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

Continued from Page Five.)
definite specifications. II there ha.
been a violation or evasion of the law
requiring the awarding of the contract
to the lowest bidder, after a public
advertisement for tenders damage Is
presumed to result to all taxpayers.
The object of the suit is to prevent
the violation OF the law. The conse-
quences which may result in case the
law Is disregarded are SO obvious that
no proof of actual pecuniary damage
IS necessary. In Champion VS.. Zabris-
kie the court on page 500 says
From the nature of the powers exer-
cised by municipal corporations the
great danger OF their abuse. and the
necessity of prompt action to prevent
irremediable injuries. it would seem
eminently proper for courts of equity
to interfere upon the application OF
the taxpayers of a county to prevent
the contamination of a wrong. when
the officers of the corporation assume,
in excess of their powers. to create
burdens upon property holders. Ger
tainly in the absence of legislation re-
stricting the right to interfere in such
cases to public officers of the state or
county, there would seem to be no sub
behalf of individual taxpayers should
not be entertained to prevent the mis-
use of corporate power. The plaintiff
comes within the rule. and no further
showing as to damages is necessary
under the facts in this case"
Lucas vs. Amer, etc, Co. 16 Haw.
s6-S7
In the late case of Castle VS.. Secre-
tary, where an injunction was sought
against holding an election under the
County Act on the ground that the
statute was unconstitutional the court
said:
THE defendant denying that the Act
is invalid for any of the reasons named
in the submission claims that even IL
the Act Were invalid equity has no
jurisdiction to grant an injunction
against him at the suit of a taxpayer
or OF a bondholder whose bonds are
not shown to be in danger of being
defaulted.
THAT the remedy soughtby the plain
tiff is available to him in his capacity
as citizen and taxpayer appears to
be within the rule in Castle ct al. VS..
Kapena. 5 Haw. % 1SS3)" The court
then cites with approval the cases OF
Champion VS.. Zabriskie 101 u. s. and
quotes Mr.. Justice Fields opinion, and
cites also the case of Larson VS.. DIN,
160 Mass. 102. The court then pro-
eeeds as follows:
''State decisions cited for and against
the exercise of jurisdiction such as is
claimed by the plaintiff are interesting
and of value to the student of law,
but as above stated, the question has
been decided by this court in favor of
the exercise.
1.-The U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit has held that an
early decision of this court modifying
a rule of the common law to the ex-
tent of giving to legal representatives
OF decedent a right of action for fatal
injury had the approval of the Or
ganic Act in its provisions for contin-
uance in force of laws of Hawaii.
Schooner Robert Levers ia, Fed. Rep.
$40
The Kapena case was expressly af-
firmed m Lucas VS.. Am, ETC., Co. p
S6. in which the court used the follow
ing language:
THE right of a taxpayer to bring
suit to restrain a public officer from
doing an Illegal act has been settled
in this jurisdiction since the case CT
Castle ct al. vs. Kapena, Haw 81,
QSS3). We see no occasion to depart |
from this rule, the argument that a |
taxpayer may not represent the wishes |
of the majority and that a question |
of public interest ought not to be ad-
Indicated at his sole instance, with no |
opportunity for expression of opposing
views, does not in our opinion, affect |
his right to an adjudication. Any per-
son citizen or not, accused of an of
Tense may raise the question of the |
constitutionality of the law under
which he is tried, and no one but him
self and the prosecution is entitled to
be hard upon it. Adjudicating the con-
stitutionality of the act in advance OF
county organization avoids unneces-
sary expense and complication If the
decision is adverse to the Act. and, If
IN its favor, furnishes desirable as
surance of legal protection to those
who shall be elected to county offices
besides having burdensome and expen-
sive litigation in respect of matters
so adjudicated.
While equity has not jurisdiction
TO determine political rights but is
confined to questions affecting rights of
property IL appears to US that the case
presented by the plaintiff is his capa-
city as a taxpayer comes within eQuit-
able jurisdiction for protection of prop
perty rights against acts of executive
officers under unconstitutional stat
ates" Il
Castle vs. Secretary, 16 Haw. 1861.
In the case of Lucas VS.. Amer
Haw-- etc. Co. IS Haw. 80, the court
expressly said that:
1T Is not necessary that the plain
till should show actual damage to
himself and all others similarly situ-
ated, as is contended by the Assistant
Attorney General. The cause of action
is the alleged improper awarding OF
contract"
Again they say: The object of the
suit is to prevent the violation OF the
law. The consequences which may re-
suit in case the law is disregarded are
so obvious that no proof OF actual pc
cuniary damage Is necessary"
Now In the case just cited Lucas
brought the action for an Injunction
solely on the ground of the illegality
OF the contract. He was not a party
interested excepting as a tax
payer. As the court said. 1.-THE object I
OF the suit Is to prevent the violation