The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-03-06
POINTS FOR
MR. DOUTHITT
TO CONSIDER
Some Reasons for Revising His Preliminary
Opinion in the Matter OF KapioIani
Park Appropriations.

Editor Advertiser: County Attorney
Douthitt is quoted in an interview
published in the Advertiser yesterday.
as follows:
1.-The argument against the appro-
priations for the park is stronger than
that on which my opinion adverse to
the making of school appropriations
was based. For, while there is no
statute giving the county power to aid
the schools neither is there any such
specific prohibition of interference on
their behalf as, in the other matter,
the Kapiolani Park legislation implies"
The only legislation referred to by
Mr.. Douthitt is the statute which
places the park under the care and
control of the Park Commission and
prohibits them from disposing of any
part of the park.
Mr. Douthitt goes on to say that
the county has jurisdiction of parks,
in common with roads and public
grounds in general but can not spend
money on Kapiolani Park. because
<'this is trenching upon a matter for
which the Legislature has otherwise
provided. Any public grounds not by
statute under the care of the Homo
lulu Park Commission are on a differ
ent footing
Mr.. Douthitt himself says that the
above is not a final opinion. but only
his preliminary thoughts upon the sub
ject.
| desire to make the following sug-
gestions for consideration by the couu-
ty attorney, hoping that they may
Ghange his preliminary conception IF
the legal status of Kapiolani Park.
l. Kapiolani Park is in the fullest
possible sense a Public Park The
act creating the commission sets forth
that lands enumerated and COM
mitted to it's care are permanently set
apart as free public park and recre-
alton ground forever See Revised
Laws OF Hawaii. Section 765.
2. The fact that Kapiolani park is
under the special supervision of sew
eraI men called Park Comm 'ssion-
ers." instead of under the Superintend-
ert o. Public Works. who has posses
sion and supervision of most of the
pubic property, does not make Ii any
the less public property, for general
pubic use, than is Aala Park or Ma
Xxi Park. which are declared by sec |
ti,ns I'll and 772 of the Revised Laws
to be parks in the following wor,is:
THE following properties sit1ated /
at Kaliu and Makiki, are hereby de- |
clared and made free public recreation |
grounds The superintendent |
convert all of said property into free /
and public recreation grounds, and to |
maintain the same such for the use
ana hcuefit of the public
The only apparent difference in the |
status of the several parks is in the
personnel of the trustees who hold
them for the benefit of the public. In
the case of KaDiolani Park it is the
Park Commission. In the case of the
other two parks it is the Superintend-
ent of Public Works.
Mr.. Douthitt intimates that the fact
that the commission can not dispose
of Kapiolani Park, indicates that the
legislature has otherwise provided for
that park, but that the other parks
are on a different footing.
The statute prohibiting the sale of
Park is section 769, Revised
Laws. which reads as follows:
V"The said commission shall not have
authority to lease or sell the land COM
prising the said park or any part :
hereof
The statute prohibiting the sale of
Aala and Makiki parks is section 772
Revised Laws, which reads as fol-
ows:
THE superintendent of Public Works
$ directed to convert all of said prop
,rty into free and public recreation {
rounds and to maintain the same as G
uch for the use and benefit of the c
'ublic.' r
Mr. Douthitt's preliminary opinion