The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-10-08
HALEAKALA
RANCH CASE
CONTINUED from Page one,

fCcntinued from Page One.l
for the election of congressman, but
prohibits contribution at any election
at which a congressman is voted for;
therefore, if state officers are voted for
at the same election as congressman,
contributions for election of state and
county officers within the state are
prohibited.
els this legislation not beyond the
power of Congress for the same reason
as laid down by the supreme Court
of the United States In the Employers
Liability eases? In the latter case
Congress attempted to legislate not only
for the conduct of common carriers
while engaged in interstate commerce,
hut also the conduct Of carriers While
engaged In interstate commerce. NO
qualifications or restriction was named
bv Congress. The act was made 20
apply to the injury of any of the em-
pIoyes of these carriers, no matter
whether the injury had occurred IN
state business on a branch line IN the
state, or otherwise in infrastate bust
ness, as distinguished from interstate
business or commerce, and the Supreme
Court held that as by the act the TWO
were so interblended and could not be
separated. the act was unconstIJutlon-
| al. Likewise with the present act, Con
oress has so Iegislated as far as state
elections are concerned that 1t could
/ not be separated from elections OF rep
rasentatives, and if the act Is void as
/ to the states. and that being the man
j object of the act, the act would not be
enforced as to the Territories. that IS,
/ should the court find that it otherwise
was applicable to the Territories. -
The following citations from the En-
ployers' Liability cases Illustrate TINS
point.
ssThus the liability of common car
rier is declared to be in favor of any
of its employees. As the word any
! is UNQUALIFIED, 1t follows that. liability
| to the servant is eoextensive with the
business done by the employers whom
| the statute embraces; that Is, 1t Is IN
favor of any Of the employees OF all
carriers who engage in interstate bust
ness.
ssThe act then being addressed to all
| common carriers engaged in interstate
commerce. and imposing a liability up
| on them in favor of any of their EN-
/
| ton as to the business IN which the
carriers or their employees may be en-
gagged at the time of the injury, OF
necessity includes subjects wholly out
side Of the power of Congress 70 regu-
| late commerce
"Cnncluding as We do, that the
| statute. whilst If embraces subjects
| within the authority of Congress TO
| regulate commerce. also includes SUD
| iects not within its constitutional pow
or. and that the two are so interblended
| in the statute that they are lncapaoie
Of separation. we are Of opinion that
/ the courts below rightly held the stat
ute to be repugnant TO the eonstltu-
ton and uncomfortable.
The force and effect of this statute
i to prohibit contributions TO election
IF state officers. This is true because
II would be a contribution at an eiec
tian where a congressman is voted Tor
The contribution would not be Tor q
congressman s election and would MOI
he for ANYTHING over which Congress
controlled vet the wording of the act
would prohibit II.
AGAIN. can congress regulate the cor
nora+ions formed under state laws from
; contributing TO eleetions2 Does u
come within the constitutional powers
set forth in section i, Art. II We d.
: nat believe il comes within the pro
visions. ssti1nes. places and manner o.
holding elections
The eonstitutionaIitv Of this Law
was doubted IN Congress at the TINE
Of its passage.
= fNr. Keifer) Substantially all o.
Us. 7 think. are going to vote Tor I'M
bill. although it has elements IN II ina
suggest that it may be unconstitutional
The election Of members Of the Hous
of Representatives IN the dltferen
. states or in the general assemblies O