The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-07-15

hear an appealed mandamus case,
what legal form known to our law IS
presented 1t is clearly not the sub
mission by parties of question IN
difference which might be the sub
ject of a civil action in the Supreme
Court, upon an affidavit that the
controversy is real, and upon which
final judgment may be rendered and
enforced &C.. L., p. S30). 1t is not
one of the three cases provided by
Art. 20 of the Constitution: the
King, his Cabinet and the Legisla-
ture shall have authority to require
the opionions of the Justices of the
Supreme Court upon important
questions of law, for it is the re
quest of the Minister of the In
terror and the Auditor General.
1t is stipulated that all technical
points may be waived A technical
point might be the substitution of
the newly appointed Minister of the
Interior in place of the Minister
who brought this petition, but l do
not understand the above points to
be technical, but of the essence of
the matter, so that being waived,
nothing is left. As, however, argu-
ment has been made before us with
out considering the objections which
appear ito me to lie against the
mode of proceeding, I wish to say
that upon reconsideration of the
question whether the Auditor
eral should have audited the bills
which he refused to approve, and
whether such refusal was an abuse
of his discretion, I am of the
opinion / formerly expressed.
It was crucial question put to
the Attorney-General, during the
argument, whether, if the Minister
of the Interior had expended the
$4,000 appropriated for the Vol
cano Road, in a contract for building
fifteen miles of it, he would be au-
thorized to build the remaining fif-
teen with prison labor supported out
of the $4,000 appropriated for sup
port of prisoners. The Attorney
General gave the answer which the
logic of his position required, that |
the Minister would be authorized |
thereto. 1t results from this that no |
specific appropriation" is specific in |
amount, for it may be increased by |
as much more out of $4,000, or other |
amount appropriated for prisoners
support as the Minister may please
to add to it.
It was claimed in argument that |
the drafts on the prisoners fund |
were not expenditures on the road,
but for their support. Now, if the
Auditor approved the bills, the prl-
soners would be employed on the
road, if he disallowed them, the
prisoners would not be worked there.
So it is only difference of form of
words how the prisoners support
fund is applied to building the road.
It seems to me the actual use of this
fund for building the road cannot be |
cured by styling it draft for the
support of the prisoners. In order
to proceed with an appearance of
legality the Minister has been com
PEELED to drop the system of credits
for realizations for prison labor, be-
cause the realizations would be pay
ments out of the appropriation for
this road. When this was exhausted |
there were no longer realizations
from prison labor. In a proper bus
mess transaction the cost of the pris-
oners would be drawn from the fund
for maintaining them, at the same
time that like or suitable amount
is charged for their labor against the
appropriation for the work on which
they were employed.
And l do not find a justification
for this indefinite addition to the
special sum allowed for this road in
the general statute provision which
directs the hard labor to which pris-
oners are sentenced to be applied to
public works. 1t was not necessary
to couple with it that it should be
counted as a Government resource
and realization, and accounted for as
a cash or credit to some account.
The provision in Sec. ZIG, that
prisoners may be let out to labor for
private individuals does not express
a requirement that the proceeds shall
not be rendered as a credit, but can
any one doubt that it ought to be
done?
For these reasons l think the
Auditor General did not abuse his
discretion in refusing to approve the
bills in question.
LAWRENCE MoCULLY.