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

Tor the Organization and Government OF
/ Counties and Districts, and the Man
| agement and Control OF Public Works
and Public Institutions therein. An
Act relating to taxation could cover both
F., Territorial and county taxation. Wheth-
er an act relating to Territorial govern
nent could properly cover county gov
eminent, or an act relating to Terri
torial taxation could properly cover
county taxation might be question
although under an act which according
! to its title related to state and county
revenues, but which contained a section
/ on municipal revenues, the Supreme
| Court of Tennessee held not only that
/ section but the entire act void. See
| Bugher VS.. Prescott, 20 Fed. 20. But
/ an act relating to county taxation or
j county government could not cover Ter
/ ritorial taxation No doubt a number
| of provisions in this Act could be sus-
tanned, not as parts of the Territorial
system of taxation but as incidental to
county government, although they relate
more or less to what were previously
parts of the Territorial system of taxa
/ ton. An act relating to counties Gre
ated in fully organized Territory with
a centralized government would natural
ly and probably necessarily contain some
such provisions. Lines of demarcation
and transfers would have to be made
and this could be done by inclusion, ex-
clus1on, amendment or repeal so far as
necessary for the purposes of providing
for the organization and government of
counties. But this Act goes much fur
Their than this. 1t provides for most
important changes in the system of Ter
ritoria1 taxation, and that, too, with
nothing in the title of the Act to indi-
cate this.
What is the result? The provisions
relating to county and territorial taxa
ton, covering nearly a fourth of the
entire Act, are interviewer, and were in
tended to be parts of general scheme
If the part relating to county taxation
would have to fall with the part relating
to Territorial taxation, the counties
themselves would be without the greater
portion of their contemplated means of
subsistence and the entire act would
necessarily fall. If the part re-
lat:ng to Territorial taxation could
be separated from the part relating
TO county taxation, then, if the
rest of the Act could stand, it would be
only on the theory that as to Territorial
taxation, previously existing laws would
remain iii force. There would then be
two systems of taxation, each complete
IN itself, with two sets of officers and
other machinery from top to bottom
with double expenses, two returns, as
sessments, etc, to be made in the case
of each taxpayer, the possibility of two
valuations by different assessors or
boards and two appeals, etc, in each in
stance, etc, etc. The Territory would
also have to collect most of the taxes as
fixed by previous laws, sufficient perhaps
to support the entire government as it
was previously, notwithstanding that the
greater part of the expense were TO be
hereafter borne by the counties The
counties would also have to collect the
rate which this Act purports to au-
thorize The people would then be taxed
much more heavily than was contem-
plated or is necessary. In view of the
extent to which the intention of the
Legislature would be frustrated and in
and hardship would result
in case the rest of the Act were allowed
to stand without the part relating to
new features in Territorial taxation. it
cannot be supposed that the Legislature
would have passed the rest of the Act in
is present shape. For the court TO sus-
-ain the rest of the Act under the cir
,umstances would be to assume legis-
alive power.
We fully realize that. as we have held
n the past, the organic provision relating
o titles of laws should be literally con-
,trued, and the court should sustain an
let of the Legislature, if possible. But
he superior law must control in a clear
:ase of conflict. The court cannot, nor
an a large majority any more than a
mall majority of the Legislature. over
de the organic law, however. much any
particular law or form of law may be
desired.
In our opinion the Act in question IS
old, the respondents are not entitled
o the offices which they claim, the
Iecree appealed from is reversed and an
appropriate decree in conformity with
his opinion may be entered in this
curt.
]. A. Mattfewrnan and c. R Hemen-
way, for the petitioner
Kinney. McClanahan & Cooper and S.
I. Derby. counsel in another case, ar !
tued on the same side, by permission. !
A. S. Hartwell, for the respondents.