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

| sAAVS nave JURISDICTION or COSnlZance
by law and to decide finally and with
| out appeal such matters as properly
come within their jurisdiction, and yet
IL would be a misnomer TO classify
such boards as courts OF justice. They
would be lawful bodies even If Con-
gress had enacted that ne court could
| be established by the Territorial Leg
| islature and that the judicial power
OF the Territory should be vested sole
| ~ in the supreme, circuit and dis
trict courts. See Ins. & Lumber Co.
v. Macfarlane, IA Haw. 4S9. Further
more, the act (Sec. -, in declaring
| that ''the exercise of the power, au-
thority and discretion by this act vest
ed in the board shall be final in each
case and shall not be renewable by,
or appealable TO, any court or trib-
unal," does not make the board in
dependent of judicial supervision. Its
power, while subject only to the limi-
tations and directions in this act con-
tained,'' is strictly subordinate to those
limitations and directions. If 1t as
sumes to do anything which is un-
authorized by the act or declines TO
do what the act requires of it, OBJ
servance of the law will be required
by judicial authority when properly in
voked. No review may be possible as
long as the board observes the limi-
tations and directions contained in the
act, and yet the wholesome jurisdic-
ton established by law continues in
full force to prevent abuses of dis
c-etionary power and for the enforce
ment of legal rights. In other words,
the board is not above the law which
! creates it.
(2) We cannot sustain the defend
| ants contention that he is deprived
OF his property by reason of anything
contained in Act ns. 1t does not ap-
pear whether he bought his beer after
or before April 80, 1907, the date of
the approval of the act, but, if he
bought it after, he did so with knowl-
edge that he could not sell unless au-
thorized by the license which he then
held or by a license which he ex-
pected to obtain under the new act.
If he bought before that date, he had
no assurance or right to believe that
the license would be renewed to en-
able him to sell after its expiration,
\ If the act should continue in force, or
that the act would not be repealed.
IF the public safety or the public
morals require the discontinuance of
any manufacture or traffic, the hand
of the Legislature cannot be stayed
| from providing for it's discontinuance
by any Incidental inconvenience which
individuals or corporations may suffer
All rights are held subject to the
police power of the State" Beer Co.
V. Massachusetts, 81 U. S. 80.
If he bought after the act was ap-
| proved, he also knew that he had no
vested right to license under it. II
is unnecessary to discuss the question
further, since the Organic Act, Sec.
80, provides, nor shall spirituous or
Intoxicating liquors be sold except
under such regulations and restrictions
as the Territorial Legislature shall
provide So that selling would be pro-
hibited in the absence of territorial
legislation regulating or restricting it.
As the present law expressly saves to
him any rights accrued under Act 81,
Laws of 1905, if he had any cause of
complaint it would be that the act
under which he was licensed made no
provision for selling liquors which
should be on hand at the expiration of
his license.
g. We do not sustain the defend
ants claim that the act is invalid in
containing more than one subject,
namely, prohibition as well as regula-
ton of sales, for the act does not pro-
hibit to any further extent than is nec-
essary or proper in reasonable regula'
ton of such sales. Regulating sales
implies restricting, limiting and defin-
ing their numbers and volume, and the
times and places of selling, and re-
quires the prohibiting of sales moi
made in conformity with the regula-
tions. To entitle the act AN Act tc
Prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Llq,
uor when Not Made in Accordance
with the Regulations Hereof" ol
When Not Made by Authority of Lii
censes Granted Under the Provisions
Hereof" would furnish no more hint OF
it's contents than is found in the title
ITO regulate the Sale Of Intoxicating
Liquors" If the act had been entitled
tain Cases, Prohibit the Sale of Intoxi
eating Liquors" the title would give nC
more information than is given by the
present title. Many cases are cited By
the defendant which do not appear t
go as far as his contention. In Brown
son V. Oberlin, IL o. 76, Oberlin, undel
a State law authorizing incorporated
villages to provide by ordinance
against the evils resulting from th'
sale of intoxicating liquors within tn
limits of the corporation, passed al
ordinance declaring 1t unlawful to sci
intoxicating liquors. 1t was held tina
the prohibitory ordinance was unau
thorized. In Cantril V. Sainer, 50 Ia
2s, regulating the use and sale Of in
toxicating liquors." was held not to au
thorize an ordinance which was zen
tirely prohibitory. There is no pre-
. tense at regulation" Sweet V. Wa
bash, IL Ind. II, holds that law per
mitting towns to regulate all place
, where intoxicating liquors are sold t
be used on the premises" did not au
thorize an ordinance prohibiting sales
state " Fay, "A y. J. L. 474, holds tha
authority to prohibit all sale Of intox
ating drinks and to license, regulat
or prohibit inns or taverns did not in
, clude authority to regulate sales out
aida of inns and taverns PauI ,