The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-01-10

to 1000 acres of public land not under
lease. BY the express language OF
Section 344. Sections 250-254 are sub
ject to the provisions of Chapter %
Revised Laws, and therefore to Section
276 thereof. II then Section 276 limits
the issuance of land patents in ex.
change for deeds of private lands tc
public lands not under lease in par
cells of not over one thousand acres
and Section 254 is subject to Section
27e then the limitation of public lands
not under lease in parcels of not over
one thousand acres" applies to Section
254 as well. In this the law is clear
Counsel expressly admitting that Sec
ton 276 is a limitation upon Section
252, must also admit that the proviso
is Limitation upon Section 254. He
in no word in his brief contends that
the proviso to Section 276 is not also
limited to the subject of Section 276,
and does not claim that the proviso
refers to an unlimited area.
THE natural and appropriate office
Of the proviso being to restrain, qualify
some preceding matter, 1t should be
confined to what precedes it unless II
clearly appears to have been intended
to apply to some other matters"
Lewis Sutherlands Statutory Con-
struction End ed. Sec. 352.
Citing Pearce ". Bank SO Alo. 693.
Bank ". Collector, Wall, 495.
Savings Bank v. United States. Ia
Wall, 227.
Sutton v. People. las Ill. 279. "a N. E.
APO.
Commonwealth ". Kelly. Ut Mass.
221, So N. e. 691.
School District ". Coleman, SO Neb.
391. SIS. N. w. 1868.
Leader Printing Co. ". Nichols. G
Okl. 302. 80 Pac. 1901.
Bull v. Kirk 81 S. c. 395, 16 S. e. Isl.
''The proper function of a proviso
being to limit the language Of the Leg
islature, 1t will not be deemed intended
from doubtful words to enlarge or ex-
tend the act or the provision on which
it is engrafted. Where it follows and
restricts an enacting clause general in
it's scope and language, 1t is to be
strictly construed and limited to OBJ
jects fairly within its terms.
Idem, p, GA. citing:
Re Webb. "a How. Pr. 247.
Bragg ". Clark, so Ala 1863.
Epps ". Epps, IL Ill. App. 1856.
Roberts v. Yarbaro. Al Tex. 449.
Willingham v. Smith, 43 Ga. $50.
Blood v. Fairbanks so Cal. 420.
Butts v. r. r. Co., So Miss. 462.
McRoe v. Holcomb, as Ark. 306.
LOCKER v. Dairs, At Mo. 140.
Mayor v. Magreder, "a Md. 3S1.
Southgate ". Goldthwaite, Baby,
367.
clarks Appeal, 5S Con, 2o7, 20 At.
Rep. ass.
Covington v. Frank, II Miss. COG, q
So. 1000.
u. S. v. Dickson. Is Pet. 141.
In the case last cited Mr.. Justice
Story delivered the opinion of the Su-
preme Court of the United States. say
ing:
1--WE are led to the general rule Of
law which has always prevailed and
become consecrated almost as max
i'm in the Interpretation of statutes.
that where the enacting clause is gen.
eral in it's language and objects, and
a proviso is afterwards introduced, that
proviso is construed strictly and takes
no case out of it's enacting clause
which does not fall fairly within its
terms
u. S. Dickson, Is Pet. 141. 1s5; cited
In Lewis Sutherland Stat. Const. p.
CTS.
In Illinois t'the court said it would
seem that the same policy which die
tates a liberal construction of the stat
ute in furtherance of its general ben
ef1cial purpose would necessftate a re-
construction of an exception
by which it's operation is limited and
a abridged; but Independent of that con-
sideration the court held that provisos
should be strictly construed"
2 Lewis Sutherland Stat Const. End
Ed. p. CTS; citing Epps v. Epps. II Ill.
App. 1856.
If then 1.-THE proviso is to be confined
10 what precedes it, and cit will not
words to enlarge or extend the act or
provision on which it is engrafted and
it is to be strictly construed and limit
ID to objects fairly within it's terms"
he court must find that the proviso in |
question here is limited to the subject |
If the provision upon which 1t is en-
grated here, that is to public lands
lot under lease in parcels of not over
900 acres" and that it was not In
ended ito enlarge or extend" the pro-
yision upon which it was engrafted SO
Is to cover public lands under lease
n parcels of over 10000 acres" II 1t
s to be strictly construed and limited
o objects fairly within it's terms" how
an the court hold that it covers pub
ic lands under lease" and in areas
f lover 1000 acres each?' These lands
re not fairly or at all within its
erms, and we know this court will not
cyic Ia TO fhar, fharp |
And again, If 1.-The same policy which
ictates a liberal construction of the
tatute In furtherance of its general
eneficial purpose would necessitate a
construction OF an exception
y which its operation is limited and
bridged' and the proviso should be
trictly construed" how can this court
/ constituting the statute lin further
nee Of its general beneficial purpose"
{ restricting the sale Of public land
} public land not under lease" and .
nat in parcels of not over 1000 acres"
nd requiring such sale to be lat public
uction, arrive at any other con-
usion under 1.-The same policy which ,
ictates liberal construction of the ,
atute In furtherance OF It's general
aneficial purpose than to say that ,
lie provtso refers to public land not ,