Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1909-01-22
LANAI DECISION
Continued from Page ~


granted. which. upon 'the motion OF
the governor. was dissolved and the
ill dismissed as tn him. Pratt dc.
INJURED to the bill and argued as
grounds thereof that the bill was I'm.
sufficient, that II did not appear that
he as commissioner. was doing or
about to do any act In violation of law
that plaintiff had no legal capacity to
sue, that no injury was threatened OF
otherwise to plaintiff. that he was not
sufficiently interested to- he entitled To-
~ injunction or to any relief in a court
of equity, that the complaint was mo-
properly verified and that the allegn.
ton that the defendant, as commits.
sloner, had no legal authority to OK,
change public lands, was a conclusion
| OF law. .
the demurrer was oyerruled. the
court holding that the plaintiff had the
| right to bring and maintain the suit
end that the proposed exchange of
lands was unlawful. Illegal and I'M
warranted" Ten days were given to
further plead. and In default of which
the injunction was to be made perma.
| nent The decree was reversed by IN,
Supreme Court Of therTorrItory. Is
Haw. 22l. This writ Of error was then
sued out and George r. Carter. gov.
Srnor, named therein ps a defendant
but the writ was subsequently dis
missed. as to him. on motion of his sue
cessor, the present governor
| The Supreme Court of Hawaii az
Bnmod. without definitely deciding. tina
the plaintiff had n right To m0lntoiu
the suit. The question of the validity
If the exchange II decided against Juy
| contention Of the plaintiff. holding thn.
The commissioner had the power to
make the exchange. OF the right ~
| plaintiff to sue. the court said that It
had been adjudicated In that court
that citizen and taxpayer had right
to obtain an Injunction against Official
acts involving unauthorized use of
public funds. To sustain this vicy the
court cited Castle v. Minister on III
nance Haw. q; Lucas v. Amer. Haw
h. & c. Co., lG Haw. so; Castle v. Sec
rotary of the Territory, 10. 769. II T.
an implication, from the comment o.
he court, that the ground of those de
cisions was the pecuniary loss that
would come to the taxpayer from the
lctiOn sought to be restrained. Blu
the court, however, went farther. ant
said that perhaps the right Of the tax
payer To RESTRAIN official acts affect
ing public property ought not to be
BASED on the pccuniary loss. however
trivial or cOnjcctural, but on the broad
ground that any citizen may obtain O
judicial inquiry into the validity o,
such acts, and an injunction against
them II found to be unauthorized.
The court remarked, however, that OF
recount of the view II entertained oil
the validity of the acts Of the officers
II would not decide the question OF thu
right Of the plaintiff 10 sue. On Meth
or question are we called upon to pass
nor are we required to decide whether
lthe land laws Of the Territory are Fed
eral statutes by virtue of section SO %
It's organic act, which provides tina
lts laws relating to public lands sha!
continue In force until Congress shal
otherwise provide" and that therefore
u Federal question Is Involved In tn,
case. We have held that the jurisdiC
ton Of this court can only be invoke,
,by a party having a personal interes
N the litigation. Smith V. Indiana, 10
u. $. 1873, liS.
The plaintiff has not such an Inter
est. Ilo sues MS a property owner an
> .aXpaycr and the relief he asks Is a
Injunction against the commissions
II public lands. To restrain him frOU
exchanging the lands described IN, IN
bill for other lands. II Is cOntCndG
that such action IL Illegal. becaus