The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-03-04
THE KINGS CHAMBERLAIN.
A Writ of Mandamus Applied for by
Col. Macfarlane to Obtain His Sal
ary is 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 a 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 appropria-
ton for the payment of His Majesty Is
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 fuads; that the
said e. 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. 3, 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
Office in order that his acts therein 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 APP
preparation of $1,000 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 brief
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 bedchamber 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 of
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 to
consider this case, because if His Ma
jesty would not act upon the advice of
his responsible advisers, in matters in
which they consider themselves respon-
sible, they would have to give way or
resign.
81 am of opinion that the office of
Chamberlain is personal to His Majesty,
and that there is no legal necessity for the
appointment to be by commission or in
writing, and that it does not require the
approval of the Ministers.
'Should person be appointed to the
Office whom the Ministers consider
Objectionable, they can exercise some
control in the Legislature by declining
to ask for vote for the salary"
We may regard it as a crucial test
OF the requirement Of a commission to
consider whether the facts of the officer
are legal or illegal, valid or invalid, as
he may be commissioned or not. The
statute of 1850 prescribing in amendment
certain duties to the Chamberlain was
repealed in 1859, likewise the statute of
1S4S providing for his appointment. By
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 who |
shall be solely entitled to draw upon the |
Minister of Finance for all the expenses
of tho rovaI housahold aad n ebalI not bo |