The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-02-19
.ALIIOLANI HALE,


l.. \. INFUSION,
Minister of the Interior
Sir:-We have the honor to ac-
knowledge the receipt Of your Excel
lency's communication of the 31st
ult., wherein you state that His
Majesty's Cabinet respectfully request
your opinion on the following cues
ton, viz:
In cases where there is q specific
appropriation provided by the Appro-
priation Bill for a specific object, and
also a general appropriation covering
the class within which such specific
object is included, is it lawful to ex-
pend any money from the general
appropriation upon the specific object
for which there is Il specific appropri-
alton, III the event of the specific
appropriation becoming exhausted,
leaving the specific work unfinished.
An illustration of the question is as
follows:
SPECIAL APPROPRIATION.
Wharf at Hookena INNS 100000
GENERAL APPROPRIATION.
Wharves, Contingent.........S 100000
New Wharves and Repairs 100000
rs it lawful to Spend any money
from the last two mentioned appro-
priatiOns on the wharf of Hoollena
illustration:
SPECIAL APPROPRIATION.
Water pipes for Kalaupapa.S 100000
GENERAL APPROPRIATION.
| pDer Sattfaunapt c1un noO ma
" Kalaupapa being a portion of the
Leper Settlement, and the 100000 |
being exhausted, is it lawful for the
general appropriation to be drawn on
for building cisterns, pipe bridges, |
laying main pipe and connecting by !
small pipes with buildings occupied |
by lepers."
In reply we have to state that in /
our opinion, where the Legislature
has appropriated a specific sum for a
specific object, it was their intention
hat no money exceeding the amount /
for the specific object,
should be expended for the work con-
lemplated, and therefore it would not /
pc lawful to eXpend money in the
manner or for the purposes suggested
by the question.
With respect to the illustrations re-
erred to in your communication we
observe that in the Appropriation
Bill OF 1885 to 1888 the items
Wharves contingencies. SO. 700. 90
New Wharves and Repairs. 100000
)recede the item
Wharf at HoOkena............~ 100000 I
,ut we draw no inference from this.
1t seems to as, that the Legislature
that this sum and no more,
hould be expended upon the work,
nd that if the appropriation, based
5 we presume upon estimates made,
vas found to be Insufficient for the
purpose, it should be left to the Legis-
lture to appropriate such further
UNI as may be necessary. 1t might
e that had the Legislature in the
rst instance been informed that the
$4,000 voted would not be sufficient
II tbs purpose, they might not have !
ppropriated any sum whatever
The item for "New Wharves and
..epairs - would apply 10 the building
new Wharves which might be found
ecessary and for which no specific
had been made and for
pairs of wharves existing. l
The Item for Wharves COntin-
9nt would seem to us to mean that
us amount should be expended in
.placing wharves which by any con-
ngency might be destroyed.
We must, therefore, answer that
lrt of the question which refers to
lie Wharf at Hookenau in the
7gative. |
With respect to that part of the |
lestion which refers to the item
water pipes for Kalaupapa,r it fol-
VS. from what we have previously S
id that we must answer this in the
egative, and the more so as we find y
the Appropriation Bill, that this "
en- appears in the General Appro- I
'iation for the Interior Department. :
I'd the item 'Leper Settlement $780,
600" in a subsequent appropria- s.
IN for the Board of Health.
Had there not been the Special An :.
Opriation for the water pipes we
INK the contention made by the o
mister OF the Interior in his cores
ndence with the Auditor-GeneraI. 81
lght be correct, and that the vote
uld be expended in the manner
ggested. 81
Yours respectfully,
A. f. JUDD, "