The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-07-04

waii. in the case of Castle VS.. The
Secretary of the Territory, reported III
volume 16 of the Hawaiian Reports.
! has decided that the control of roads
/ and bridges transferred to counties is
| a modification of the powers and du-
| ties of the superintendent of Public
| Works. and essential to the control by
! counties of their own affairs. There
| fore, it would seem to me that what
ever power was given to the Superin-
| tendent of Public Works by the Session
Laws of 1892 with relation to the closing
of public highways, has been trans
ferred by the County Act 10 the Boards
of Supervisors of the various counties
But the Boards of Supervisors of the
various counties would not have. and
do not have, any greater power with
regard 10 the closing of public high
ways than was formerly possessed or
exercised by the Superintendent of
Public Works. 1t must therefore fol-
low that with regard to the closing of
public highways throughout the County |
Of Oahu. the Board of Supervisors OF /
this county would be subject TO the |
same restrictions and would be obliged |
to adopt the same procedure as was
imposed upon the Superintendent of
Public Works by the Session Laws of
1892. That is to say, with regard to the
closing of public highways throughout
the County of Oahu, the Board of Sui
pervisors of this county would be
obliged to proceed in accordance with
so much Of the provisions OF chapter
% of the Revised Laws as apply t.
the closing of public highways.
Further answering the request of the
Board OF Supervisors. would say that
L certain roads or portions of roads
within the County of Oahu are made
dangerous by use of the same by auto
mobiles, the Board of Supervisors
would have the power of regulating
the use Of the same by ordinance. This
is done in many of the cities on the
mainland when, by ordinance, certain
highways or public streets are made
boulevards, thus restraining heavy
traffic thereon. I can see no legal rea-
son why the Board of Supervisors could
lot pass an ordinance regulating the
Use of certain roads within the County
,f Oahu, especially when the use of
such roads by automobilists and the
raffic thereover by automobiles would
De made dangerous to the rest of the 4
raveling community thereon. In other
words, for the protection. safety and
I would rest within the police power
possessed by the Board of Supervisors
0 pass an ordinance regulating the
raffic of automobiles over certain
oads their use thereover being dan
-erous or unsafe TO the rest of the
raveling community.
[ have the honor to be, sir, very rel =
pectfuily yours,
E. A. DOUTHITT, is
County Attorney. County OF Oahu. @,
MANDAMUs PROCEEDINGS.
Notice of the institution of man -,
anus proceedings was given in the
flowing form: st
Honolulu. June %, 1906. sp
. kalauokaIani. Jr., Esq. County
Clerk. County of Oahu. Elk Oficio ~
Clerk. Board of Supervisors.
Dear Sir: L beg to inform You that,
pursuance of the request made by
le Board of Supervisors, l have this MI
~ instituted mandamus proceedings
,ainst J. II. Fisher. as Auditor of the
arritory OF Hawaii. 10 compel the is VI
lance of warrant for delinquent We
xes due the County Of Oahu. a
1 have the horor to be. sir. very truly 70
urs. E. A. DOUTH1TT, o.,
So"ii's y N''0i 1'' pa
STREET IMPROVEMENT.
The following communication from lay
,unty Engineer Gere came 10 hand: +or
Honolulu. T. H, July 3, 1906.
on. Geo. w. Smith. Chairman. Board
- ss,,r..,.,-iso,-r c,o,nt,, of oabu by
cir. IN re- the proposition of Brewer frfl
Co. for guttering on Fort and Hotel thi
reefs. 1 would beg TO state that 1 an,
d that the firm OF Lord & Belser are
2 only ones equipped to do the kind -
work proposed. This firm has an ere
reement with the Honolulu Road De wh
Continued on Page - the