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

LANAI BRIEF
Continued from Page Six.)


wants the Organic Act changed to suit
his monarchical tendencies. In the re-
port of the Governor for 1909 which
report is public document and may
be referred to by the court, We find his
Recommended changes in the Organic
Act" He says first that a change
should be made in that portion of the
Organic Act limiting the term of a
lease of agricultural land to five years"
and that another limitation in the
land law that should receive attention,
with view of altering the same, is
that section which limits the quantity
of land that can be sold in any one
block. "-1905 Governors Report; article
by J. w Pratt, p. AT.
Thank God, Mr.. Pratt can not by his
recommendation change the laws of the
Territory, and his own private views
can be of little account excepting as
they may bear upon the reason of his
present endeavor to violate the laws
of the Territory by transfer of over
half an entire island to private par
ties.
If we have officers of the Government
with such views as those held by Mr..
Pratt, what will become of all our pub
lie lands if citizens and taxpayers are
not allowed to intervene? When we
have laws upon our statute books re-
quiring the Attorney General to defend
such officers, who. we ask, will be found
to restrain the officer from doing an il
legal act? The Attorney General would
not do it, for he must defend the Gov
eminent officer. The words of the court
in the Kapena case may well be para
phrased to read:
ITO deny the right to taxpayer
would be to say that there is no remedy
and no way by which a Land Commits
sioner minister of the CROWN can be
prevented from doing an illegal act.
Impeachment is too shadowy and un-
certain to be thought of as an ade-
Quate remedy. If only the Attorney
General can promote such a matter, the
answer is, that he is on the other side
1t is apparent that if there is to be a
proceeding in the case at bar it must
be brought by some other person than
the Attorney General The Attorney
General is bound by the statute de-
filming his Office to appear in defense Of
actions brought against Government
officers. He does so in this CASE
Castle VS.. Kapena, Haw. %, IS.
Are we to suppose that Congress in
passing this Organic Act limited cor
porations to one thousand acres and
permitted the Territory to turn over to
a single individual forty-seven thou
sand six hundred and sixty-nine acres?
In the face of the Organic Act and the
statutes how can the Commissioner of
Public Lands interpret the law in such
way as to give him the power to
trade off forty-seven thousand acres Of
our public land? If he can trade off
forty-seven thousand acres to a single
individual there is nothing to prevent
his trading off all of the government
land (Which amounts to forty-one per
cent. of the whole area of the Is
lands) to a single individual under the
pretext of receiving equal value, which
value is fixed by himself as sole judge.
Such power was never intended and
does not exist. Can your Honor think
for a moment that Congress intended
that one man should have such power
as respondent claims when it was so
strict in regard to the thousand-acre
clause, and the five-year clause as to
leases? We have no fear as to what
the answer of this court will be.
In conclusion we would submit that
under the law complainant has the
right to come into this court of equity
and ask to restrain the respondent |
from doing the illegal and unauthoriz-
ed act which he threatens to do. We
are satisfied that we are clearly right |
on both points raised in this case and |
that we are entitled to maintain our |
action and upon proof of the facts |
therein stated we are entitled to a per-
petual injunction restraining and en- |
joining respondent as prayed for.
The demurrer should be overruled.
Respectfully submitted,
GEO. D. GEAR,
Attorney for l.. L. McCandless.
Dated at Honolulu, January Z, 1907.