The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-08-12
TREASURY NOTES
ARE LEGAL
GENERAL ANDREWS
ON BORROWING MONEY FOR
CURRENT EXPENSES.

Attorney General Andrews yesterday
rendered an opinion asked for by
Governor Dole as to the legality of the
issue of treasury notes for current ex-
penses. Andrews thinks the issue is
legal one and discusses the question as
follows:
As | understand it, the notes are is
sued under the authority given the
Minister of Finance, now Territorial
Treasurer, in Capter So of the Civil
Laws of 1897, and it is contended that
the issuance of the same is illegal, as
the said chapter is in contravention of
Section SO of the Organic Act. Section
6 of the Organic Act provides as fol-
lows:
THE laws of Hawaii not inconsistent
with the Constitution or Laws of the
United States or the provisions of this
Act, shall continue in force, subject to
repeal or amendment by the legislature
of Hawaii, or the Congress of the Unit
ed States"
1t is claimed that Capter 80 afore-
said, under which these notes are is
sued is inconsistent with the provisions
of said Act, as laid down in Section
90 The answer to this contention is
that the United States Congress in
1886 passed a law governing all terri
| tories, a portion of which reads as fol-
lows:
Section 9. That no law of any Ter
ritorial legislature shall authorize any
debt to be contracted by or on behalf
of such Territory, except in the follow
ing cases: To meet a casual deficit in
the revenues, to pay the interest upon
the Territorial debt, to suppress in
surrections, or to provide for the pub
lie defensce, except that in addition to
any Indebtedness created for such pur-
pose, the legislature may authorize a
loan for the erection of penal, charita-
BILE or educational institutions for such
Territory, if the total Indebtedness of
the Territory is not thereby made to
exceed one per centum upon the assess
ed value of the taxable property in
such Territory as shown by the last
general assessment for taxation. And
nothing in this Act shall be construed
to prohibit the refunding of any exist
ing indebtedness of such Territory or
of any political or municipal corpora
ton, county, or other ub-diWsion
therein"
This was followed by the introduce
ton into the Organic Acts of the va
rious Territories of practically similar
wording, and was copied in substance,
into our own Organic Act, in Section
50, with the omission of the words ito
meet casual deficit in the revenues"
This later phrase exactly covers the
Of ba nf tlo
notes, and we are left to struggle with
the question as to whether the men,
bers of Congress intended that we
should have no remedy to meet a
casual deficit in our revenues, or whe-
Their they believed that by the laws of
the Territory, already in force, we had
such a clear and complete remedy, to
wit: issuance of Treasury notes, that
the general statement was omitted from
our Organic Act.
1t seems to me that of these two
contentious the most plausible, as
shown by the failure to repeal the
Chapter in question, is that Congress
intended that we should clear up all
casual deficits by the method already
in vogue in Hawaii, and did not intend
to have our remedy repealed by i'm
plication and to grant us no new
remedy.
If we take the contrary opinion, we
place this Territory practically alone
aiming the States and Territories of the
Union, in that it cannot tide over a
casual deficit and protect it's credit by
the issuance of proper certificates.
Under this state of facts, although
the question is by no means free from
doubt, I believe that the issuance of
the Treasury notes is legal and would
be so held by the courts of the Ter
ritory.
Respectfully submitted,
LORRIN ANDREWS,
Attorney General.