Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1905-11-25

in the Whitney mandamus matter,
made thorough analysis Of the ques.
tion of the making of county ordin-
ances and their enforcement. 1t was
held that the police ordinances could
be made by the Supervisors and that
they could e enforced in the Territor.
ial courts. Says the opinion of Frear
and Wilder:
The Legislature may delegate to
County Board of Supervisors power to
make police ordinances of a local ma
ture, such as ordinances relating to
gambling.
Under an act authorizing county
Boards of Supervisors TO regulate by
ordinance i" local police
and other regulations and af
fix penalty for the violation Of such
ordinances" held: regulate" should
be construed as make; the act auth
orizes county Boards of Supervisors
but not the people of county to make
ordinances against gambling, but not
to impose imprisonment as O penalty,
nor to make a violation a misdemeanor,
nor to confer jurisdiction on district
magistrates.
An ordinance need not contain an en-
acting clause: II may be valid If in
TACT made by the Beard of Supervisors
though purporting In its enacting
clause to have been made by the people
of county.
Prosecutions for violations of coun.
ty ordinances are criminal rather than
civil in their nature, as shown by var
ious provisions Of the county act
In tho nlSpnTa nf ctatYtory n
as to what courts shall have jurisdic.
ton of offenses against county ordi.
name es, the appropriate Territorial
courts have Jurisdiction according to
the general laws defining their juris-
diction over offenses against the Ter.
ritorial laws. The provision of the
county act that the County Attorney
shall be the public prosecutor for the
county and attend the Circuit Court IN
and for he county and conduct all pros.
ecutions therein for offenses against
the laws of the Territory and the ordi.
nances of the Board of Supervisors of
the county, is held, especially in view
OF other provisions. not to give Circuit
Courts exclusive jurisdiction of Of
lenses against ordinances.
Prosecutions for offenses against
county ordinances should be in the
name of the Territory.
The district magistrate having de
rlined to take jurisdiction of q com.
plant for a violation OF a county ordi
nance, and being held TO have such jur
isdiction, is required to take jurisdic.
tion, but is not required to act in a par
ticular manner.
nniniNn ~ kA L..
This Is an application for a writ OF
mandamus to compel the respondent
rs district magistrate of Honolulu, one
Of the judicial districts within the
county Of Oahu, to issue a warrant for
the arrest of each of five named per.
sons upon n sworn complaint charging
them with a violation OF an ordinance
made by the Board of Supervisors o.
the county of Oahu prohibiting the ex-
posure of gambling implements in a
loom barred so as TO make it difficult
OF access when three or more persons
ore present, or the visiting of such a
room so barred under such circum.
stances. and TO take Jurisdiction OF
such charge,-the said respondent hav.
Ing refused to issue such warrant or
take such jurisdiction solely on the
ground that he Nad no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of any ordinances
made by said Board of Supervisors.
The question that presents itself first
Is whether 1t Is in the power of the
Legislature to authorize county Boards
OF Supervisors to make ordinances Of
the kind in question. There can be no
doubt that such authority may be con.
flrrpn .itiag nd
corporations proper. 1t Is conceded for
the purposes of this case by counsel for
the respondent that such authority
may be delegated to counties also,
which are generally classed as quasi
municipal corporations. This, how
ever. is by no means clear.
1t is not usual to give such power
to counties. In a number OF states in
which 1t has been given. 1t has been
under express constitutional provi-
sions. Counties doubtless have not in.
herent or implied power, as municipal
corporations proper have, to make by
laws, but even In the case of municipal
corporations proper the power to make
police ordinances of the kind in ques-
ton, as distinguished from mere by
laws re.ating to the internal manage
ment OF the corporation itself Is held
to be an additional power-to be con.
ferred by express or implied grant, and
not implied from the mere character
of the municipal body as a corporation
proper.
No case has come to our attention
which holds that the Legislature may
not without express constitutional au-
thoriZatIon empower county to make
ordinances.
.'or instance, in Dunn V. Wilcox Co.,
the court, referring to a particular pro-
vision IN the constitution, said: 1T
WAS NOT INTENDED TO PROFILE.
1T THE DELEGATION TO COUNTIES
OF THE QUASI LEGISLATIVE POW.
ERS COMMONLY EXERCISED BY
THEM AS GOVERNMENTAL OR
AUXILIARY AGENTS OF THE
STATE, AND FOR LOCAL PUR.
POSES. THIS WOULD DE-
FEAT, RATHER THAN PROMOTE,
A '