The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-07-07
SATURDAY, JULY Z, 1888.
MUST The AUDlT0R-GENERAL
Co?


sumably the Cabinet arc of opinion
that it would be wise to dispense
with the Auditor-G General. Consider
ing that "Ministers are so entirely
under the control of and responsible
to the Legislature, as our Constitu-
ton now provides" they think it
would be "quite safe to leave to
them the disposal of the public
moneys in accordance with the APP
preparations voted by the Legisla-
ture.''
Perhaps their view is the correct
one. No doubt, they have given full
and careful consideration to the mat
ter, and are therefore in the position
of gentlemen who have studied the
question. An opinion thus formed,
and coming, too, from so high
source, is not to be treated lightly.
But as we live in an age and
country when and where opinions
from any quarter are liable to be
queried, and as some of the present
Ministers, before reaching the ex-
allied positions they now occupy, set
us the example, we hope to be par
doned for not Immediately and un-
questioningly swallowing, head and
tail, the view just now quoted.
The fact that there are other
countries, with constitutional Gov
ernment and responsible Ministers,
which deem an Auditor General,
with duties similar to those of the
Hawaiian Auditor-G General, neces-
sary official, suggests u doubt as to
whether our Ministers may not be
mistaken. The little colony of New
Zealand, for instance, has. an Audit
Act of which ours, so we are told,
is close imitation, almost copy.
And if in a country like New Zea-
land, where the Ministers are the
chosen representatives of the people
and are accountable to legislature
which is in session aportion of every
year, it is deemed wise to place over
the treasury an independent guard
ian, to be check on Ministers in
the disposal of the public moneys,
and to see that those moneys are
used only in accordance with the
appropriations voted by Parliament,
is similar guardianship an unwise
or an unnecessary arrangement foI
Hawaii? Perhaps it is. But really
we do not think 80.
To be sure, New Zealand may
have made great mistake, which
Hawaii is fully competent to rectify
or New Zealand may be tagging be.
hind, while Hawaii is in the van
guard of advancement. Although
admitting these as possibilities, il
should be remembered that sucl
men as Sir George Gray, Sir Dillor
Bell, Professor Sale, and dozens o.
others like them-men born will
brains, not with chunks of wood OF
their shoulders, and trained in tn
science of government from tn
cradle-have directed and shape,
the legislation of New Zealand
Now, do our Ministers, whom we a
know and highly esteem as very eN
cellent men, and who have put them
selves on record as impatient of th
Auditor-Generals legal curb, in
press us as being particularly quail
fed to teach or correct the traine
and experienced statesmen Of NeN
Zealand or the statesmen of an
other country? Scarcely In fact
some of us would prefer the Audi
Act to the Ministers adverse opir
ion.
That passage, just now allude
to, in the Finance Minister'S report
is very pretty. Here it is; "Whe
Ministers are so entirely under til
control of and responsible to I'll
Legislature, as our Constitution no
provides, it would seem to be quit
safe to leave to them the disposal {
the Public Moneys in accordanc
with the appropriations voted by tn
Legislature"
Isn't that nice? $50 entirel
under the CONTROL" etc. Yes, Will
the Legislature is in session, br