The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1907-09-24


there happen to be anybody here" he
called out, who halls from Ken
are entirely prohibited. Haucks case,
20 Ib. 1896, holds that later act with a
similar title does not authorize the sec
tions prohibiting sales in any county
upon a majority vote. We do not, how
ever, find it necessary in consequence
OF anything which appears in the deci-
sions cited to treat Act 119 as invalid.
AS said OF our County Act, I'VE find
nothing in the act which is not exress-
ed in its title in the sense of being in
cident germane and cognate thereto"
Castle V. Secretary, 16 Haw. 7S0.
The well-known reasons for requir-
ing simple and explanatory title in
order that lawmakers may not be mis-
led in passing bills containing subjects
of which they are not reasonably ap-
prised by the title has been stated in
numerous decisions of this court. n.
Sec. As Org. Act when the general
purpose is declared in the title. the
means for it's accomplishment, being a
penalty, will be presumed to be intend
ed as a necessary incident" Territory
V. Wong Feart, II Haw. 355. The act
entitled AN Act to Enact the Revised
Laws of Hawaii" embraced but one
subject and that expressed in its title
In re Tom Pong, Ib. 566. This provi-
sion, as it seems to US, has a proper
relation TO the other provisions. The
various provisions are not incongru-
Gus; they have a natural connection
with each other, and are fairly en-
braced in one subject, which is en-
braced in the title of the act. The pre-
sumption is that the act Is valid. The
provision of the Organic Act which is
now invoked should be literally con-
strued." Tibbetts V. Damon, Ib. 203.
The most prominent feature, per-
haps, of the act under consideration Is
not that sales are declared to be un-
lawful IL not licensed in conformity with
it's requirements. but that the grant
ing of licenses subject to the require
ments and directions of the act is dis.
cretionary not, as formerly, with the
Minister of the Interior or Territorial
Treasurer, but with the Board of Com
missioners.
Counsel for defendant wish US e
construe Sec. of the act as giving the
Board of Commissioners prohibitory
powers beyond anything that would
properly fall within the regulation re
| ferred to in the title, and then declare
the title too narrow as not including
| these powers. But 1t is the duty o.
courts to construe the language OF ar
| act. IL possible, SO as to avoid uncon
stitutionality Gu. s. v. Coombs, u Pet
~, and we should therefore rather b.
| justified in Holding that the prohioi
tory powers which might be implied
| from Sec. could be exercised only
| TO such extent as should not interfer,
with the object OF regulation express
ed in the title. Myer v. Car Co., 10
| L. S. 1, IL. To declare the act to b.
| invalid because its title IS too marrow
| to include the provision for boards o
license commissioners or statement O
the powers vested in them would be Al
unjust aspersion upon legislative intel
ligence and would unwarrantably frus
trate the exercise OF legislative powe<
The judgment appealed from Is ar
firmed.
q. c. Peters &C. r. Hemenway. At
torney General, with him on the brief
i for plaintiff.
! T. NJ. Harrison for defendant.