The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-01-14
Continued from page H.

So much of Act 81, Laws of 1908
known as the County Act, as provide
new features in Territorial taxation no
incidental to county organization or
government, is void under the provision
of Section as Of the Organic Act, thai
each law shall embrace but one subj ect
which shall be expressed in its title"
Said void portion is SUCH an essential
feature as to vitiate the whole Act.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR, CT.
This is an appeal from a decree dis
missing a petition for writ of qteo
zgarra'tto brought by the Territory for
the purpose of inqriring by what au-
thority seven named respondents claim
to hold Office as Supervisors of the
County of Oahu. The real object oil
the proceeding is to test the validity OF
Act 81 of the Laws of 1908, known as
the County Act, most of the provisions
of which were to take effect by its terms
son January 4, 1904.
( If the Act is void, the respondents do
not lawfully hold the offices which they
claim to hold solely under that Act
No question has been raised by the
respondents as to procedure or jurisdic-
tion. but on the contrary they seem
equally DESTROYS with the petitioner to
have the case decided on the merits.
The arguments against the validity of
the Act are in general as follows:
I. That the Actawas never passed by
the House of Representatives as required
by the provision in Section 10 of the
Organic Act, that in order to become a
law the final passage of bill in each
house shall be by majority vote of all
the members to which such house is en-
f.@IaH falr f.yr
tered on the journal, in that, as con-
tended, ahe House journal shows that
the flnaI action in that body was the
adoption of the report of the conference
committee which recommended certain
amendments and does not show that the
bill as so amended was passed at all by
the House.
T. That the Act makes the County
Board of Supervisors an elective body,
contrary to the provision in Section So
Of the Organic Act, That the Governor
shall appoint. with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate, certain specified Off
GERS and boards and ''any other boards
of public character that may be create
by law"
3. That the Act creates Territorial
Board of Equalization consisting of the
Secretary, Treasurer and Auditor of the
Territory, not appointed by the Gov
ern9r, with the consent of the Senate,
at all as to one of its members, the
Secretary, nor appointed by him as
Hpenbers of the board as to any of its
members, contrary to said Section so of
the Organic Act.
q That the Act requires the transfer
to the counties, to be controlled by vari-
Gus elected county officials, of much
public property that was ceded by the
Republic of Hawaii to the United States !
by the Joint Resolution of Annexation
and was by Section OF of the Organic
Act placed by the United States in the
possession of the Territory of Hawaii,
to be controlled, as contended, by yari-
Gus appointiye Territorial officials until
otherwise provided for by Congress or
taken for the uses and purposes of the |
United States by direction of the Presi- !,
dent or of the Governor of Hawaii
). That the Act practically abolishes
the Offices of Superintendent of Public
Works and High Sheriff by transferring
most of their powers and duties to other
officers, contrary to Section Is of the :
Organic Act, which provides that there
shall be a Superintendent of Public !
Works, who shall have" certain enumer-
ated powers and duties, and Section 70
WHICH contains SlIIllldf piOSASAOI IA
regard to the High Sheriff.
6. That the whole Act is void be
cause it contains two subjects, one in !
relation to county government and one
in relation to Territorial works and
institutions and because, as contended, I
the title of the Act is likewise cores
double, in contravention of
Section As of the Organic Act, which
er6pides that each law shall embrace
Estsf one subject which shall be expressed
ineits title"
=. chat so many and such important
portions of the Act are void and in
effective that none of it can stand. /
We viii assume for the purposes of
this case that the first six of these argu-
ments are unsound. and base our deci-
sion on the seventh alone.
In support of this argument a number
of provisions in the Act were pointed