The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-03-20
TEST CASE IN RE
MAUI BOND ISSUE
Suit Brought the Points That
May Affect Bonds of All
Counties.

bond issue, authority to dispose of
which was recently granted in Wash
ington. The suit is brought to clear
up some of the points involved, being
submitted on an agreed statement of
facts. 1t is brought by w. T. Robin
son, "a CITIZEN and taxpayer of the
County of Maui, Territory of Hawaii,
on his own behalf and on behalf of all
and singular the citizens and taxpay-
ers of said county, and is brought
against L. Nj. Baldwin, Treasurer of
the County of Maui A. Lewis, Jr.,
appears for the plaintiff, and County
Attorney Case and J. l.. Coke of Wal
luku for the defendant.
The case is of Importance to every
county of the Territory, as the main
matters at issue are such as would
affect the bonds of any of the coun-
ties The agreed statement of facts
is q recital of the history of the Act
of the Legislature authorizing the
bonding of county, the Act authorizing
the issue of the Maui bonds and the
various proceedings of the Maui super
visors regarding the bonds. On these
are submitted:
,"'The said W. T. Robinson as a citi-
zen and taxpayer of said County of
Maui contests and denies the right,
power and authority, and the said l..
M. Baldwin, as said Treasurer of tie
said County of Maui, affirms, declares
and insists on his right, power and au-
thority as said Treasurer of said Coun-
ty of Maui, to Autograph or steel en-
grave, and to have executed, and to is
sue, sell and deliver, the bonds and
coupons of the said County of Maui;
and the said w. T. Robinson, as such
citizen and taxpayer, contests and de-
MES, and the said L. NJ. Baldwin, as
said Treasurer, declares and affirms the
validity of said proposed bonds and
coupons, when issued, as valid and
binding obligations of said County of
Maui; and the said w. I. Robinson
states the following propositions in
support of his contests and denials,
each of which propositions the said
L. NJ Baldwin, as said Treasurer, dis
putes:
"(A) That Act 139 of the Session
Laws of 1907 is unconstitutional, in
valid, null and void, on the following
grounds, viz:
''First: That Section of said Act
139 of the Session Laws of 1907 of said
Territory is in conflict with and in
violation of Sections 4S, 40 and so of
the Organic Act of the Territory of
Hawaii
E3Second: That Section of said
Act 139 is delegation to the Presi-
dent of the United States of the pow
er of approval of an Act of the Legis-
lature of the Territory of Hawaii.
"'Third: That it was improper by
Section of said Act 139 to require
the approval of the President of the
United States of a bill passed by the
Legislature of the Territory of Ha-
wall
Fourth: That the said Act 139 re-
CURED the approval by the President
of the United States of the Act itself
and not the loan merely
"'Fifth: That said Act 139 is other
wise unconstitutional, invalid, void and
imperative.
"CB) That said Act IS of the SEES
sion Laws of 1907 is unconstitutional,
null and void and incapable of enforce
ment.
"(C) That said Act 65 and said
Act 139 are unconstitutional, null and
void and incapable of enforcement in
this:
First: That said Acts last men
toned are in conflict with Act AZ of
the Session Laws of 1903 of the Terri
tory of Hawaii; Act 55 of the Session
Laws of 1906 of said Territory; and
Act Al of the Session Laws of 1907
of said Territory
Second: That said Acts are an
attempt to impair the obligation of the
Territory bonds heretofore issued.
Third: That said Acts purport to
authorize the Treasurer of the Coun-
ty to issue bonds, the County itself
not being authorized to issue bonds.
(D) That the said County of Maui
as now constituted is without power
or authority by law to issue bonds.
(E) That the issuance of said
bonds is not properly authorized by
the President of the United States.
Cd That said Resolution $50 does
not comply with the performance of
the conditions precedent necessary to
authorize and render effective said Act
l39 or the said resolution which said
Act attempts to confirm.
"(G) That the conditions precedent
required by Section of Act IS of the
Session Laws of 1907, necessary for the
proper authorization for the legal is
suance of said bonds, have not been
with in this that by said Sec
ton 3 1t is provided inter ALA that No
bonds shall be issued until a resoi.-
ton authorizing the issue thereof SET
ting forth the term of the
proposed bond issue shall have been
passed by the Supervisors of the Coun-
ty and confirmed by an Act of the
legislature and that the said resolu-
ton No. $50, passed by said board, does
not definitely fix said term.
CID That said Treasurer is without
power or authority to issue or cause
said bonds to be issued, and that said
proposed bonds when issued would not
be valid and binding obligations of the
said County for the reason that said
Resolution No. $50 does not comply
with said Act S. nor does said Act 1879
comply with the terms of said Act 81.
I'D That said Act 139 is uncon-
null, void, imperative and
legally incapable of enforcement upon
the grounds stated under headings G
and H above set forth.
cd That the expenditure by the