Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1911-04-19
Cp That he pay license fee

$4,000. /
The Comptroller had power to ap.
| prove or disapprovc the application
and the license was revocable at all
times for cause. The law exempted
all persons who had received on depos.
| IL the average sum of not less than
100000 during the preceding year as
well as individual bankers doing bus
J mess under the banking law, hotel
keepers, express companies. etc. The
| petitioner specifically alleged In that
case what he does not allege in this. I
that he has not the means to make the
deposit and give the bond and that the
enforcement of the law would drive
! him out of business.
II win he seen that as an abstract
proposition this law Is much more
onerous in its terms than the emigrant
| agent act now before the court. Moth
ing on the face of the law indicated
its purpose but the court states that
the business intended to be regulated
was one largely done with poor and ig-
norant immigrants especially on their
first arrival, and referred to "the quasi
patcrnal relations shown in argument
and by documents to exist between
those following the plaintiffs calling
and newly arrived immigrants" as
justifying a supervision more paternal
than Is needed in ordinary affairs.
Whether the court thinks them wise
or not such laws are within the scope
of the discretion which belongs to the
legislature and which II Is usual for
them to exert"
The court further says that the call.
ing Is one to which the requirement
of obtaining license may be attached
and cites the case OF Williams VS..
Fears, l79 u s.. 270, In which the Su-
preme Court said that the business of
emigrant agents was one of such ma
ture and Importance as to justify the
exercise OF the police power in its reg
ulation.
Another act which seems harsh on
its face is the Michigan statute regu-
lating sales in bulk. These sales were
declared to be void against creditors
unless the seller made a detailed in
ventory Of quantity and cost five days
before the sale and the purchaser de-
manded and received written and
: certified list of creditors and the
: amounts owed to each, and notified
each creditor personally or by regis.
tered mail five days before the trans
action.
| III lHt, dDStHtt vi u hUOWItUSt Oh
conditions surrounding such sales II Is
easy to see how court might consid-
or these restrictions unreasonable re-
straints on the freedom of buying and
selling. Yet the court took judicial no.
tice of conditions sufficient to render
1t valid exercise of the police power.
Kidd-Data Company vs.. Musselman
, Company. 217 u. S. 46l.
| 30
upon which the validity Of the law may
depend was also touched upon in ia
, cobsen VS.. Mass. 1877 U. S. II. In this
, lease the statute complained of was one
: requiring compulsory vaccination un.
der certain circumstances. The plain.
. tin In error, Jacobsen, who was de.
PENDANT in a criminal case, made an
elaborate offer Of proof AS to the fu.
tility OF vaccination and its probable
Ill effect upon himself Roth the Su.
preme Court of Massachusetts and the
Supreme Court of the United States
held that these facts even II shown to
: be true would not be sufficient to make
the law unconstitutional. The Su
premc court of the United States said !:
Those offers in the main seem to
have had no purpose except to state
the general theory of those of the med
ical profession who attach little or nc
value to vaccination as n means of pre-
venting the spread of smallpox or who
think that vaccination causes other
diseases of the body. What everybody
knows the court must know, and there
fore the state court judicially knew, as
this court knows, that an opposite the
DRY accords with the common belief
and is maintained by high medical au
,s.1 Nlpt sI,.,,,
the statute in question was passed, the
legislature of Massachusetts was moi
unaware of these opposing theories
and was compelled, of necessity, tc
choose between them. II was not com
PEELED to commit a matter involving
the public health and safety to the
final decision Of court or jury. II Is
not part of the function of a court OF
Il Jury to determine which one of tive
modes was likely to he the most effect
i've for the protection of the public
against disease. That was for the leg
islativc department to determine II
the light of all the information II hat
or could obtain
The above cases show that ther,
frequently exist state of facts IL
view of which the statute was enacted
and which must be brought to the at
tention Of the court In some manner
the burden Of proof being upon tn,
person alleging the statute to be un
constitutional, Sometimes the cour
take judicial notice of the existence %
these facts but In other cases they re
quirc them to be set up on the RECORD
and proved. In the case at bar thu
court may or may not know all the cir
cumstances which were presented t
Al. Al.