Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1911-05-15

raise any question other than that of
the validity of the single requirement
as to the fee, and that In any event
because the petitioner has not obtain.
ed license under the statute he
should not be allowed to raise any
question as to the validity of any of
the conditions or restrictions imposed
by the statute upon licensees. as well
as OF his further contention that, even
though the provision OF Section 2 re-
curing a bond should be held or as
sumed to be invalid, the remaining pro-
visions OF Section are valid and may
stand by themselves, II Is sufficient to
say that IL Is unnecessary to pass upon
them, for. assuming, In favor of the pc
titioner. that the provisions of Section
2 are not severable and that neither
the petitioners failure to pay or ten
der the license fee nor his failure to
obtain the license operates in the man
ner contended for by the respondent,
nevertheless the conclusion of the
court Is that the warrant and com
plant state a valid cause of imprison.
ment and that the petitioner must be
remanded to the custody of the re-
spondent. ! do not, therefore. express
or intimate AM opinion concerning the
merits of any of respondents conten-
tons just recited or of the point pre-
scented by petitioner by way of reply
that Section 2 requires bond securing
compliance In all respects with the
subsequent provisions of the act, that
the unconstitutiOnality of those provi-
sions would not be available as n de-
Tense to an action on the bond Getting
Territory vs. Tue Bun, 20 Haw. 267J
and that therefore he Is now In posi-
ton to question the validity of all the
provisions following Section 2. Nor do
think that the mere exclusion of the
evidence offered by the petitioner to
prove that he held an emigrant agents
license under the act OF 1905 requires
or justifies any different method OF dis
position of the constitutional questions
argued than would otherwise be aC-
corded the petitioner The ruling ok.
Guiding the evidence was. In my opin-
ion. correct. II the petitioner desired
to avail himself of the alleged fact that
he held "a license. or of the defense
that, holding a license under the earl
Ter act, he was under no obligation to
pay the fee prescribed by Act AS, he
should have chosen some method of
procedure, as, for example. a trial and
AN appeal, free from the limitations of
habeas corpus. His position. and only
possible position, upon this writ of ha.
beas corpus Is that. admitting II 10 be
true>as alleged In the warrant that he
has no license, Act As does not yalidly
require him to obtain one and that
therefore he can do the acts charged
without license under that act II
Is not AZ though he were endoayoring
ON mandamus to compel the issuance
of u license and the Treasurer were re-
sisting ON the ground that the license
fee had not been paid For the pur-
poses of this ease II rs sufficient To az.
sumo that tho petitioners failure To
obtain q liceuso, under either law, docs
not of ITSELF dohar him NJ the right 10
present The ubiertinuH OF uurunsliu.
tluuulity witch he has presented aud
then 10 bold, a8 We dn, thut an tho Obj
ioriiuuB which be- b. NOT tor other rrnr
auna prruluird nom udNuurlnU nIu