The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1884-08-27

JnlS ScSslOH'
Mr.. w. o. Smith thought it was
not right to pass the bill as whole,
especially when it involved the un-
prccedentedly large amount of Sl7l,-
600. 1t was impossible to think of
passing that sum without investiga
ton, or to think that the Ministers
wanted it so to pass. Whatever was
expended apart from the Appropria'
tion Bill was illegal, and he asked
what business man would think If
a person he left in charge of his
affairs went beyond instructions in
laying out money. In this case a
reason should be shown for each
item, and to pass any item without
reason shown they would be recreant
to duty.
The President, in reply to an APP
peal from Mr.. G. Brown, ruled that
the Ministers except the Minister of
Finance could vote upon the ques-
ton, as though politically response
BILE for the acts of their colleague
they were not personally responsible.
Mr.. Widemann, referring to ex-
penditures in the bill by Cabinet
Council, said there was no such
thing allowed by the laws of this
country. 1t was true that indemnity
bills had been familiar to the king
dom, but never before had there
been one amounting to STA, 900.
He declared that the amount under
Government buildings and hospi-
tails" had never been all expended,
whatever had become of the money.
He appealed urgently to the House
of Representatives if they valued
liberty to insist upon a through
investigation of the bill. The item
referred to, for one, was absolutely
illegal, Notwithstanding he had heard
a gentleman stake his legal reputa-
ton upon the contrary. He would
stake his on its not being so.
Minister Neumann claimed that
some of the principal items had been
authorized by the Loan Act of 1882,
and need not be there except that
he had advised the Minister to place
them there. His conclusion was
that all the items were perfectly
explainable, the only ones of which
he was ignorant being those for
indemnity of Judges Kapena and
McTavish.
Mr.. Dole said the question was
whether the bill should be considered
item by item, and as the Attorney
General had admitted that he was
ignorant of two items he himself was
entitled to have those two explained.
The only legal expenditure was that
authorized by the Appropriation
Bill. Never before had this country
been asked to shoulder such an
Indemnity Bill. He was sorry the
Acknowledgement had not the
courage of his convictions, in
recommending that expenditures he
knew were legal should be put in
the Bill. 1t was no wonder the
Attorney General, coming so
recently intosuch wilderness
of accounts, got muddled. They
had this opinion from His Excellency
when discussing the Finance Com
mittee's report, and he evidently
does not understand the Government
Loan Bill yet.
The motion to discuss the bill item
by item was lost, and the motion to
pass the bill to engrossment passed,
upon the following division:
Ayes-Gibson, Gulick, Neumann,
Bush, Kaae, Kanoa, Walker, Keau,
Macfarlane, Kaulukou, Lilikalani,
Baker, Amara, Asa Kaulia, Aholo,
Kamakele, Gardner, Nahinu, Kau-
namano, Palohau, Kupihea and
Nakaleka-22.
Noes-Bishop, Dominis, Wilder,
Isenberg, Dowsett, j. Mott Smith,
Widemann, Martin, Kalua, Dole,
c. Brown, Richardson, Kanealii,
w. o. Smith, Nawahi, Kauwila,
Pilipo, G. Brown, Rowell and Kau-
hane-20.
An Act to repeal the Act of 1878,