The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-03-21

we're presented TO MIN ana lie re-
fused to audit the same. And he
says that during the time covered
by said bills, said prisoners were
upon a public work, to
wit: the construction of road from !
IIilo to the Volcano of Kilauea for
which special appropriation was
made by the Legislature md he
says that while so employed said
bills should not be charged TO the
for the support of
prisoners. And he further says that
the appropriation last named at the
time said bills were presented TO
him was exhausted.
And he denies all other allegations
In said petition contained.
Wherefore he prays said proceed
ings may he dismissed"
BY The COURT.
II is first to be considered whether
"the auditing or refusal to audit any
bill presented TO him involves the
exercise of his official Judgment and
discretion" Is it subjec, TO judi
cal control by mandamus!
The terms audit and refusal
to audit are here used in sense
generally employed and understood,
but it seems to me discrimination
may be made with advantage in ac-
curacy. 1t is not intended by the
words refusal to audit, refusal to
examine, literally 10 hear, the ac-
count presented, but refusal to
approve the account.
The petition in this case alleges
in fact not a refusal to audit, but n
refusal to approve certain accounts
and the Court is asked to command
the respondent to approve them. To
approve them for what and rs what?
The respondent defends his action
ny stating that the prison labor,
concerning which the expenses in
these bills were incurred, was per-
formed upon work for which n
specific appropriation had been
made, viz. the Volcano Road, and
in effect. that the bills were drawn
upon M appropriation to which they
were not chargcable, viz: that for
the support of prisoners.
Has the Auditor-General author
ity To considerand determine whether
accounts are drawn properly on
their appropriation items, and TO
refuse approval If he considers that
they are not! We must find the
answer in the language and scope of
the statute which institutes the office
of Auditor. General, G. l.. p. 6Gsl ].
His duties relate to the receipt Of
moneys and to the disbursement of
them. 1t is only with the latter that
this case is concerned. BY Section
6 the Minister of Finance is required
from time 10 time to calculate the
amount of moneys likely to become
due and payable during a period not
exceeding one month ensuing, set
ting it forth in a schedule under the
same divisions and heads that shall
have been employed in the appro.
priation thereof, which schedule is
to be transmitted to the Auditor
General. BY Section Z before count
ersigning any such instrument the
| Aud tor.General shall ascertain if
the sums therein mentioned are then
| C) legally available for and (2)
applicable to the service mentioned
in the instrument, and so finding
shalt cOuntersign and return the in
strument to the Minister, provided
that in case he shall find that the
sums mentioned, or any of them, are
not then legally available or appli.
cable to the service mentioned be shal
return the instrument tothe Minister
for correction, attaching thereto {
statement Of what he has found tt
be not legally available Or appli
cable. BY Section 9, every accoun
shall be considered duly authorized
tina, is in accordance with any eX
isting law or regulation, or has beer
directly sanctioned by one or othe
of the responsible Ministers of ih'
Crown and covered by any appro
piia,ion Act in force at the time.
The only construction in my viey
to be placed upon the statute is tha
the Auditor has the function of dc
tcrmining If the account is draw
against the proper appropriation
and whether there is sufficient TN
expended balance thereof. For
broad illustration taken from tw
adjacent items in the appropriation
bill, an account for "repairs ant
furniture of the Insane Asylum
would not be applicable" to III
appropriation for the "lIonolul
Fire Department" and such an &C
count being presented for aud
would presumably not be confer
signed. And, presumably the Cou'
il applied to, would interfere b
injunction to prevent countersigr
, ing. Is the act Of the Auditor |
allowing or disallowing an az
count, in respect to its being "al
r plicable TO the service mentioned
, ministerial or one Of judgment ,opir
, ion, discretion? think there ca
be no doubt of its being of the LAT
, ter description? In the case beiol
us the Minister of the Interior, VIII
is not to be presumed to be d,