The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-02-22
IMPORTANT JUDICIAL OPINIONS

. Ministerial Power to Authorize Amend
Inents to Charters-Limitation of Ex-
r. penditures Under the Appropriation
BIZ.
+ Among the judicial decisions OF the
iulI bench Of the Supreme Court, pub
lishad in the latest issue of the HAWAIIAN
/ GAZETTE. are opinions rendered in reply
to requests for such preferred by the
Cabinet Ministers according to their con-
stitUtioaal privilege of enlisting the adj
/ vice Of the Supreme Court. These an
swers are SO important that they ought
\ 10 receive all publicity. Therefore the
/ Essential parts Of them are reproduced
below.
The Cabinet requested the opinion OF
the Justices OF the Supreme Court upon
the question, whether the Minister Of the
Interior with the consent OF majority
OF the Cabinet) has the power, under the
/ Law, To grant to bodies corporate pre-
! viouslv chartered, amendments to such
! charters, and, particularly, whether this
power OF amendment extends to a right
( to reduce the amount of capital stock OF
! such corporation and to reduction OF
the par value of such capital stock.
The Court reply that, in their opinion,
''the Minister has such power. The
I power TO grant a charter implies the
power to amend It, provided such amend
/ ment is not of such a character as to inn
pair the rights of third parties. Clearly,
\ the changing the par value OF the stock
] Of a corporation, which does not dlmln-
ism the assets OF the corporation, is within
the power of the Minister" Further,
the Court utter their opinion that - it
7 should appear that all such alterations or
| amendments are approved by all the
| shareholders OF the corporation, unless
| there is some provision to the contrary
in the bylaws OF the corporation.
The next question propounded TO their
Honors is by the Minister OF the interior.
as follows:
ssIn cases where there is a specific
appropriation provided by the Appropria-
ton BIZ for a specific object, and also
/ general appropriation covering the class
! within which such specific object is iu-
{ Guided, is it lawful to eXpend any money
from the general appropriation upon the
| specific object for which there Is spe-
cItic appropriation, in the event OF the
| specific appropriation becoming ex-
! hausted, leaving the specific work untin-
/ ished2"
The Minister gives illustrations, the
first being: Especial appropriation
wharf at Hookena, $4,000. General
! appropriation -Wharves, contingent,
/ $40, 100; New wharves and repairs,
$40 900 - and asks: sis 1t lawful to
spend any money from the last two men
toned appropriations on the wharf OF
| Hookena?'' second illustrations "Spe-
cial appropriation-Wat pipes for ka-
laupapa, 5000. General appropria-
! tiOn-Leper settlement, 500, 900 upon
which the Minister bases the inquiry:
"Kalaupapa being a portion OF the
Leper Settlement, and the $l5 900 being
/ exhausted, IS it lawful for the general
appropriation to be drawn on for build
ing cisterns, pipe bridges, laying main
pipe and connecting by small pipes with
buildings occupied by lepers ?"
The Court say 'In reply we have to
state that in our opinion, where the
Legislature has appropriated a specific
sum for specific object, 1t was their
intention that no money exceeding the
/ amount appropriated for the specific
object? should be expended for the work
contemplated, and therefore it would
not be lawful to expend money in the
manner or for the purposes suggested by
the question" Their HonOrs observe
that in the Appropriation Bill of 1886 to
1883 the general appropriation quoted
by the Minister in his first illustration
precedes the special appropriation cited;
but they "draw no inference from this,
and add:
1t seems to US, that the Legislature
intended that this sum and no more,
should be expended upon the work, and
that if the appropriation, based as We
presume upon estimates made, was
found to be insufficient for the purpose,
il should be left To the Legislature to
appropriate such further sum as may be
necessary. 1t might be that had the
Legislature in the irst instance been in
formed that the IS 900 voted would not
be sufficient for this purpose, they might
not have appropriated any sum what
ever.
6. The item for New Wharves and Re-
pairs would apply to the building OF
new wharves which might be found
necessary and for which no specific APP
preparation had been made and for re-
pairs of wharves existing.
The item for Wharves Contingent
would seem to us to mean that this
amount should be expended in replacing
= wharves which by any contingency
might be destroyed.
= We must, therefore, answer that part
: of the question which refers to the
Wharf at Hookena' in the negative"
Upon the strength of their decision ii
the wharf case, the Court also answers
0 the question referring to the leper settle
e menT in the negative, " the more so,
e they remark, "as We find by the Appro
priation Bill, that this item appears II
the General Appropriation for the In
terror Department, and the item Lepel
settlement 500, 600 in a subsequen
appropriation for the Board of Health
The Court conclude: Had there no
been the special appropriation for tbs
water pipes We think the contention
made by the Minister of the Interior, il
i his correspondence with the Auditor
/. General, might be correct, and that tht
:. vote could be expended in the name
suggested"