The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-02-27
THE KINGS CHAMBERLAIN.

airy rs MADE Absolute by the SUI
preme Court.
A decision was filed yesterday in the
Supreme Court signed by the majority
OF the Justices in the case of George w.
Macfarlane, relator VS.. Samuel NJ. Da-
mon, Minister of Finance. Upon appli-
cation for writ of mandamus, decision
reserved by Judd, G. J.
The petitioner for the writ of manda-
mus alleges that The respondent Samuel
NJ Damon is the Minister OF Finance,
and as such has charge OF the disburse-
ments OF the public treasury; that in
the appropriation bill for the current
biennial period there was an approprla-
ton for the payment of His Majesty's
Chamberlain, the sum of six thousand
dollars; that he was appointed and COM
mlssioned His Majesty's Chamberlain;
that he has requested and demanded of
the said Minister of Finance the pay
ment of said salary but he refused and
still refuses to pay.
The respondent made return admitting
that as such Minister of Finance he has
charge of the public funds; that the
said u. w. Macfarlane has not been APP
pointed to the office of His Majesty's
Chamberlain, and does not hold, and
has not held such office by or with the
consent or sanction of His Majesty's
Ministers, or of any of such Ministers ::
that the petitioner does not perform the
duties of Chamberlain, that the said
duties were performed by j. w. Rob-
ertson, etc. , etc.
Following is the brief opinion of the
| Court which heads the full decision:
The respondent refused to pay the
salary of the relator as Chamberlain to
His Majesty.
Held, that the appointment of Cham
| berlain was personal to His Majesty and
did not require the approval of the Cab
met.
Held, that the salary of office follows
the title to it.
The writ of mandamus is made abso-
lutte.
BY THE COURT.
In determining the controversy raised
by these proceedings the controlling
| question of principle is whether the
Kings Chamberlain is such an officer as
| is required to be commissioned to his
| OlllCC III OIuct tlldt Ills dCtS tllcIClu may
be legalized, and whether his appoint
ment requires to be approved by the
Cabinet.
We adopt here the language OF our la
mented associate Preston in the case re-
ferred to in the respondents return, of
this petitioner VS.. VIM. l.. Green, the
preceding Minister of Finance. He
says:
ut will be necessary in the first place
to consider what is the status of the
Chamberlain. 1t is not statutory Office
the duties appertaining to which are de-
fined by law. The statutes creating the
office and defining the duties were re-
pealed by the Civil Code in 1859 and
until the session of the Legislature Of
1S64-5 no provision was made for the
| payment of such an officer, when an ap-
preparation of S. 900 was made for the
salary of His Majesty's Chamberlain
and secretary and appropriation for
| chamberlain and secretary continued
until 1888, when it appears as Cham
berlain' only.
"The duties of the Chamberlain have
been personal to His Majesty, and it is
now for the first time, so far as am
aware, and l have had many opportuni-
ties from my connection with former
governments OF knowing, that the right
of the government to approve of the APP.
pointment has ever been asserted, and
it is not suggested by the respondent
that it has been.
"The Acknowledgement in his briel
refers to the practice in Great Britain
where such an official would retire with
the Ministry, and refers especially to the
question which arose early in her pres
ent Majesty's reign as to the appoint
ment of the bedchamLer women, and
claims that by analogy the same rule
should apply here.
81 do not think there is such analogy
the rules regulating the holding of offices
in Great Britain, and the responsibility
of Ministers, have been the growth o
centuries, and are not and cannot be
applicable here according to our consti
tuition. In fact if the practice obtaining
in Great Britain were applicable and in
force here, the Court would not have tt
consider this case, because ii His Ma
jesty would not act upon the advice o
his responsible advisers, in matters ir
which they consider themselves respon
, sible, they would have to give way O
resign.
81 am of opinion that the office O
Chamberlain is personal to His Majesty
and that there is no legal necessity for thu
appointment to be by commission or il
writing, and that it does not require tn,
approval of the Ministers.
"Should person be appointed to tn,
/ Office whom the Ministers conside
Objectionable, they can exercise som,
control in the Legislature by declinin,
to ask for vote for the salary"
We may regard it as a crucial ties
: of the requirement of a commission t,
consider whether the FACTS of the office
are legal or illegal, valid or invalid, a
he may be commissioned or not. TIL,
statute of 1850 prescribing in amendmen
} certain duties to the Chamberlain wa
! repealed in 1859, likewise the statute O
1913 providing for his appointment. B,
this earlier statute it was made obliga
tory on His Majesty with the approba
ton of the Privy Council, to appoint
Chamberlain OF the royal household win
shall be solely entitled to draw upon tn
Minister OF Finance for all the expense
of the royal household, and it shall not b.
lawful for any person in this Kingdom t.
debit His Majesty or any other person Of
his behalf, except the Chamberlain, sucl
debts not to be recoverable at law n
check or draft OF the King on the treasur
could be paid unless it was countersigne,
) by the Chamberlain, and the Chamber
lain might be held personally liable t,
2 creditors for expenditures in excess G
the stated allowance.
The legal inference from the repeal O
. the statutes which required Chamber
lain to be appointed, with the approva
of the Priyy Council. and which gave hin