The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-03-22
And your petitioner win ever pray.

4
"Said defendant George J. Ross by
not waving any right Of ex-
option to the insufficiencies Of said petit
ion nor to the right Of said petitioner 10
the same, for return and an
Iwer to such portions - he il advised il
8 necessary to answer, says:
That he admits that he is Auditor
General Of the Kingdcm. And he says
hat the auditing or refusal to audit any
bill presented 10 him involves the exer-
else Of bis official judgment and discfe-
ton. and is not subject to judicial con-
troll by mandamus.
And for further answer this defendant |
says that he admits that the Minister OF
the Interior during the twenty-.hree
months last past has caused all OF the |
prisoners sentenced TO imprisonment at |
hard labor, in all about three hundred in |
number, to be employed upon public |
works and public roads.
That he admits that the cost OF food,
clothes, guards and lunas necessary for
the support, maintenance aud guarding
of all prisoners has been charged TO the
appropriation entitled Support OF Ifis-
oners;' but denies that the pay OF lunas
Is properly 90 charged.
That he admits that about fifty pris-
oners are now confined to certain jails in
the districts OF Hilo and Puma, and have
been employed upon public roads, in
Guiding the public road extending from
Hilo to the Volcano of Kilauea; and
says that they have been employed in
constructing the road last named.
That he Is ignorant as to the custom OF
the Interior Department in regard to
charging such expenses to said appro-
priation.
That he admits that he has not hereto
fore refused to audit bills for the support
of prisoners until the presentation Of the
bills referred to in said petition.
He denies that said bills were legiti-
mately and lawfully incurred by the De-
partment Of Government authorized to
incur them in accordance with the long
established precedent and custom of
said department; and he says that
when prisoners have been employed
upon public works, the custom has been
to make charge against the appropria-
ton authorizing such work for the labor
Of such prisoners, and to turn the same
into the Treasury as q Government real
ization which the complainant in this
case has not done.
That he admits that the materials and
services claimed for have been fur
nished.
That he denies that his refusal to audit
said bills prevents the complainant from
properly carrying out the duties Of his
Office as Minister of the Interior.
That he admits that on or about the
Oath of February last said bills were pre-
IL ha 70
the same. And he says that during the
time covered by said bills, said pris-
oners were employed upon q public
from Hilo to the Volcano of Kilauea for
which special appropriation was made
by the Legislature; and he says that
while SO employed said bills should not
be charged to the appropriation for the
support of prisoners. And he further says
that the appropriation last named at the
was exhausted.
And he denies all other allegations in
said petition contained.
Wherefore he prays said proceedings
may be dismissed"
BY THE COURT.
It is first to be considered whether
"the auditing or refusal to audit any bill
presented to him involves the exercise of
his official judgment and discretion" Is
it subject to judicial control by man.
damus?
The terms audit and refusal to audit
are here used in sense generally en-
ployed and understood, but it seems to
me discrimination may be made with
advantage in accuracy. 1t is not in
tended by the words refusal to audit, Q
refusal to examine, literally to hear, the
the account presented, but refusal to
approve the account.
The petition in this case alleges in fact
not refusal to audit, Int refusal to
| approve certain accounts and the Court
is asked to command the respondent to
| approve them. To approve them for
what and as what? The respondent de-
tends his action by stating that the
prison labor, concerning which the ex-
penses in these bills were incurred, was
performed upon work for which spe-
cific appropriation had been made, viz.
the Volcano Road, and in effect, that the
bills were drawn upon an appropriation
to which they were not chargeable, viz.
that for the support of prisoners.
Has the Auditor General authority to
consider and determine whether accounts
are drawn properly on their appropria-
ton items, and to refuse approval if he
considers that they are not? We must
find the answer in the language and
scope OF the statute which institutes the
Office of Audito. General, re-. L. p. 1851
His duties relate to the receipt Of moneys
and to the disbursement of them. It is
| only with the latter that this case is con-
cerned. BY Section the Minister OF
Finance is required from time to time to
calculate the amount of moneys likely to
become due and payable during q period
not exceeding one month ensuing, set
ting it forth in schedule under the
same divisions and heads that shall have
been employed in the appropriation
thereof, which schedule is to be trans.
mitted to the Auditor General. By Sec.
ton Z before countersigning any such
instrument the Auditor General shall
ascertain il the sums therein mentioned
are then ~ legally available for and e,
applicable to the service mentioned in
the instrument, and SO finding shall
countersign and return the instrument te
the Minister, provided that in case he
shall find that the sums mentioned, OF
any Of them, are not then legally avail
able or applicable to the service men
toned he shall return the instrument tc
the Minister for correction, attaching
thereto statement of what he has found
to be not legally available or applicable
By Section 9, every account shall be con.
sidered duly authorized that is in accord
ance with any existing law or regulation
or has heen directlv sanctioned by one al