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

ernor,. or he has the power to take away
from the counties property considered
necessary to their existence.
In regard to the property acquired by
the United States, the Territory of Ha-
waii stands in a trust relation. It is
one thing for Congress to entrust pub
lie property to appointive officials re-
sponsible, in the last instance, to the
President, and another thing for such
property to be left to the control of
elective officials.
If the possession, use and control of
property belonging to the United States
can not be transferred from the Ter
ritory of Hawaii to proposed counties,
the County Act is left in "a condition so
different from what it was when it
came from the Legislature as to make
it ar act of legislation on the part of
the court to put it in force.-Meshmeier
VS.. State, IL Ind, 4S2, Ass.
PLURALITY OF SUBJECTS.
Section As of the Organic Act pro-
vides:
THAT each law shall embrace but one
subject. which shall be expressed in
it's title"
In considering this point, it is well to
recognize and distinguish three classes
of cases in violation of the principle
above expressed.
First are the cases where the title
embraces more than the body of the
act. So much of the title as does not
refer to the body of the act is to be
treated as surplusage.
Secondly, there are cases where the
body of the act embraces more than
is indicated by the title. In cases of
this sort so much of the body of the
act as is not indicated by the title is
void.
In the third place are the cases
where the title embraces two or more
subjects, referring to two or more SINH
lar subjects in the body of the act.
The whole act, in such instances, is
void, because of the difficulty in choos-
ing between the subjects.
1t has recently been decided by this
Court in the case of Dole ct, al VS..
Cooper, that the title to the act in ques-
ton does embrace two subjects, and,
in effect, reads, IAN Act providing Ql
for the organization and government
of counties and districts, and ~ the
management and control of Territorial
works and institutions" 1t was also
decided in the same case that the body
of the County Act embraced two sub
iects.
This being so, it would be usurping
the, functions of the territorial legis-
lature for this Court to declare one
part of the act good and the other bad.
1t might be otherwise If, in the above
case. the Court had treated the Board
of Public Institutions as merely an
| excrescence. 1t treated it, however, as
coordinate with County Government,
made it equally subject, and, because
it was as much a subject as County
Government. the Court held that the
act violated Section 45 of the Organic
| Act.
1t is evident from a study of the
whole County Act that territorial mat
| ters were treated and considered
| throughout as well as matters relat-
| ing to counties alone.
| 1t is not contended by the plaintiff
that the Incorporation of these Sec
| lions in the County Act invaliQate the
whole act, although the sections them
| selves may be invalid because not en-
braced in the title, but they are quoted
/
much consideration to territorial mat
the Territorial Board of Public Insti-
| tutions was not a mere excrescence.
NOT PASSED AS AMENDED.
Section 46 of the Organic Act pro-
vides: =
| THAT a bill in order to become a
law. shall, except as herein provided
tpass three readings in each house, on
separate days. the final passage OF
! which in each house shall be by a
majority vote of all the members to
which such house is entitled taken by
| ayes and noes and entered upon its
| journal
| 1t can hardly be disputed that the
| County Act, as amended in the con-
| ference committee, was not regularly
passed by the House of Representatives
The question is, in part, at least
whether or not the adoption by the
House, on an aye and no vote, of the
! committees report was sufficient to
constitute passage of the bill.
To adopt the report meant, at most
that the House amended the bill in the
manner recommended by the confer
ence committee. It should then have
placed the amended bill on it's passage
but this was not done. As amended
the bill never passed the House at ALL
The courts have had to decide which
was the better evidence-the authenti.
cation of presiding officers, or the jour.
nal of legislative proceedings. In thi,
case, however, the court does not hav,
to choose between two methods of proc
because the facts are admitted. i.
There are many cases on the PROPOSE
ton that journals of legislative pro
tceedings may be used to impeach en-
rolled acts.
THE PRAYER
+ Many cases are cited at some length
under this head, and the brief closes
with the prayer that the County Act
be declared void, and that the case
be remanded to the First Circuit Judge