The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-09-08
The new ones were in this position.

and for inserting in each reconstructed
curve an iron sally port from which can
non could rake up and down the street.
Second-The committee have further.
unintentionally no doubt, incorrectly in
formed the Legislature in their fourth
statement that there was an appropria-
ton for this work but that it had proved
insufficient. AS matter OF fact the
only appropriation made for any work
on the Palace walls was for the compile
ton of the rear wall and the construc-
ton of the Likelike street gate, for which
purpose the appropriation was asked and
made, and the work done and paid for.
The reason, and the only reason for
making the changes in the other three
gates was that the King desired to for
tify the Palace yard, and thought that
the new gates could be better defended
than the old style ones. MIR. Aholo did
not wish to undertake the work; but the
King insisted and it was done.
To what lengths this fortitication craze
might have been carried had not circum-
stances shortly afterward placed the fin
ances of the Government beyond the
control of the King, can only be guessed
"
in which the gasoline apparatus for
lighting the Palace was located, was at
this time turned into powder maya
zine with iron shutters and filled with
explosives; that the front steps of the
Palace were loop-holed for rifle men;
that the claim which Robert More and
T. K. Lucas are now presenting to the
Legislature for $433 is for additional
massive bolts and bars to further
strengthen and fortify these same gates
which Mr.. Bowler REPAIRED" and that
the following contract and claim SIM
liar to the present one based thereon,
was only nipped in the bud because
there was a change of administration on
the day after it was signed, viz:
"MR. GEO. LUCAS:
SIR: 1 am instructed by His Excel
lency the Minister of the Interior to in
form you that your offer to construct the
guard houses inside the walls of the
Iolani Palace grounds according to plan
and to my satisfaction ''for the sum of
seven hundred and thirty-five dollars
each" is hereby accepted.
You will please proceed with the work
Immediately.
1t is fully understood that you are to
priated by the Legislative Assembly OF
1888 without any further charges for in
terest or for extra work unless such ex-
ira work be ordered by me in writing.
julius III. SMITH,
Supt. of Public Works.
accept the above order. Geo. Lucas
per 7. r. Lucas.
Honolulu, June 80, 1887.
The guard houses specified in the con-
tract consisted of a two-story wooden
forti6cation on each side of the four gates
to the Palace, making eight houses in
all, which at 1875 each would have made
IS $3.50.
This contract cancelled the first week
of July, 1887.
Third-The committee have failed to
report to the Legislature the following
material facts bearing upon this claim.
~ That on July 13, 1888, the Super
intendent of Public Works filed detail
statement in the Interior Department,
showing that the work done on the
palace gates on King street, Richard
street and Palace Walk, estimated at the
rates charged for the Likelike street gate.
would come to only $4,050.27, of which
report at the time informed Mr. Bow
Ter, and which report was subject to the
inspection of the committee.
(2) The committee further failed to
report and call to the attention of the
Legislature the fact that this work had
never been considered or sanctioned by
the. Legislature; that no appropriation
had been made for it; that no law au-
thorized it; and that neither the Super
intendent of Public Works, the Minister
of the Interior nor the King had any
legal or moral right to authorize it at the
expense of the Treasury.
60 The committee further failed to
call the attention of the Legislature to
the fact that Article Is of the Constitu-
Bill of 1886 both forbid the expenditure
lature, except in case of emergency,
when the Privy Council may authorize
certain expenditures and have failed to
inform the Legislature that both these
p DIVISIONS 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 4th 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 Minister has
ordered without authority, without re-
gard to the necessity of the work,
simply because Minister has