The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-11-20

, powers and duties: and az Sec. 46,
| which provides. among other things,
that, except under certain circumstan-
ces, a bill, in order to become 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 commended, 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 upoa 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 it's title" should be lib
orally construed, and that an act It
the Legislature should not be held
void on the ground that it conflicts
with this provision, except in a clear
case. 1t Is sufficient IL the various
parts of an act have 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. SIT.
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
uere form is of little consequence
Much room must be left for the exer-
c'se of legislative discretion lin the
wording of the title. 1t 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 lin 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 h"t nci;t ..tn,'y ar he.s 'se they
could not very we'll be separated o.
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. It 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 If the title were IAN Act
providing "a for the organization and
government OF counties and districts
of Territorial works and institutions"
This was clearly inconsistent with the
provision of the Organic Act above
quoted. Accordingly We must hold
that such portions of the County Act
as We're designed to create a Territor-
ial board of public institutions and to
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 of
1908 and Sections 4S4 and ass and any
other portions OF said Act necessarily
dependent thereon.
The order or decree appealed from is
affirmed.
Attorney General L. Andrews for
petitioners.
Kinney, Mechanism & Cooper and
S. II. Derby for respondent.