The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-01-11


dent James ". Pratt n The lanai in-
Junction proceedings was filed This af-
ternoon with Judge De Bolt boy Second
Deputy Attorney General = W.. Mil
verton. This Is the case whore l.. l..
McCandloss has secured a temporary
injunction against Pratt disposng OF
the governments Lanai lands The
brief by McCandless was submitted
several days ago
The reply brief calls attention to the
failure of the compla nant to answer
the two portions of the first brief for
Pratt wherein it is claimed that the
bill I'm equity is insuficiently verified
to entitle the plaintiff to relief by in
junction and secondly that an injunc-
tion cannot be granted upon a bin stat
ing conclusions of law. Counsel for
complainant argued that McCandless
was entitled to bring the proceeding
from the mere fact that the Lanai
lands which were producing rentals
were to be exchanged for other lands
for public purposes and was sufficient
Of itself TO Justify the court I'm the alb
.sence of any allegation i'm the bill that
loss or damage would result to the Ter
ritory and incidentally to L. l.. Nc
Candless as a taxpayer granting such
injunction.
1t is contended in the answering brief
that it is not the duty Of the respondent
at this stage of the proceedings to all
lege whether the lands which were to
be received in exchange for the Lanai
lands are income producing property
and will indemnify the territory from
possible loss drought such exchange.
The bill in equity should have shown
affirmatively that the loss of rentals
was not to be made good by the ex-
change. The court should assume, in
the absence of affirmative allegations
to the contrary that the acts of the res
pendent will be lawful and that in MAX
ing the exchange nothing viii be done
in violatoion of the local laws or the
Constitution of the United States.
The brief then takes up the argument
as to whether there will be any loss
to the Territory through the proposed
| exchange. The contention is made
that there will not be for It is pro-
posed to exchange the Lanai lands for
lands of equal value and greater inn
mediate service to the Territory. 1t is
in effect argued that through the ex-
change the government would secure
lands in fee simple for school purposes
that would be rental saving or revenue
saving.
1t is contended that McCandless viii
in no way personally suffer a persona
loss. Attention is called to the fact
that the annual rate of taxation is sci
by law and that McCandless could no
be compelled to pay any more than tina
rate Nor could he be called upon t,
pay any part of any loss should any
ensue to the territory through the La
mai transfer.
The brief cites number of iniunc
ton cases and enters into quite a.
extended discussion of the legal tech
nicalities of the case. Replying t
the contention that the proposed eN
change is against public policy be
case the Organic Act provides tina
no corporation shall acquire and hol
real estate in Hawaii, in excess 100
acres, the brief continues:
On page 21 of his brief, complain
ant thinks that the proposed eXchang
of Lanai lands is against public polio
because the Organic Act provides tina
no corporation, domestic or foreign
shall acquire and hold real estate
Hawaii in excess of 1000 acres an
> that all real estate acquired or hel
by such corporation or association
shall be forfeited and escheat to til
: United States. This is rather a ia
= fetched argument. The vices sougf
! to be reached by acts similar to til
provisions of the Organic Act relatin
to the holdings of corporations al
/. well known. They have no analog
/ to the facts in the case at bar. Nc
r only that, but the proposed exchang
of the Lanai lands comes neither will
in the letter nor even the spirit of til
Organic Act That portion of con
plainant's brief relating to the prov
sions of the Organic Act, as to wharvC
{ and landings (pages 81, 22) has NOR
strength when considered in view {
the provisions of the Organic Act a