Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1908-09-03

large portion of the qualified electors of the Territory and
County: that the later is also unconstitutional in that there
private agricultural corporations within the bou
diaries of said municipal corporation subject control ON
the Of the Territory except in the exercise of police power
their charters being within the meaning of the con-
tract clause of the constitution and that the void for the
further that municipal may he imposed on lands
strictly rural in character and therefore not capable of reev
ing benefits and advantages usually received from municipal
organizations and also because the boundaries of the municipal
corporation established by the Inaccurate indefinite and
uncertain.
The defendants dcmurcd the petition ON the ground that
1t docs not state facts sufficient to cnti the petitioner writ
OF mandamlls prayed for any relief whatsoever
The circuit judge reserved for the consideration of this court
the following questions arising under the petition and demurrer
for that purpose reporting the this court namely:
J. Does the petition for writ of man,amus filed ia
said proceeding facts sufficient to entite the petitioner
'on fnmeuth to writ of mandamns prayed for any
relief whatsoever?
Has the Act of the Legislature of the Territory of
Hawaii entitled AN Act creating Counties within Territory
Of Hawaii and providing government for the same been and
now Is repealed by Act of the Legislature the Territory
Hawaii entitled "An Act Incorporating the City County of
Honolulu approved April 3O A. d. 1907 and is the said act
entitled AN Act Creating Counties within the Territory of
Hawaii and providing Government for the same void and of
no effect and not binding upon the said respondents
ner or form!
Is the said Act of the Legislature of the Territory of
Hawaii entitled IAN Act Incorporating the City and County
Honolulu approved April 3Oh A. d. 1901 unconstitutional
and void and of no effect the being in conflict with and
opposition to Act of Congress of the United States of Amer
lea entitled AN Act to Provide Government for the Territory
of Hawaii" nasnuch as is
G An attempt part the Legislature of the Terri
tory of Hawaii grant corporation special and exclusive
privileges and muntcs without the approval of Congress
(2) That requires other and different qualifications
the electors under said Act than prescribed and provided for
in said Act of Congressman dsqualcs and DISTINGUISHES
large portion of the duly qualified electors of said Territory and
said County Of Oahu.
A. Is the said Act unconstitutional in that there
os private agricultural corporations embraced within the boun
darlcs OF said municipal corporaton sub control
the part of the Territory except in the exercise of the police
power their charters being contracts within the meaning of the
contract clause of the federal constitution which the States and
Territories prohibited from mpairing!
D. Is the said Act void for nasmuch as
% That municipal taxes be imposed lands strictly
rural in character and therefore capable of receiving the
benefits or advantages usually derived from municipal organ
lions! at HE@H
90 That the boundaries of said Municipal Corporation
sought to be established by said Act Inaccurate indefinite
and uncertain.
g. Should the Writ of Manams be issued as prayed for
The demurrer does specifically up the defendants
was not intended to up the plaintiffs ncapacy to bring
the nit If the objection had been raised he might have amend
by avcrring an impending unauthorized expenditure of public
money! thus bringing his within the rule in o.
"y Of The Territory, lG lIaw. go, ia We inclined
I" hold that private citizen who does claim that his prop
rights danger of being niurioy can
an adjudication that statute is unconstitutional since far
as political questions concerned he does represent the
public as in of unauthorized expenditures Our have
not gone to that extent and disposed extend their
authority Sec Territory Miguel Is IIaw 4O2 4O4, in which
it was held that whose rights not affected by portions
OF law regulating sales of Intoxicating liquor claimed by him
question ncr the circumstances and especially there
other sufficient grounds for sustaining the demurrer
pass upon the plaintiffs right.
Another question not raised by the pelng but argued by
counsel who by of appeared against the petition
whether the Territory ought have been made party
order that the attorney general should represent the interests
Z" the public The statute Sec 21O4 r. L., pcscrilcs the
writ may be directed public officers to compel them TO fulfil
any OF the duties attached to their office which may legally
required OF Them The county attorney who appeared the
supervisors Is "A deputy of the attorney general of the Terri
as "lrUoln lvisc IF
board OF supervisors (Sec 93, Ib) There no reason why
the attorney general should not have been heard without the for
malty of making the Territory party
1t is further claimed by the that the petition is prc
mature since for all that appears the defendants may vet pro-
coed under the County Act 1t is that they would be at
liberty to change their purpose they might be advised do So
MandamlS is said sis granted in anticipation of an
omission of duty, but only after actual default" Er parc
Cuhng o. |. S, 90 There OCCASION however, to- rule