The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-04-07
trary to the specific provisions of the

| law.
The claim arises out of a eonstruc
ton of two stables and a paddock al
Hilo in December, 1908, authorized a!
an emergency measure by the BOARD
of Health and the Superintendent OF
| Public Works, Mr.. Holloway.
| Senator Knudsen said that the ma
! jority of the committee had reported
unfavorably on the bill because the Law
| states plainly that no contract for q
| sum in excess of $500 be undertaken
without the advertising for bids.
President Smith took the floor in
| support of the bill. He said that il
was the same in principle as the Baker
| claim for which the Senate passed an
appropriating bill, carrying principal
| and interest. He stated that the work
claimants, and because of the fact
that government official had been
guilty of an oversight they should NOT
be compelled to stand the loss
''The question is whether we are
going to rigidly adhere to the law, -
ihe said, "and I do not see how we
are going to do any violence to our
duty by passing this bill. -
Senator Knudsen said that the letter
of the law should be obeyed and that
he was determined to oppose appropri-
atoms for the payment of claims arts
ing out of the oversight of govern.
ment official.
Woods Favors It.
Senator Woods said that he consid-
cred the claim illegal, but insisted that
it was based ON reason and justice.
There were no negative votes when
the motion was put to pass the bill on
second reading.
The favorable report of the Judi
eiary Committee on House Bill No. $50
was adopted, passing the bill on second
reading. It amends the law defining
burglary So as to increase its effective
ness.
House Bill No. 156, giving deputy
sheriffs the right to serve Circuit Court
papers, passed second reading.
Senate Bill No. "a, legalizing clear
ing house certificates, was deferred
until Thursday on the motion of Sen
ator Woods, who stated that there was
a person who wished to be heard in
opposition to the bill.
The Homestead Bill.
The Judiciary Committee reported
favorably on House Bill No. 70, pro-
viding for the exemption of family
homestead from forced sale. President
Smith questioned several provisions of
the bill and it was referred back to
the Judiciary Committee on the motion
of Senator Chillingworth.
The reasons for advocating the pass
age Of the bill, given by the commit
tee, are summarized as follows:
.sSection 1880 of the Revised Laws
Of Hawaii is a copy of the statute
which has been on our statute books
since 1852 1t is absurdly out of date
and inadequate. That statute gives
the exemption of two hundred and fifty
dollars worth of real property as
homestead and one-half acre of taro
land The comfort of our people has
improved since 1852 and no head of
family should be stripped of his home
if it is proved worth more than the
paltry sum of two hundred and fifty
dollars. Two thousand, five hundred
dollars is a fair medium valuation for
exemption as shown by study of the
statutes of the sixteen States which
have been available here. The exemp-
ton ranges from $1,000 to $4,000 worth
of realty, exclusive of the dwelling
thereon.
tsThe object of such statutes as are
found in Illinois, Michigan, Kansas,
Virginia. West Virginia, Arkansas, Col
orado, California and other States is
briefly stated in the Encyclopaedia of
Law Us EncyJ $3.50 as follows:
90 s'rhe principal, if not the sole OBJ
iect of most homestead laws is to pro-
tect debtors and their families in the
possession and enjoyment of homes so
as to give them shelter beyond the
reach of financial misfortune.
g The policy of the government is
to give a man a chance to regain his
business standing even if he becomes
bankrupt, by allowing him a home to
live in and keep his family from
want.
Law Is Inadequate.
eve think that the present statute
is not sufficient protection to the head
of family. If the head of a family
is so unfortunate as to become bank
rupt, we do not think that it can be
said at this day that it is good enough
for him if his creditors let him have
home worth two hundred and fifty
dollars and one-half acre of taro land.
Therefore Section 1880 of the Revised
Laws should be repealed and this bill
take it's place.
eve have examined this bill care
fully and find that it is fair to the
homestead claimant and to his eredi-
tors, if he have any. Protection is
given to the creditor if the hame is
worth more than $4,000, and means
given to realize on the excess value.
If the declaration is fled before any
debts contracted. the home-maker is
protected with his family from forced
sale. The text of the measure is
copied in great part from the Califor-
MIA Statutes which have been in use
for many years with good effect"