Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1906-02-28
Assisted
BY County Attorney Decide
Can't Help Schools
MARCH ESTIMATES CUT TO FIT

The Supervisors took the County
Attorneys advice last night and. for
the present at least, killed the PROPOSE.
ton of the County giving any financial
help to the public schools Of the Terri.
tory.
Douthitt's opinion given in full be-
low was read and. although the SEN
timent was expressed that there should
be some way of getting round 1t, some
way Of helping the schools. a motion
carried to file Superintendent OF Public
instruction Rabbits communication
inviting assistance and forward him
the Attorneys opinion, explaining tina;
the Board was powerless. as the Coun-
ty Act did not authorize an expendi-
ture such as was desired.
Superintendent Rabbits letter.
which has been published was read in
| full.
Mr.. Chairman" said Lucas. IL I'M
derstand. you have an opinion from
the County Attorney In this matter
and that he says we have no right to
MAKE any appropriation for the schools.
| ask that the County Attorneys opin-
ion be read"
County Clerk Kalauokalani then
read Douthitt's opinion. as follows:
pouthitt's Opinion.
In response to your request made
on the 26th day OF February, 1906, as
to the powers OF the Board OF Super.
visors with reference to making ap.
proprlations for the support of
schools, payment OF teachers. etc, |
beg to say as follows:
| \ fhNrnnnh1,,
sity for aiding the schools, for | am
aware that the amount appropriated
by the Territorial Legislature is not
sufficient ito maintain a proper stand.
ard in one of the most important
branches Of government. viz, the pub.
lie schools. But, however, much as
the present condition as to the public
schools may be deplored. still, the
Board OF Supervisors can do only
such things as are contained in the
County Act, or, by reasonable and
necessary implication, may be attrib
utable to them.
Defining the Power.
! Defining the extent of power. limita.
/ tons and canons of construction with
regard to municipal corporations, Mr.
Dillon says, In his work on this sub
ject, as follows:
1T Is a general and undisputed
proposition of law that municipal
corporation possesses and can exercise
the following powers, and no others
First, those granted In express words
second, those necessarily or fairly i'm
piled In or incident to the powers es
pressly granted; third, those Essential
4 ta thS AaHlaraA 81
OF the corporation,-not simply con
venlent, but indispensable. Any fail
reasonable doubt concerning the exist
ence OF power is resolved by tn,
Courts against the corporation, ant
the power Is denied. or every munic
ipal corporation, the charter or stat
ute by which II Is created Is its or
ganic act. Neither the corporation
nor Its officers can do any act. or max,
any contract, or incur any liability
not authorized thereby. or by som,
legislative act applicable thereto. Al
acts beyond the scope OF the powers
granted are void" Dillon on Munic
ipal Corporations, Vol. /. Sec. 80.
II is well settled principle of con
struction of grants by a Legislative
body to municipal corporations thai
only such powers and rights can b'
exercised under them as are elearl,
comprehended within the words OF tn,
act or derived therefrom by necessar,
Implication, regard being had TO tn,
objects OF the grant. Any ambiguit!
or doubt arising out OF the terms use,
by the legislature must be resolved II
favor OF the public. This doctrine ha
been sustained nv the SuDrpmp COur
OF the United States in the case o
Minton VS.. La Rue, 20 Howard. 436
In subsequent cases, the Suprem
Court OF the United States has sat
that municipal corporation ''can eS
arclso no power which is not In e,
press terms or by fair implication
conferred upon II.
Thompson VS.. Lee Co., Wall. 32t
Thomas vs.. Richmond. ~. Wall, 80!
Provisions Of the Act.