which case the Court say of Section
45 of the Organic Act requiring each
law to have but one subject that it
should be literally construed" and
that an Act Should not be held void
on the ground that it conflicts with this
provision except in clear case" Also
that sit is sufficient if the. various
parts of an Act have natural con-
nection, are fairly we'll embraced in
one subject though somewhat general
and expressed in the tit1e.'
Cd AS to the claim that the County
Act was not properly passed in con-
sequence of the House not adopting the
conferees report by an aye and no
vote, failing to take separate aye and
no vote on the express question, shall
the bill as now amended be passed.
Before considering the effect upon
the validity of the County Act of the
above mentioned legislative procedure,
the Court would have to decide that it
can and ought to go behind the Act
: itself and consult the Journal of the
House to ascertain whether the House
had complied with the provisions of the
Organic Act concerning legislation.
Defendants counsel submit that this
inquiry will not be made and that the
Act itself cannot be impeached in that
manner. The common law rule for
this is that the House journal is not
a record although required by the Or
ganic Act.
The general reasoning on which
Courts refuse to- look into legislative
journals for the purpose of impeaching
the legality of the enactment of a stat
ute is that the journal is liable to be
tempered with or being hastily pre-
pared to omit by mistake maybe
things which we know were done by
the Legislature and fail to record cor
rectly what was done
A further reason for the same view
is that no one could rely on a law being
valid until he had seen the journal of
each House and ascertained whether
the law had been enacted correctly.
Even then it would be essential, be-
fore finally concluding that there was
law to wait until the Courts had
passed upon these things. All this in
many cases would work incalculable
harm and uncertainty and cause griev-
Gus uncertainty about the validity of
laws. Legislative journals may not
be published or be accessible to the
public at large for a long time after
the laws are published and take effect.
In Field VS.. Clark, 143 U. S. 649-s71
(36 l.. E. 294-3O3) this question was
fairly presented.
! While claiming, then, as defendants
counsel do, that the County Act cannot
be impeached by showing from the
House Journal that it was not enacted
as required by the Organic Act, upon