The Hawaiian gazette., 1886-09-21

proved on the 18th day of August 1884, and re-
manning uneSpended March 81, 1886, not otherwise
reappropriated, and such amount shall be deemed
no longer aYaisble for the objects for which they
were originally appropriated.
The next section was now considered and passed
after one or two amendments as follows:
Section ,. The Minister of Finance shall con-
tiRue to pay the salaries appropriated by this Act
the compensation of soldiers and constables, the
compensation of school teachers and the current
expenses of the Bureau of Education. the Board
of HEALTH the expenses of the Fire Department.
of the Supreme Court and Circuit Courts, Survey
Department, Insane Asylum, General Aid to
Queens Hospital, Government Stocks and the in
terest accruing thereon, the support of prisoners
and the expenses of the Leper Settlement the
Civil List, permanent settlements, Custom House,
Postal Department, pay of physicians and ex-
penses of nurseries and squares"
Section was now taken up. the Section as in
the bill reading as follows:
Section 4. The Minister of Finance shall not
cause or allow to be paid from the Treasury any
money for obed by this law, nor for any object
herein authorized over and above the amount
appropriated thereof
Representative Brown moved to amend by in
ssrting after the word law the following words
except such money as may be drawn under the
provisions of section of chapter 46 of the Laws
of 1884, relative 10 Postal Savings Bank" APP
proved
Representative Thurston moved as q further
amendment " and If the provisions of this section
are violated the Minister of Finance shall be per
sonally liable out of his private estate for any
amount SO paid in violation thereof, unless such
payment shall h4ve been authorized by the King
! IL Privy Council, IN accordance with Section Is
/ of the Constitution. And any citizen may instl.
tute proceedings on behalf of the Government for
! the recovery of the same"
! The introducer in support of his amendment
said that It was not directed against the present
! Minister of Finance, as he believed him to be is
| an honest man, but there was assurance that
! the present Minister would stay iu office for any
/ great length of time. 4 new one might be put III
I TO who thay TOulQ not know ANYTHING
/ about. The law had been violated over and over
| again BY Ministers. There had never been one
| shadow of excuse offered as to why the Cabinet
appropriated money by authority of Cabinet
Council. only that 1t matter of precedent.
/ The present Indemnity bill was the largest ever
/ placed before Legislative Assembly, with
| the exception of the at the last session. 1t
/ looked as though it had become part of the
! duties of the Ministers 10 spend money without
/ authorization of the Legislature. He would sooner
see the Priyy Council appropriate $3O0,0OO, than
carried would not be at all derogatory to the dig
nifty of the Cabinet, but would serve to cause
/ more confidence in their actions.
Representative halua said the amendment
might be good one, but the House did not have
\ the power TO appoint the Minister of Finance.
! There law of impeachment, which would be
( the proper remedy to use IN case of any illegal
! eNpenditiouS. If they inserted the words
''hard labor it would not matter whether the
I Minister of Finance had property or not. If the
I Minister did not have any property where would
/ be the use OF getting Judgment against him? He
would vote against the amendment.
/ Representative Dole stated that he was in favor
! OF the amendment and hoped it would pass. The
present occupant of the position of Minister of
Finance was undoubtedly trustworthy but there
was no guarantee how long he would remain there.
Representative Aholo said that as both Reps.
Thurston and Dole had stated the amendment
was not intended to apply TO Minister Kanoa, he
considered that 1t would be we'll to add that ex-
PLANTATION and say, " not intended TO apply to the
present incumbent tlaughter)
Represent tative Dickey offered the following as
a substitute:
Section 4. Any Minister of Finance who shall
cause or allow any money to be paid ont contrary
to the provisions of this section shall be liable to
fine of not less than double the amount of the
money so paid out, upon conviction before any
District or Police Magistrate"
The Minister OF the Interior said the Assembly
for several sessions past had passed an Indemnity
bill. What was the significance of that ? 1t was
simply that the Legislature consider discretion
could be exercised by the King in Cabinet Coun-
Gil when any question of expenditure for the pub
lie service arose. IN excess of the regular appro-
prlatlOu. The Legislature had invariably indem-
niied Ministers, because the expenditure had not
been IN any case for the individual advantage Of
Ministers, but for the public service. 1t may
be true, as Rep. Dole had said, that the Cabinet
might 60 to the Prlvy Council aud obtain authOri-
zatiOn from that body, but under a pressure of
/ circumstances requiring prompt action it might
be necessary to dispense with this circuitous mode
/ of procedure. This had been the case with refer
ence to tue items of tue present Indemnity bill,
one or which had been incurred at the request or
the Chief ustice. Reflections had been made up
on His Majesty in this matter which was wholly
unwarranted. The King was the larger part OF
this Assembly, and lot Its paid servant, as had
been stated a previous occasion. No man
could draw dollar OF salary IL the Legislature
If His Majesty did not sign the bill. The act of
opproprIating the monies was not the personal
act of the King, but the action of the King Cab-
net Council. The money spent was for the good of
the community at large. This amendment re
hected upon His Majesty and upon His Majesty's
Ministers, and was offensive.
RepresentatiYe Dole said that now was the sec
/ ond time they had heard the King was the larger
part of the Legislature. II ridiculous and
nonsenscal, statement and was not true. Not
dollar could the King get OF his salary
until the Assembly had appropriated it.
With regard to the implication that the
amendment intended as an insult to
His Majesty. be would not stand there and listen
to such remark without protesting, for there was
no such intention aud the insinuatlon was not
true. The King wouhi not thank anyone to come
III the Assembly and Say he not the servant of
the people. His Majesty himself mad claimed
that position publicly. The ancient hereditary
motto OF the Prince of Wales was that II servef'
and he felt prond of it. The Ministers were de-
fcient III backbone, or they would have told the
King at the time 1t was wrong to use such unappro
priated money.
the Minister Of Interior in regard to the term
lack of backbone would say that the Ministers
were not called upon to suggest to His Majesty
any cuauge OF lutA DQt naQ ADVISED or themselves
the course to be pursued. His Majesty acted
upon their advice and they were responsible. He
had backbone enough 10 say this.
Hon. Z. Il, Bishop said II would be considered
a impropriety IN the Parliament of Great Brit
ain to bring in the name OF the Sovereign for the
purpose OF influencing legislators. It was the
Ministers who were responsible Iheg are rhs
ones they had 70 deal with. They were not ar
raiguing the King: they mad rot that right Ii the
Constitution violated. they would look to tine
Ministers. The Minister OF Interior had Character
lied Ii as offence 10 say that the King was the
servant OF the people 1t was an offence to repeat
over and over again that the King was the larger
part OF tue Legislature. 1t appeared as if the
ministers were shielding themselves behind the
j. . s4ar-t -,