The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-02-02
THE LANAI DEAL
DECLARED LEGAL
Majority of Supreme Court
UphoIds Big Land
Exchange.

BY a majority the Supreme Court
yesterday morning reversed Judge d
Bolts introductory decree overruling
the demurrer in the Lanai injunction
case. Not only that but, going into
the entire merits, the court sustained
! the respondents demurrer and dis
missed the bill. The case had been
fought out by George D. Gear for the
petitioner, L. L. McCandiess, and At
| torney General E. C. Peters and Dep
uty Attorney General F. W. MiIverton
for the respondent. There were two
respondents at the start, Cover
Carter and Commissioner Pratt. but
early in the fight Judge De Bolt had
dismissed the bill as to the Governor
matter, that of approval. could not be
| exercised before the act of the Com
missioner sought to be restrained had
been performed.
| Justice Hartwell writes the leading
| opinion, Chief Justice Frear a concur
ring opinion and Justice Wilder dis
senting opinion. In the leading opin-
ion the case is thus set forth:
THE CASE STATED.
This was bill to obtain an iniunc-
ton restraining the Governor and the
Commissioner of Public Lands from
exchanging for private lands certain
public lands on the Island of Lanai
having an area of 1868 acres of which
all but 1000 acres are held by one
Charles Gay under five leases ternin-
ating respectively February 9, 1907, of
74OO acres; November /. 1907. of 1900
acres; June %, 1908. of 5000 acres; jan
uary L, 1916. including the lands OF Ka-
moku, area 1921 acres, and Poomai,
area 907S acres, and January 2. 1925, OF
5000 acres, the total annual rentals be-
ing $780,
THE LAW FOUND.
Following is the syllabus OF the op1n-
ion of the court, showing the law OF the
case:
"Injunctions, as a general thing,
ought not to be issued upon statements
of material matters made upon infor-
nation and belief. An averment Of the
value and kind OF lands being largely
a matter of information and belief is |
sufficient.
Whether a bill by a citizen and
taxpayer to obtain an injunction to re- |
strain public officials from unauthoriz t
ed acts affecting public property exists
loss to the plaintiff, quaere.
1.-THE power of the Commissioner OF
Public Lands in the matter Of exchang-
ing public for private lands is not
R. L., and is not confined to lands not
under lease or to parcels of not over
1000 acres.
'Injunctions are not issued to re-
strain public officials in the exercise
Of discretionary power"
THE OPEN QUESTION.
AS to the point left a query in the
|
leading opinion shows that the right
Of a citizen to interfere through the
courts with official acts is held an open
question only with regard to the cir
of this case:
THE right of citizen and taxpayes
to obtain an injunction against official
acts involving unauthorized use OF
public funds has repeatedly been adju-
1icated in this court castle v. Min
Ister of Finance, Lucas V. Am. Haw. e.
& c. Co. and Castle v. Secretary Of the
Territory are cited) I'm the present
case the bill does not show whether
the loss of revenue from rent would be
offset by rents from land Of equivalent
value or by saving of revenue which
otherwise would be used. In the alb
sence of an averment Of loss none can
De inferred. The taxpayer would gain
from the transaction pecuniarily If the
Territory should thereby obtain prop
srty for such public uses as school
houses, for instance, for which other
wise legislative appropriations would
De made requiring increased taxation
and in such cases the plaintiffs only
interest would be his desire that the
public land laws be correctly admins
tered"
IN question ought not to be based on
the pecuniary loss, but on the broad
ground that any citizen may obtain
4 judicial inquiry into the validity of
such acts and an injunction against
them if found to be unauthorized"
But, in view of its sentiment on the
pecuniary issue raised, the court finds
It unnecessary to decide the question
Of the plaintiffs right to sue in this
case"
POINTS ELUCIDATED.
Justice Hartwell sketches the pur-
poses of the Hawaiian land laws away
back to the Civil Code of 1859. Re-
'erring to the contention that the pro-
viso in Sec. 276 Of the Revised Laws
If 1906 relating to public lands
by exchange, does not con-
exclusion Of the prohibition
Il in the land laws of sales of !