The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-12-19

is an injury TO the public .ood There are au
thorities on both sides of the question, but the
especially the Of Champion V. Zabriske, cited
in 10l Z. 5. co. This is case decided in 1879 by
the Supreme Court of the United States, and
Mr. Justice Field for the Court says: "0f the
right of resident taxpayers to invoke the inter.
position of Court of Equity to prevent the illegal
creation Of debt which they in common with
other property holders Of the county may other
wise be compelled to pay, there is at this day no
serious question:
To deny this right to taxpayer would be to
say that there is no remedy and no way by which
Minister of the Crown can be prevented from
doing an illegal act Impeachment is too shadowy
and uncertain to be thought of as an adequate
remedy. If only the Attorney General eau promote
such a matter. the answer is that there has been
no Attorney General since May last and 1t would
be idle 10 expect an Attorney General who is one
of the Cabinet to commence proceedings against
his own colleague.
Minister is responsible to the King for his
acts and he Is also responsible to the people for the
faithful discharge of his duties. The respondent
motion TO duash, which is more properly de
murrer, is overruled.
JUDGMENT on THE CASE.
Having given this matter considerable study and
attention and having arrived at a clear and decid-
ed opinion upon the question involved, | give my
decision now, knowing also that delay would be
injurious 10 the respondent.
remark here that the petitioners are not
amenable TO criticism for having brought this
action so late. They could have no standing in
Court until the act complained Of was about to be
committed, and if proceedings had been com
menced months ago II could be well answered that
the application was premature and the respondent
was not about TO act In the manner alleged.
Moreover if the act complained Of is illegal at
all, il was so at the inception and continues 50
throughout and it loses none of its illegality by
lapse of time.
remark here that the ability of the government
to borrow money under the Loan Act of 1882 does
not affect the vitality or existence of the govern
ment. The authority was given by this act to
borrow money for certain specific purposes named
IN the Act and by Section no part of the money
thus raised shall, any pretence, be paid
used or applied directly indirectly either tenn
porariIy or otherwise to or for any public use or
purpose other than the purposes respectively 10
which the same Is hereby directed TO be applied
presume the Legislature felt that the ordinary
resources of the government would be sufficient
for Its ordinary expenditures and so have not
authorized the borrowing OF money for its or
binary expenditures.
SO my decision in this case cannot affect the life
or credit of the government.
Whether the bonds of the government have or
have not been difficult Of sale is foreign to this
issue. IL they have not been eagerly sought for,
possibly it is because the interest, being only six
per cent. is too low, being three per cent, lower
than the legal rate of interest.
The authority Of the Minister Of Finance in the
premises is TO be found within the four corners of
this Act.
under the direction of the King in Cabinet Council
to borrow on the credit of the Hawaiian Govern
ment during period of the three years, sums of
money not exceeding Two Million Dolars,-and
the bonds to be issued therefor, are (lst( to be
issued at not less than par, cd they are to bear
interest not exceeding six per cent, sd they
TO be exempt from government taxes, (4thl they
are to be redeemable in not less than five more
than twenty-five years and 9th they are payable
principal and interest in UHited States gold coin o.
us e7HirHieHf. The bonds must be issued in exact
compliance with the law. They must be issued,
says the Act, at not less than par. What is parI
All the photographers say that par is exact
equivalence without discount or premium, that
IS, there must be received for these bonds the
exact equivalent of the sum secured to be paid by
them. They are to be paid in United States gold
coin or Is eqHirlieHt and this must therefore be
received for them.
If a promissory note calls for payment of EGO
sterling the par value would be 800 sterling and
nothing less. Now, If the Minister of Finance
proposes to dispose Of these bonds for anything
less than their face in United States gold coin or
Its equivalent II is violation of the law 1t mat
tiers not if the silver half dollars which the res
pendent proposes TO take for the bonds be current
as money IN tins realm. The law says most dis
tinctly that the bonds must not be sold for less
than par and the silver half dollars are far less
in intrinsic value than their face value in United
States gold coin, to sell the bonds thus is selling
them for less than par.
The law of this kingdom makes United States
gold the standard of value and legal tender. This
law must be administered by the Court even if the
and the governn- ent by common con
sent ignore its existence. No law is dead letter
TO the Court. 1 may here say that the Act of 1880
providing for National Coinage, authorizes the
Minister of Finance, 'to purchase gold and silver
bullion iciM dtiy moneys irhich may from time 10
time be 10 The Treasury and to to be coined
thereirom gold and silver coins of equal weight
and hneness with United States gold and silver
coins of the same denominations. That is, foreign
coin already in circulation might thus be changed
INTO Hawaiian coin and this the Legislature
thought would not probably disturb the currency
very seriously. Silver is q commodity huctuating
in value and it has been declining in value for
some years and the standard half dollar of the
United States is by the latest quotations not worth
N United States gold much more than 40 cents.
Being of the opinion that the bonds are proposed
10 be issued by the respondent for less than par,
grant the writ of mandamus
| ought to say further that the 10th Article of
he Constitution requires the Supreme Court to
1--WE Its opinion 10 the King and the Cabinet upon
important questions of law and upon solemn Occa-
SONS And the Justices of the Supreme Court
ire always ready TO give their opinions to the Gov
irnment when important steps are contemplated
N tins instance the opinion of the Court was not
.sked.
A. 5, Hartwell for the petitioners Messrs. Neu-
mann, Whiting and Preston for respondent.
Homo llu, December H. 1883.
Respondents counsel noted appeal TO the full