The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-09-16

it and the contract was drawn up and
signed the same day.
Fourth-The committee have, unin-
tentionally, no doubt, misrepresented to.
the Legislature that there is any liability
on the part of the Government by reason
of not allowing Mr.. Bowler to recruit
laborers.
In proof of this l cite the following
facts:
~. There was no contract with Mr..
Bowler by which, for a consideration, he
was to be allowed to recruit laborers.
All that he received was bare permits
sion to recruit. Before he had proceeded
to recruit the Board withdrew the per-
mission, as it had a legal right to do.
If, therefore, the Board had authorized
the issuance of the permit, there is no
basis for claim for this item.
(2). As a matter of fact. however, no
permission was granted by the Board.
In consequence of scandals in connec-
ton with former recruiting expeditions,
the Board announced in the spring of
1887 as its policy that it would grant no
more permits to recruit laborers in the
South Seas. On the 9Th of April, 1887,
at formal meeting OF the Board at
which both Mr.. Aholo and Mr.. Gibson
were present, the subject was consid-
cred, and the application of 7. r. Lucas
to recruit laborers was denied. The ap-
plication of the Pacific Navigation was
also denied about the same time for the
same reason.
The records OF the Board show that
there was no reversal of this policy. The
application Of Mr.. Bowler was not refer
red to the Board nor were the other
members aware of it. Mr.. Aholo with
out any legal authority granted permit
which no one but the Board of Immigra-
ton had the power to grant, doing it in
contravention of the formally recorded
will OF the Board at a regular meeting.
The permit was therefore, even if it
had been in the form of contract, abso-
lutely void.
Fifth-The committee have, uninten-
tionally no doubt, misrepresented to the
Legislature that there is any liability on
the part of the Government by reason of
its failure to ship stores for the Kaimiloa
by the Kalakaua.
In proof of this l cite the following
facts:
a. There is absolutely no contract on
the part of the Government agreeing to
anything of the kind.
81 After declined to pay his bill,
Mr.. Bowler presented his claim in writ
ing, assisted by his counsel, A. s. Hart
well. No mention was made of any
claim for withdrawal of permission to re-
cruit, nor for failure to ship stores. The
item for returning laborers was the only
one mentioned, for which he asked
$4,000.
80 Mr.. Bowler sued the Board OF I'M
migration on this claim, and swore to
his complaint. All that he claimed for
was the returning laborers item for
$1,000.
a. Mr.. Bowler afterwards sued the
Hawaiian Government on the same
claim, which was sworn to at the same
figure on the same basis.
l never knew or heard OF any claim for
either the labor recruiting item, or the
Kaimiloa stores item, until saw in print
that the committee had recommended
the payment of SIS, 900 therefor.
Sixth-The committee have failed to
inform the Legislature that this claim
has twice been before the Supreme
Court, fairly considered on it's merits,
and judgment given in favor OF the Gov
eminent.
Seventh-Even if all that the commit
tee say is true; ii the Government had
made valid contract, which it had lille
gallv broken, all that the contractor
would be entitled to would be his actual
loss, by reason OF expenditures which he
otherwise would not have made, or for
loss OF time when his vessel lay idle
when she might otherwise have been
busy. This is such an elementary first
principle OF the law OF damages, that /
cannot think the legal members of the
committee could have considered this
portion of the report.
Without impugning the honesty or
good faith of the committee, take the
liberty of reminding them and the Leg
stature that "public office is a public
rust" That they are trustees in charge
If other peoples money, and should
,crutinize claims made upon the trust
unds in their charge as carefully as
hey would claims made upon their own
14vate moneys.
LoRRIN A. THURsToN.