The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-02-28

@ Board of Supervisors. Q
o o o Q . o Q o Q o o Q Q o .
ject to the Commissioners or Public
instruction, was read.
Lucas said that he understood that
the county attorney had rendered an
opinion on the subject and asked that
it be read.
Adams replied that he had taken up
on himself to bring the matter to the
notice of the county attorney and to
ask him for an opinion
County Attorney Douthitts opinion
was read. 1t ran as follows:
DOUTHITT'S OPINION.
Honolulu, Feb. 27, 1906.
Hon. E. r. Adams, Supervisors at
Large, County of Oahu.
Dear Sir: In response to your re-
quest made on the Goth day of Febru-
airy, 1906, as to the powers of the
Board of Supervisors with reference to
making appropriations for the support
of schools, payment of teachers, etc, I
beg to say as follows:
L thoroughly appreciate the neces-
sity for aiding the schools, for [ am
aware that the amount appropriated
py the Territorial Legislature is not
sufficient to maintain proper standard
in one of the most important branches
of government, viz, the public schools.
But, however, much as the present con-
dition as to the public schools may be
deplored, still, the Board of Supervisors
can do only such things as are con-
tanned in the County Act, or, by reason
able and necessary Implication, may be
attributable to them.
Defining the extent of power, limita
tions and canons of construction with
regard to municipal corporations, Mr..
Dillon says, in his work ON this sub
iect, as follows: cit is a general and
undisputed proposition of law that a
municipal corporation possesses and
can exercise the following powers, and
no others: first, those granted in ex-
press words; second, those necessarily
or fairly implied in or incident to the
powers expressly granted; third, those
essential to the declared objects and
purposes of the corporation-not SIM
ply convenient, but indispensable. Any
fair reasonable doubt concerning the
existence of power is resolved by the
courts against the corporation, and the
power is denied. Of every municipal
the charter or statute by
which it is created is it's organic act. |
Neither the corporation nor its officers
can do any act, or make any contract. I,
or incur any liability, not authorized |
or by some legislative act ap
plicable thereto. All acts beyond the |
scope of the powers granted are void. -
Dillon on Municipal Corporations, Vol. |
1, Sec. 80.
ONLY POWERS DELEGATED.
1t is a well settled principle of con- |
struction of grants by a legislative |
body to municipal corporations that |
only such powers and rights can be ex
ercised under them as are clearly com
within the words of the act |
Or derived therefrom by necessary inn
olication, regard being had to the OBJ
jects of the grant Any ambiguity or
loubt arising out of the terms used by
The legislature must be resolved in fa
vor of the public. This doctrine has
been sustained by the Supreme Court
Of the United States in the case or
Minton VS.. La Rue, % Howard, 435. /
IN subsequent cases, the Supreme Court
IF the United States has said that a
corporation ''can ex ercise
10 power which is not, in express terms
,r by 1alf lmp1catlOn, conferred upon
t. - Thompson VS.. Lee Co, Wall,
'2O; Thomas VS.. Richmond, II Wall,
,4a.
So, therefore, to ascertain whether
he Board of Supervisors of this COun-
V has the power to make appropria
ions for the maintenance of public
chools. we must necessarily look to the
provisions of the County Act. and as
ertain therefrom whether this power /
5 expressly given or whether it is +
.iven by necessary implication. Sub $
ivision of Section 9, Chapter Of {
he County Act reads as follows: i
''No county shall in any manner give
r loan its credit to or in aid of any {
erson or corporation, and any indebt- 7
dness or liability incurred contrary to \
his provision shall be void.' {
Continued on Page 81