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

county; that the
are numerous private agricultural corporations within the bonn
diaries of said municipal corporation subject to control ON
the part OF the Territory except the police powcr
their charters being cotracs>witn the meaning the
tract clause of the constitutions and that the void for the
further reason that municipal may le imposed on lands
strictly rural in character and therefore capable of rcc
ing benefits and advantages usually received from municipal
organizations and also because the boundaries the municipo
corporation established by the Inaccurate indefinite and
uncertain
The defendants demurred to the petition the ground that
does not state facts sufficient cne the petitioner to writ
OF mandamus prayed for relief whatsoever
The circuit Judge reserved for the consideration this court
the following questions arising under the petition and demurrer
Tor that purpose reporting the to this court, namely:
j. Does the petition for writ of mandamIs rs filed ia
sand proceeding state facts sufficient enttle the petitioner
John Emmeuth to writ of mandamus prayed for or to any
relief whatsoever!
3 Has the Act of the Legislature of the Territory Of
Hawaii entitled An Act creating Counties within the Territory
oil Hawaii and providing for the been and
now repealed by an Act of the Legislature the Territory of
Hawaii entitled San Act Incorporating the CITY and Comfy of
Honolulu approved April 3oh 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 ehec, ana not binding the said respondents any man
or FORM
Is the said Act of the Legislature of the Territory of
Hawaii entitled An Act incorporating the civ and County If
Honolulu approved April Both A. D. 1907 unconstitutional
and void and of effect the being in conflict with and
opposition to Act Of Congress the United States of Amer
lea entitled IAN Act Provide Government for the Territor,
of Hawaii, inasmucl it is
~ An attempt on the part of the Legislature of the Terri
% "i lava" 10 grant to corporation special and exclusive
privileges and mmunics without the approval of Congress
~ That requires other and different qualifications for
e electors under said Act than prescbeand provided for
IN said Act of Congresand dsquafcs and DISTINGUISHES
aSe portion OF the duly qualified electors of said Territory
said County Of Oahu.
a. Is the said Act unconstitutional in that there are MINER
Gus private agricultural corporations embraced within the boun-
are OF said municipal corporation subject control ON
the part OF the Territory except in the the police
power their charters being contracts within the meaning the
c0htrac clause OF the federal constitution which the States and
Territories prohibited from nparng?
o. Is the said Act void for nasnich as
~ That municipal may be imposed on lands strictly
rural IN character and therefore capable receiving the
n'h' or advantages usually derived from municipal organza-
tionsg r
(2) That the boundaries of said Muncpal Corporoton
sought to be established by said Act are Inaccurate indefinite
and uncertain.
d. Should the Writ of Mandamu be issued as prayed for
Inc demurrer does not specifically the defendants
was not intended up the plaintiffs ncapacv TO bring
the suit If the objection had been raised he might have amend
" ny aVerrg an impending unauthorized expenditure public
money thus bringing his within the rule in Castle ~ Secre
"Y Of the Tertoy 1G Iaw 100 ia We are not inclined
hold that private citizen who does claim that his prop
e rights are in danger of being niuros affected can obtain
IN adjudication that statute is unconstitutional since as far
political questions concerned he does represent the
public as in case of unauthorized expenditures Our cases have
" gone to a extent and disposed extend their
authority See 1errtory Miguel IIaw 1902 4O4 in which
was hed ta one whose rights affected portions
'' law regulating sales of Intoxicating liquor claimed by him
" DC was not entitled to be heard upon the
h'er lhc circumstances asd especially
ether sufficient grounds for sustaining the demurrer wo do NOT
pass upon the plaintiffs right
Another question raised by the peadngs but argued by
"se VINO by consent of court appeared against the petition
whether the Territory ought to have been made party in
order that the attorney general should represent the interests
OF the public The statute Sec r. L. prcscrbes that the
may DC directed to public officers to compel them fulfil
of the duties attached to their office or which mov Ina I
required OF them The county attorney who appeared for the
supervisors Is "a deputy of the attorney general of the Terri
Tory Nnec' % County Act well illegal adviser of the
300 T\ :.
the attorney general should not have been heard without fine for
maty OF making the Territory a party
TURNER claimed by the counsel that the petition is pre-
e since Tor all that appears the defendants NAV vet pro-
eed under the County Act 1t is that they would be Mt
er 10 change their purpose they might be advised to do So
n"hoanS is SAID rs never granted in anticipation of an
omission Oh duy but only after actual default" Er pa,ic
o""g "a L. s. 20 There OCCASION however, to rule
upon tins objection to whether refusal made in advance