The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-09-11

Fi3A-D each.
All of the correspondence and record
| and the contract between the Board an'
the company upon this subject are OIL
file in the Interior Department, aud wer
subject to the inspection OF the com
mittee
Third The committee have, uninten
tionally no doubt, mIsrepreseDted to til,
Legislature that the Government ar,
liable at all under the contract between
Mr.. J.. Aholo, Minister Of the Interior
and President OF the Board Of Immigra
ton.
In proof o. this | cite the following
facts:
~ Under the law governing the
Board OF immigration, the President ha.
no power to make contracts except by
order OF the Board. He is ex officio the
President and presiding officer of the
Board, and signs drafts for the payment
OF obligations incurred by the Board but
otherwise than this he has no legal right
to take action unauthorized by the
Board.
(2.) The contract with Mr.. Bowler was
negotiated, concluded and signed by Mr.
Aholo without the sanction of the Board
and without any other member knowing
consideration.
AS affecting the bona fides of the
action OF both parties In the matter, it is
also necessary to call attention to the
fact that Mr.. Aholo resigned his position
as Minister of the Interior on June 81,
1887, and was only temporarily holding
the office until the appointment OF a Sue
cessor. The situation then was that
although he had on the 18th of June
notified the Planters Company to return
the laborers, and they were negotiating
to do so, he without further notice to the
company without advertising for ten
ders, without consulting the Board of
immigration, two days after he had re-
signed his position, made contract
with Mr.. Bowler to do something which
the Government was not financially liza
BILE to do, and which according to Mr..
Bowler's claim would have cost the Gov
eminent $4,000, and for not being al
lowed to do which Mr.. Bowler now asks
the Government to pay him $50, 275.
As further bearing upon the bona fides
of the parties, and the correctness of the
committees statement that "Bowler pur-
chased the Kalakaua for the purpose of
returning said laborers," | would call at
tention to the fact that Mr.. Bowler pur-
chased the Kalakaua on the 18th of April,
1887; that his proposition to Aholo was
made on June q; that Aholo accept
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 | 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 Tor this item.
(2). AS 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 a formal meeting of the Board at
which both MIR. Aholo and Mr.. Gibson
were present, the subject was consld
cred, and the application of 7. r. Lucas
to recruit laborers was denied. The APP
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 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 1 cite the following
facts:
a. There is absolutely no contract on
the part of the Government agreeing to
anything of the kind.
e. 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
$9, 900.
50 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
$4,000.
a. Mr.. Bowler afterwards sued the
Hawaiian Government on the same
claim, which was sworn to at the same
figure on the same basis.
| 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 $15 900 therefor.
Sixth-The committee have failed to
inform the Legislature that this claim
has twice been before the Supreme
Court, fairly considered on its merits.
and judgment given in favor OF the Gov
eminent.
Seventh-Even if all that the commit
tee say is true; if 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
hnSu This iS such an alamanfaru first