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

the plaintiff should show actual dam
age to himself and to all others SINH
| larry situated as is commended by fht
Assistant Attorney General. The caus.
| OF action is the alleged improper
awarding of a contract, etc" Here i
appears that the Attorney General!
| office made the same claim in the Lu
cas- case as they make here. But the
Supreme Court said 1t was not neces.
sary that the plaintiff should show
| damage to himself and others, and
they lay down the broad doctrine. ''i1
there has been a violation or evasion
of the law that damage is presumed
to result to all taxpayers" They say
1.-The object of the suit is to prevent
violation of the law" and mo proof
of actual pecuniary damage is neces-
sary." If this was so in the Lucas case
it is SO here. The "object of this suit
is to prevent a violation of the law
/ and mo damage need be alleged as
damage is presumed to result to al
taxpayers" How on earth the Attor.
ney General can put forward the con-
tention he has in the teeth of this de-
cision ii is hard to understood unless IL
be that he thought that neither counsel
of these decisions or that they would
fail to discover them. Unless he ask
this court to override these cases and
refuse to follow them he must abandon
the contention made by him on this
point. Lucas brought his suit for in
junction on the ground that the con-
tract was improperly awarded and was
therefore Illegal. The respondents were
tho hfddnrC 20
pecuniary damage was claimed to re-
suit to Lucas or to the taxpayers. The
Territory would have received its quid
pro quo for the money to be expended.
There was no contention that they
would not get five dollars pieces for
five dollars pieces" They would have
received for their money its equivalent
in work labor and materials. The case
was not any different from the che at
bar. excepting that in the latter it is
known what the Territory win lose In
rent or rental and 1t is not known
what they will receive in exchange
therefor. The case at bar is much
stronger than the Lucas case for here
there is not merely a presumption of
SIS, 100000 in revenue will be lost, with
WI GNCA @ PkCoAAiPSioi lLoI II WALL bO
made up in the exchange.
In the face of such a declaration of
law as that contained in the Lucas
case how can this court view with
complacency the statement of the At
torney General that "the courts uni
formly hold that injunction will not
lie at the instance of a taxpayer to re-
strain the actions of public officials no
matter how wrongful, fraudulent or H.
legal such actions may be because the
damage, If any, which is suffered by
a taxpayer, under such circumstances
is precisely the same damage as that
suffered by every other resident with
in the jurisdiction" Grief p. 81.
How can the Attorney General have
the nerve to cite cases holding that
"a private individual can not maintain
a bill to enjoin a breach of public
trust without showing that he would
be specially injured thereby; when no
injury result to the individual the
public only can complain. Hence in
a declaration or bill the party COM
planning must allege and prove some
special damage different in kind an
degree from that suffered by the gen.
eral public?" Yet we find these words
in his brief q g. and some Illinois
cases cited to uphold it. But of what
use are such cases when our Supreme
Court has held directly a number of
times that 1.-THE right of a taxpayer to
bring suit to restrain a public officer
from doing an illegal act has been set
tied in this jurisdiction since 1888, and
that 'it-is not necessary that the plain
tiff should show actual damage" In
the last case decided by the Supreme
Court on this point w. r. Castle as
a taxpayer and bondholder sought to
enjoin the holding of an election under
the County Act on the ground that the
Act was unconstitutional.
The same contention was again made
as had been made before. the Attor-
ney General again contending that the
had shown no damage or
danger of damage. The Supreme Court
certainly at last lost patience with the
Attorney General for after saying that
the remedy was available to plaintiff
in his capacity as a citizen and tax
payer. they said that:
estate decisions cited for and against |
the exercise of jurisdiction such as is |
claimed by plaintiff are interesting |
and of value to the student of the |
aw'' but the question is settled here"
And again they state that:
THE right of a taxpayer to bring |
suit to restrain a public officer from |
1oing an illegal act has been settled in |
this jurisdiction since 1883, 1--WE see |
no reason to depart from this rule"
The court held that the question of |
The unconstitutionality of the act was
enough to authorize the action, and |
utterly repudiated the contention that
t was necessary to show damage or
LANCER OF loss. The doing of an ille-
gal act" by an officer was a sufficient
wrong to authorize taxpayer to main
ain an Injunction.
1t does seem to US that when a Ques-
ion of law has become so well settled
,y judicial determination as to call for
he remark by the court that a dis
,ussion upon that question and a cita-
ion Of cases is only interesting and
If value to the student Of law" It be-
zones presumption personified for the
'fficer of the Government to whom
hose remarks were addressed to claim
he contrary rule to be the law.
80 POWER TO SELL OR Elk
CHANGE PUBLIC LAND UNDER
LEASE.