The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-12-18
APPROPRIATION
SUSTAINED

WV ~ " = ~
The Supreme Court this morning rene
dered "a decision sustaining the appro-
priatiou bills as made by the last legis-
laturc for two separate periods. The
decision was I'm the case Of r.. \. Boyd
deputy registrar of the land court,
against Auditor Fisher "a suit to- compel
! Fisher to pay Boyds salary The court
holds that there is no provision for
the expenses Of the land court until
| January / and the court therefore Cgn-
otn use any Of it's appropriation nav.
/ The decision. by Chief Justice Frelr,
states the matter in part as follows.
THE land registration act seems TO
assume Uaws of 1903. Act &c. Sec. -
/ that there might be a deputy registrar
/ and provides CSeC. 49, that the salaries
| of the assistant registrars, examiners
/ of titles and other assistants and mes
sengers Cwithout mentioning the dep
| uty registrar specifically may be fixed
| by the Governor, and the Governor has
/ fixed the salary of the deputy registrar
at $500 a year. We will assume that
this deputy is properly i'm office and
that his salary may be paid out of an
appropriation for expenses of the court.
| provided there is such an appropriation
available.
/
/ the legislature could not under the pro-
visions of the Organic Act divide the
( biennial fiscal period into two parts,
! that so much of the eighteen months
/ bill CLaws of 1908, p. 442) as purports to
| limit the Appropriation for the expenses
of the Land Registration Court to the
/ last eighteen months of the biennial
/ period is void. and that that appropTia-
ton therefore became available as soon
as the biennial period began.
IF the limitation of the act to the
| eighteen months period should be held
/ void it would not follow that the APP
preparation would be available for the
six months period. The appellants own
argument, if sound, might require us to
hold the whole act void, for there would
I then be no limitation at all-nOt even
to the biennial period for which alone
he contends that the appropriation
could properly be made. But however,
that may be, and although it is true
that one portion of an act may be held
void and the remainder allowed to
stand, it does not folio what the re-
mainder may stand, if the elimination
of the part would make such remainder
mean something different from what
the Legislature intended. 1t is one thing
to allow a part to remain as the leg
4
to alter that by making it cover more
than was intended. The court cannot
{ legislate. The result is not always the
same when an exception or a limitation
or a condition is halN void as when
some other portion is so held. Here the
/ legislature made the appropriation for
one period. The court cannot make ii
apply to a different period. The result
would be, if the argument were sound,
! that the whole act would be thrown out
and the appellant would be no better
off than if it We're all allowed to stand.
1--WE are of the opinion that the APP
pelant's contention that the Legisla-
ture could not limit certain appropria-
lions to one portion, and other apprO-
priations to another portion of the
biennial period, cannot be sustained.
Just what the full force of the word
"Dionnially" is as used here we need
not attempt to say. 1t is clear that
the word was not inserted, for the
purpose, as commended, of preventing
the Legislature from hampering the
Executive by distributing the eXpendi-
lures througl. the period The main
object Of Sections So 80, and "a is APP
pareht-especially when considered in
the light of Sections l, and 4 of Ar
ticle 20 of the Constitution of 1894, from
which they were adapted, and of the
circumstances under which each OF
these sets of provisions was enacted
How these provisions should be applied
specifically under varying circum'
stances, we need not say But, thai
p the legislature may properly divide the
, biennial period as it has divided it il
= view of the Inauguration of county gov
I eminent in that period, seems clear
= Why the Legislature did not provid
I for the expenses of the Land Registra
= ton Court for the first six months doe
$ not Representatives, through Oversight
Il or because it thought there would b
5 little or no business in that court dur
a ing that period, which seems to hav
u been the case. or for some other rea
=, son.
It THE appeal is dismissed
It Attorney General L. Andrews an
p. l.. Weaver for appellant.
u smith & Lewis and l.. J. Warren 70
= the Auditor"