The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-01-01

3. The County Act Is valid notwith-
standing each and every objection to
its validity mentioned or suggested in
the plaintiffs petition.
The power of the Legislature to make
whatever changes are made by the
County Act in the functions and du-
ties of the Territorial offices prescribed
by the Organic Act Is to be found in
the express power given to the Legis-
lature by the Organic Act to create
counties and town and city municipali-
ties within the Territory of Hawaii and
provide for the government thereof,
(Sec. &c. Organic AcD. 1t must be
taken to be true that Congress in
granting this express power intended
to modify and call special attention
to the Importance, in its opinion, of the
exercise of the legislative power, in
asmuch as the power would have ex-
listed under the general grant of legis-
lative power extending Ito all rightful
subjects of legislation not inconsist-
ent with the Constitution and laws Of
the United States locally applicable
(Sec. So Ib). 1t also ought to be taken
to be true that the kind of County
Government intended by Congress was
the same kind with which every MEM
Der of Congress was familiar, which
gave to the electors of each County
similar powers with those of Hawai-
ian electors by the Hawaiian County
,f hn
AS to the County Act containing two
subjects.
This subject was very deliberately
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, 10 Otto 447, I'm
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. r
This court has held in the Cooper
case that the requirement of the Or
ganic Act that each law shall embrace
but one subject which shall be eX-
pressed in its title" is mandatory and
not directory.
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 separate and
distinct subject from the main subject
of the Act as shown in the title, to-
wit: can 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"
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 1t 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 will apply only in
those cases where it is, impossible for
an inspection of the Act itself to de-
termine 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 ap-
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. 1903.
All this is explicitly recognized by
the Court in the Cooper decision in
which case the Court say of Section
10 or the Organic Act requiring each
law 10 haze but one subject that 1t
should be literally construed:" and
that an Act Should not be held void
on the ground that 1t conflicts with this
provision except in a clear case" Also
that 1T is sufficient If the various
f"''s VI an <ASt nave u natural con-
nection, are fairly well embraced In
one subject though somewhat general
and expressed in the title"
'd) 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 falling 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 20 so 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 Tho, tha