The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1874-11-14

the Treasury may be advanced for sixty DAYS.
The Act Of 1866 Is entitled - An Act 70 authorize
the Minister Of Finance TO negotiate a Loan for
certain purposes" This Act provides for cancel
ing Exchequer Bills or evidences of government
Indebtedness; for extension of Water Works and
construction Of warehouses. But if reference is
made to the Appropriation Bill of that year, a
specific appropriation for each object will be
found, viz:
G0ysrnment Warehouse, 1900
Thus it will be seen that the oracle's own wit
ness has ruined its case.
The Loan Bill under discussion provides for the
raising Of money, and states in a general way that
the money SO raised may be devoted to-payment
of the public debt, building warehouses, inter
island steam navigation and aid of immigration.
Reference to the Appropriation Bill will show
that specific appropriations were made for each of
these objects, viz:
National debt falling due. s25 400
encouragement Of agriculture and Immgrsuo1..... $1,000
For the expenditure of an amount not exceed
ing S80,O0O,' for building a new steamer, the
Minister Of the Interior has the authority of the
Act of July %, 1872.
10 quote again from tue U0SeEe. - Il IL De
unconstitutional to use the funds derived by loan,
without the same being named IN the general bill
of Appropriations, then have our finances been
conducted wholly on an unconstitutional basis for
years" 1t will be seen from what we have al
ready said, that it has been the custom to make
specific appropriations in the general Appropria-
ton Act, even though the Loan Bill may make a
general reference 10 the method Of expenditure of
the money loaned under it. We will admit that
much of the financial policy pursued during the
reign of Kamehameha V. would not stand the test
Of the Constitution and the law;-but we sim
eerely hope that we have seen the last OF auto
cratic management Of public funds and public
affairs; and we have no sympathy with the
GGzele's dogma that two wrongs make a right.
We quote again from our contemporary
What we maintain is-that the Loan Act is as
distinctly an appropriation act as the 'Appropri-
alton Bill" If the Gazette alIudes to the Act
of 1874, known as the Million Dollar Loan Bill,
we concur. 1t is a very good specimen of an
omnibus bill.
And this leads US to a few thoughts as to the
intent and meaning of Article II of the COnstI-
tuition, which is in these words:
"To avoid improper influences which may result
from intermixing in one and the same Act, such
things as have no proper relation to each other, every
law shall embrace but one object, and that shall be
expressed in its title"
The Bill under consideration is entitled: San
Act to authorize a National Loan, and to define to
what uses such loan shall be devoted" To au-
thorize a National Loan is certainly one object of
the Act-upon this there can be no room for dis
cussion and if defining the uses to which the
loan shall be devoted is subject to the special pro-
visions Of the Appropriation Bill, it Is a clumsy
loan bill, the phraseology of sections 4, 6 and 7
smacking strongly of the style of Appropriation
Acts. But if the Finance Board constituted by
the provisions of this Bill attempt the expendi-
ture of funds not specifically appropriated by the
Appropriation Act, the Bill then becomes dualis-
tic as to it's objects and repugnant to the Consti-
tutional provision above quoted.
We think that the soundness of our position
will be apparent to even the general reader. But
some will doubtless say that by the terms of the
Act, the Legislature has empowered the Finance
Board to make appropriations. Here then will
arise the question as to whether the Legislative
Assembly can delegate it's powers; and this in its
turn brings us to the constitution of the Supreme
Cortland here we must pause.