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


which impose restrictions upon persons
holding licenses under the act. In
this connection It must be noted that
the bond required to be given by an
applicant for license shall, according
to the second" subsection of Section
2, be conditioned that he will in all
respects comply with the provisions of
this Act" Unless liccnsee. after hav-
Ing given such bond, could, in de-
Tense of an action for the breach of
the conditions Of such bond set up the
invalidity of the provisions of the sec
tions of the act following Section 2, II
would seem that he ought to he heard
upon such matters before the giving of
the bond. Counsel for the respondent
contend that such defense would be
open to the obligors in an action on
the bond That is at least doubtful.
Daniels VS.. Tearney. 1902 Y. S. AS:
State VS.. Cantwell, IL Mo. $50; Terri
tory vs.. Tue Bun, 90 Haw 267. And
we think II would not be inappropriate
to consider all questions which the pc
toner may be in a position to urge
irrespective of the point here made.
Gundling VS.. Chicago, ~ U. S. 1888;
Fischer VS.. st. Louis, 1874 U. s. 3Gl,
372.
On the other hand. some of the ques-
tons presented by the petitioner will
not be considered for the reason that
he is in no wise Interested In or con.
cerned with them. Within this cate
CORY fall the petitioners points above
numbered 2, 5ta) and Z, which, as the
petitioner does not claim to be labor
or or servant, cannot affect any rights
OF his. Likewise as to the point mum
bered 4, In which connection 1t Is
urged that the statute would prevent
a delegate Of labor organization from
advising laborers to leave the Terri
tory for the purpose Of lettering their
condition.; and would apply to a tour
list agent soliciting laborers to take a
pleasure trip beyond the limits of the
Territory, and to a newspaper publish
ing an advertisement of employment
to be had elsewhere in the United
States. The petitioner does not claim
to be either n delegate of labor or.
ganization, a tourist agent, or news.
paper publisher A statute must be
assumed to be valid until some one
complains whose rights II invades.
Though II may be said that an uncon.
stitutional statute must be wholly
void. yet Il is well settled that the OBJ
lection OF unconstitutionality will be
listened to only when II Is made by
one having legal interest In defeat
ing the statute. Clark VS.. Kansas
City, 176 u. S. ia; Cronin VS.. Adj
ans, 1872 u. s. l0S; Hatch VS.. Rear
don, 204 U. S. 1852; Territory VS.. Mi
guel, IS Haw. 402.
Proceeding, then, to the considera-
ton OF the questions presented for our
determination, the first point is, that
the license fee required by the statute
is unreasonable and void because of
its restrictive and prohibitiye charac-
ter. The Congress Of the United
States, through the Organic Act (Sec.
$50, empowered the legislature of this
Territory to enact "all rightful sub
jects of legislation not inconsistent
with the Constitution and laws of the
United States locally applicable" The
power Of taxation. therein included,
was conferred upon the local lcgisla-
ture with all the completeness and Of.
fectiveness with which that power Is
vested In and exercised b. the lcgisla-
turc OF any Of the States. Peacock VS..
Pratt, l2i Fed. NJ SO also was the
right to legislate in exercise of the
police power conferred. Territory VS..
lGuyott. . Mont 40.
Attacks upon the validity of any
statute enacted by the legislature of
the Territory in the exercise of either
of those powers will, therefore, fail uh-
less II appears that some provision of
the Federal Constitution or statute
of the United States has been trenched
upon. Walker VS.. New Mexico etc. X.
r. Co, 165 U. $. 1913, 60i. There is no
good reason why a single statute
should not include the exercise of both
the power of taxation and the police
power. In the case of Gundling VS..
Chicago, in which was involved the
validity of an ordinance of the City of
Chicago prohibiting the sale of cigar
cites by any person without first pro-
curing license, paying license fee,
furnishing bond, and complying with
certain other conditions, the Supreme
Court said, ut Is not a valid objection
to the ordinance that 1t partakes of
both the character Or a regulation and
also that Of an excise or privilege tax"
trS7 U. S. 1897. And In the case Of
Williams VS.. Fears, 179 u. s. go,
where the constitutionality of a stat.
ute Of Georgia, which imposed Just
such license fee upon emigrant
agents as that involved here, was sus-
tanned as valid tax, the court said,
ut would seem, moreover, that the
business itself Is Of such nature and
importance as to justify the exercise
Of the police power in its regulation"
Up. 275) A business may be both reg
ulated ana taxed under the one stat.
ute.
In addition to Williams VS.. Fears,
which must be regarded as conclu.
sire authority In support of the valid
ity OF the license fee provided for by
Section Of the statute. reference may
be made to the following cases In
which the rulings there made have
been followed. State VS.. Hunt, l29 n.
G. CSC; State VS.. Robertson, 1876 n. C.
5S7; Kendrick VS.. State (Ala.), 80 So.
1908; State VS. Napier IS. Co, Al s. Il.
ID. Those cases hold that the bust.
ness of emigrant agents Is one which
may be taxed and also regulated.
Counsel for the petitioner cite the
cases of State VS.. Moore, llS n. c.
69I, and Joseph vs., Randolph, II Ala.
400. An examination of those cases
shows that neither of them is an au-
flas..st a., 80 l., t,xs