The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-09-21

! thorlZe provision in the act settins
apart certain territory over which sales
are entirely prohibited. Hauck's case
| 20 Ib. S96, holds that a later act with a
| similar title does not authorize the sec
lions prohibiting sales in any county
| upon majority vote. We do not, how
ever, find it necessary in consequence
OF anything which appears in the deci-
slons cited to treat Act 119 as invalid.
AS said of our County Act. 1--WE 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. $50.
The well-known reasons for requfr-
ing a 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. 40 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-
Of he of
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. 2O3.
The most prominent feature, per-
haps, OF the act under consideration is
not that sales are declared to be I'M
lawful il not licensed in conformity with
its 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 i
Treasurer, but with the Board of Com
Counsel for defendant wish US to |
construe Sec. of the act as giving the |
Board of Commissioners prohibitory
powers beyond anything that would /
fall within the regulation re-
ferred to in the title, and then declare
the title too narrow as not including |
these powers. But it is the duty of
courts to construe the language of an
act, if possible, so as to avoid uncon-
GU. S. V. CoombS, Il Pet.
72), and we should therefore rather be
justified in holding that the prohibits
tory powers which might be implied
from Sec. 4 could be exercised only
TO such extent as should not interfere
with the object of regulation express
I'd in the title. Myer V. Car Co., 105
y. S. 1, II. To declare the act to be
invalid because its title is too narrow
o include the provision for boards of
license commissioners or statement of
he powers vested in them would be an
unjust aspersion upon legislative intel
igence and would unwarrantably frus-
rate the exercise of legislative power.
The judgment appealed from is af- ,
irmed.
E. C. Peters &C. R. Hemenway, At
orney General, with him on the brief)
or plaintiff.
T. NJ. Harrison for defendant.