COMM. 010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

, . i SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-16 • Opinion of the Court so stated in Castle v.Secretary of the Territory, 16 Haw. 769, 1 . 777-778 (1905): �� We have only to decide whether any of its vital features are so inconsistent with the Organic Act as to require the inference that it is not authorized thereby. It is to be • observed that tile -organization of counties with their. ` proper officers for attending to their own affairs necessar i ily is inconsistent with all those laws of Hawaii relating to such portions of the duties of Territorial officers as prop- I erly are included in the duties and functions of county officers. No County Act can be regarded as unauthorized by the Organic Act by reason of such inconsistency. • 1 The appellants also cite Kurimoto v.Kawakami, 56 Haw. ' 582,545 P.2d 684(1976),for the proposition contained therein that on functions of statewide interest and concern the politi- cal subdivisions may not thwart the state's performance of its ;' duties. However, the prohibition applies "if the counties are not given specific authority to take over the function," 56 t Haw. at 585, 545 P.2d at 686, which is dearly not the case E t : here. Iv. I We must recognize that the fundamental principle in con- struing a constitutional provision is to give effect to the inten- 1 .. j ; + tion of the framers and the people adopting it. Whitman v. . I. National Bank of Oxford, 176 U.S. 559 (-1900); State ex rel. Dade County v.Dickinson, 230 So.`d 130(Fla. 1969); Wall v. t . \ -rison, 201 Kan, 598, 443 P.2d 266`f1.968). It has been • ' '''hat in construing a particular constitutional provision, sought to he accomplished and the evils sought to • t a • \ •hould be kept in mind by the courts. State ex v. Dickinson, supra. With these views in -ed each of the challenged provisions of harter. • i l se\.1....4, 'sed charter provides for a de- zati�? consist of a board of water sup- there ,artment of water supply and the , •