The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-09-16

ton and Section of the Appropriation
Bill of 1856 both forbid the expenditure
OF money except by consent OF the Legis-
lature, except in case OF emergency,
when the Privy Council may authorize
certain expenditures; and have failed to
inform the Legislature that both these
provisions OF law were violated, and that
no authorization was made by the Privy
Council
a. The committee have further failed
to report to the Legislature that the work
was unnecessary and useless and waste
OF money which no Legislature would
ever have authorized had they first been
requested to appropriate the money, al
though all these reasons for rejecting the
claim are fully set forth in a written
communication from myself to Mr.. Bow
Ter, letterpress copy OF which was
available for the inspection of the COM
mittee, in the Interior Department.
90 The committee have further failed
to inform the Legislature that this same
claim was presented to, fully considered
and rejected by the Legislature OF 1888
on the same grounds that / had re-
jected it.
The legal status OF this claim is fully
covered by Judge Dole's decision against
the plaintiff, delivered last month in the
case OF More & Co. VS.. the Hawaiian
Government for the $433 above men,
toned, viz:
Under these circumstances there was
no existing appropriation for repairs of
walls and improvements of grounds of
the Palace at the time the Minister of
the Interior engaged the plaintiffs to do
the work and furnish the materials in
question. THE EXPENSE THEN WAS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE, and
under the 18th Section of the Appropria-
ton Bill of 1886, the payment is forbid
den. | DO NOT FIND THAT THE
MINISTER OF INTERIOR HAS THE POWER
OF PLEDGING THE CREDIT OF THE Gov
ERNMENT. ACTING WITHOUT LEGAL AU-
THoRITY HIS ACTS HAVE NO OFFICIAL
STATUS AND CANNOT AFFECT THE GOVERN
MENT."
There is no safety in any other posi-
ton than this. If Legislature votes
money for work which a Minister has
ordered without authority, without re-
gard to the necessity of the work,
simply because a Minister has
ordered it or because they SYM
pathize with the claimant, then
there might as well be no Appropriation
Bill, and far shorter method than that
at present pursued would be for the Min
listers to spend what they choose and re-
port it to the succeeding Legislature.
This claim having then no legal
status, what is its position before the
Legislature? 1t is just this The
Legislature should consider the ques-
ton precisely as though no work had
been done, and as though there was now
a proposition made to them to under
take to fortify the walls in the manner
done by Mr.. Bowler for the sum of
$1,000.
If the Legislature think that this
would be wise, and that the best inter-
ests of the country require such work to
be done, then let them vote it and pay
the claim.
If they consider that the limited funds
in the Treasury can be better spent than
in building Notifications, then let them
say SO and refuse to vote money for this
purpose.
Or to look at the case in another light,
Mr.. Bowler's legal status before the
Legislature is precisely the same as that
of Peter Lee, who desires an appropria-
ton for certain work done on road in
Kau.
Mr.. Lee has no legal claim on the
Legislature, but simply presents pro-
position, on its merits, that the public
interests will be furthered by making an
for his road, even though
it was not first authorized by the Legis
lature.
If the Legislature think Mr.. Lees
sound one, they have the
right to make the appropriation or with
hold it whether it has been authorized
by Minister or not.
Mr.. Bowler's claim should be Judged |
upon the same basis.
When Mr.. Bowler asked me to recon- |
mend to the Legislature an appropria- |
ton for Notifications, was unable, with |
my views of the necessities of the coun- |
try, to do so. If the Legislature think |
and desire to 60 into the for
business they have right to
do so.
THE CONTRACT FOR RETURNING SOUTH SEA
ISLAND LABoRERs. a CLAIM FOR
500, 275.00 AS DAMAGES FOR NOT BE-
ING ALLOWED TO CARRY OUT THE con-
TRACT.
The gist of the committees report con-
cerning this claim is as follows:
l. That in 1887, prior to the date of
The contract, there were between $50 and
400 South Sea Island laborers in the
country whose contracts had expired and
who were ready to return home;
2. That by the contracts "the Gov
was bound to guarantee their
passage home if they desired it,"
g. That Mr. Bowler had consultation
With Mr.. Gibson and Mr.. Aholo, the
Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of In
erior, with the result that Bowler pur-
chased the bark Kalakaua for the pur-
pose OF returning said laborers, and fitted
ler up"
4. That on the 29th of June, 1887,
written contract was made between Bow
er and Henderson and L. Aholo, Presi-
lent of the Board of Immigration, by
which the Kalakaua was chartered to re-
urn said laborers at $50 per head;
). That Mr.. Bowler was also granted
permission to recruit labor;
6. That there was about this time
change OF Administration, the contract
vas cancelled and permission to recruit
abOrers was revoked: