The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-02-27
THE CHAMBERLAIN MATTER.
Summary at the N~ioriiy Oeriai0n
OF the Srprene Court

OF the snpreme Court.
The decision of the Supreme
Court, confirming the Chamberlain
in his position contrary TO the will
of the Cabinet, opens with the sum
mary:
"The respondent refused to pay
the salary of the relator as Cham
berlain to his Majesty.
''lIeld, that the appointment of
Chamberlain was personal to His
Majesty and did not require the APP
prevail Of the Cabinet.
"lIeld, that the salary of Office
follows the title to it.
"I'hc writ OF mandamu5 is made
absolute"
The Court quotes tie language of
the late Judge Preston, when the
same case was before the Court
against w. l.. Green, the previous
Minister of Finance. Judge Preston
held that the Office of Chamberlain
was not statutory one, the duties
of which are defined by law. The
duties of the Chamberlain have been
personal to His Majesty, and it was
the first time that the Judge was
aware that the right of the Govern
ment to approve the appointment
was asserted. Judge Preston gave
the opinion that, "should person
be appointed to the Office whom the
Ministers consider Objectionable,
they can exercise some control in
the Legislature ny declining to ask
for vote for the salary"
The Court now cite a statute that
was repealed, under which il was
obligatory on the King to appoint
Chamberlain, with the appreciation
of the Privv Council, to have charge
of all the expenses of the royal
household. The repeal of the law
put the Chamberlain in the position
of not being an officer of the law.
The item of his salary is placed in
the appropriation bill as one OF the
five items constituting the civil list.
| The Court "see no reason why this
should be placed more under the
direction of the Cabinet than any of
the Others" The Kings appoint
ment of Chamberlain is not one of
those acts for which his Ministers
are responsible in the constitutional
Interpretation in that regard given
by this Court.
The Court decline to sustain the
objection to payment of the salary
on the ground that the rclator had
not performed the duties of Cham.
berlain. They hold this objection
as inconsistent with the main one
that he was not the Chamberlain.
In considering whether he performed
the duties they treated il on the
ground that he was duly appointed.
The Court hold it "clearly estab-
lished that the compensation of an
Office does not depend on time or
labor expended in discharging the
duties of it, but upon the title TO
it, and add the following import
ant declaration:
"The salary follows the title. Any
other rule than this would admit an
intolcrable scrutiny by the Minister
of Finance into the measure of the
services of every officer in the Gov.
eminent, and the principle legiti.
mately carried out would empower
the Minister to make partial pay.
ments in proportion to the amount
of the service as he should deter.
mine it. Not in this way can faith.
full performance of duty be insured
or the omission of it be punished
Paul Neumann and Chas. L.
Carter were attorneys for relatol
lCoI. Macfarlane), and G. W. Ash
ford, Attorney-Gcneral, and A. p
Peterson, Deputy, for the respond
ent (NIinister of Finance).