The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-07-15

their opportunities of self-support
by the authority of the State, shall
be supported by the State; they can
not be left to starve, neither can
such dealers as may furnish them
with food and other necessaries dur
ing such confinement, be denied
their reasonable charges therefor.
The contrary view would tend to
embarass, if not defeat the execution
of the law for applying the labor Of
prisoners to public works, and in
some cases at least, as in the case in
point, to cast an unnecessary slur
upon the government in its prison
management; for carried to its logi-
cal sequence, such view would in
sist either that the prison laborers
in question should have gone with
out food and other necessaries dur
ing the month they were occupied
on the Volcano Road, or that the
dealers who furnished them must
now lose the value of the materials
furnished.
We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the Auditor General should au-
thorize the payment of the bills in
question.
Attorney General Peterson for
petitioner; F. II. Hatch for respon-
dent.
Honolulu, July 3, 1890.
CoNCURRING OPINION BICKERToN, ].
This case as it appears here by the
stipulation is shorn of the most i'm
portant questions that were argued
and passed upon by Mr.. Justice Nc
Gully, viz: the judgment and dis
erection of the Auditor General to de
termine whether a bill was drawn
upon fund which was applicable to
it, and further, as to abuse of this
discretion. There does not seem to
be any appeal on these points which
were decided in favor of the Auditor
General IN the court below, but by
the stipulation they are not now
before us, and we are limited to the
one question, which in my opinion
assumes the shape of question sub
mitted by agreement of the Minister
of the Interior and the Auditor
eral to the Supreme Court for their
opinion; the question as to whether
a writ of mandamus should issue
seems to have been abandoned.
The law as it now stands, undoubt-
eddy gives the Minister of the Int
rior full authority to use prison
labor on any public work; there is
no law which requires that such
labor shall be charged to the appro-
priation for such public work. 1t
had been the custom for long time
to do so, until the late Administers
ton abolished the custom or rule,
thereby placing at the disposal of |
the Minister of the Interior the
whole appropriation of $4,000 and
the contingent one of $4,000 for the |
support of prisoners, which he could |
use in the shape of labor to supple
ment any appropriation for any
public work. A work for which an
appropriation of say $4,000 was
made, could be made to appear to
cost only $4,000, leaving a balance OF |
$1,000 unexpended, when in fact it
had cost $4,000 by the use of prison
labor which had cost the country |
$4,000. As the law now stands the |
Minister might have put all the |
prison labor in the Kingdom on the |
Volcano road and no one could pre-
vent it until he would be called to
account for his doings by the Legis-
lature. Wherever these prisoners
may be they have to be fed and
guarded and the bills paid, notwith-
standing the fact that they may be
working on public work for which
the appropriation is exhausted.
After looking at the question from
all points of view, the fact still re-
mains that the Minister had the
authority of law to employ these
prisoners on the Volcano road, and
the bills for their support and guards
had to be paid from the only appro-
priation available, viz: support of
prisoners. If the Minister misused
or abused his authority, it was a
matter between him and the Legis-
lature.
There certainly is some legislation
on this matter, for although
this is not actually taking so many
dollars from one appropriation and
devoting it to other work for which
there was an appropriation that is
the result is the same,
the work is costing more than was
contemplated or intended by the
l feel compelled as the law now
stands to concur in the conclusion
arrived at in the above opinion.
July 3, 1890.