The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-09-14
FlNANClAL MErRODs.

Inc --ldrGHtSef Yesterday, III
commenting upon the respective
reports of the majority and mino-
rity of the house committee. on the
/ Indemnity Bill. makes n somewhat
/ lame apology for the Illegal eNpendi-
lures of the Finance Department
/ during the past biennial period, in
! the words: - When the Supreme
/ Court set the example to the other
departments of eNpending money
! without the authority of law, the
Interior and Finance Departments
may very well be excused for fol-
4 lowing its example. " The sentence
! quoted answers two-fold pur-
pose, (D. to throw Il large share of
the onus of the illegal expenditures
of the Minister of Finance upon the
judiciary, and, (2), to give boom
to the judges bill now pending be-
fore the house. Our contemporary
must have taken considerable stock
in the gullibility of his readers,
otherwise he could hardly have
made so bold an assertion, involv-
ing the integrity of the national
judiciary, without citing at least
one item of the alleged illegal ex-
penditure.
The drafts made by the Supreme
Court upon the resources the sue
ceeding biennial period amounted,
all told. to S150.79; and the pur-
poses for which all expenditures
were made appear in the Chief
Justices report, page G3. If any
of these disbursements were illegal
the time has long gone by when
they should have been pointed out,
as the report was on the table of the
: house within few days of the
t opening of the session. But nc
a such Illegal expenditure has beer
pointed out.
e That the necessary expenses o
k the Supreme Court were not pro
= vided for by the Legislative session
II of 1854, and the consequent neces
5 sity that arose for providing NOR
II money or closing up the depart
n ment, was fully set forth by th
If Chief Justice in n communication
dated June l6, 1883, to the Min
l. lister of Finance. Up to that date
), there had been paid jurors for th
d terms, April, July and October
d 1854, and January and April, 1888
e the sum of So ,SG3, and for sundr
u expenses of court, S576.G6, maxim
n total of S4,439.66, which left
l. balance on hand for the three tern
II of the court then remaining in til
,e fiscal period covered by the appr'
ne priation, of S560.34. The attel
y tion of the Minister of Finance W.
T. directed to this deadlock in Il
I'd administration of justice, as juro
e. could not be required to attend
er try cases unless the court was pr
g. pared to pay them for their service
h In all this, there is not word
in show that the judiciary had e
ir pended n dollar outside the law,
IN that there was any intention
es doing so; but rather the contrar
pn for it is plainly intmated at Il
ca close Of the learned Chief Justice
=" communication, that unless Il
he Finance Department was in Il pos
at tion to devise ways and means, Il
of judiciary Department would be o
he liged 10 close its doors. Such ;
es event would surely come under d
ld head of ''public disaster" one
he the contingencies Tor which the co
Oh stitution authorizes the administr
IS. ton TO make appropriations fro
10 the resources of the kingdom.
Tx The Chief Justices application
US the Minister of Finance resulted
We the Minister setting apart S2,5
so for the purposes of the judiciar
an this sum being one of the items
o. the Indemnity Bill; and this is VIII
he the Adoeriiser calls 'setting the c
ne ample of expending money wtho
h. the authority of law"
a. The expenditures by the Supren