The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-04-14

ruled II TIE at5.sloi1EAe----A -
entitled. IN r. Hawaiian star News
paper Association. Limited The
appeaI from decision Of the Audi +
Tor declining to issue warrant +
for paying printing bin Of
se5a incurred BY the tax bureau = /
dismissed. but without prejudice Dep +
nv 4t1orney General E c. Peters aE,-
peaued for the appellant am Edolznes
* Stanley for the Antztor-
LAW LAID DOWN
FoIIoving Is the syllabus Of The bpiD- |
inn. bssed On the reasoning Of Chief !
Justice Frear who wrote the snain de-
ifverance. which shows that the cause !
for siisraissing the appeal Is that tre
-rreas,1rer took the six months Dill OF
5aas as the guide for supplying DEL
ciencies ia slppropria1ions fer The last
eighteen months OF the biennial period,
when. under The saving provision OF the
I Otgazsic Act. he should have had re-
co1rse to the appropriation bill OF 1885,
.~The Legislature failed al is regular
session n 1863 to provide for the nee
l-essary expenses OF the goverEzraeIlI Tor
The succeeding biennial periea- In sts
extra session Immediately after 4
4
4s,a first SIX months Of the biennial
persod. ana bi1ls providing fer por-
45nn OF the necessary expenses OF the
/ aa<4 eighteen months but failed to Pro-
vide for perhaps half Of tha neces-
savv expenses for those eighteen
lruonths or the superstition thai those
/ expenses would be borne by countaes
n-sser an act which turned OUT 70 be
void. Held
THAR the expenses so unprorided for
sso,,ld be paid out OF the last aDpro-
/ urfation bills by the Treasurer with the
/ ADVICE of the Governor under section
"a OF the Organic Act. and
THAT The last appropriation bills
within the meaning OF that secnoIs
were those Of 1901 and not the SIX
months bills Of 1863
THE ARGUMENT.
4sT4 il not disputed the court says
IN The body Of us opinion. that the
axuenses now IN question were 'neces-
isary current expenses within the mean
ing Of Sec. 81 OF the Organic Act
The court also Ands that the Legs
la4ura acted and did 50 in good
faith IN making appropriations in 1seS.
and that its failure 70 appropriate
money for necessary expenses was en-
I
: County Act was valid In strict sense
il might be said 70 have acted" If II
: had only considered appropriations
and rejected them. but nobody would
! / contend that in such case II had act
ed, within the meaning Of the law
There is considerable discussion OF
: the purport Of the word biennial as
: applied 70 legislative sessions and aP-
: preparations. the court saying:
/ II II means that every appropriation
! bin must cover a period Of two years
2 or that appropriation bills may be pass
= ed only one n two years, that Is. Il the
! regular session or the extra session IN
rnadiazely following the regular session
there would be extreme eubarrassrne
! n -1ch case most OF The appropriation
bits thus far passed by the Territorial
LEGISLATURE might be void or the Leg
y islarure AZ its present special session
might not be able TO relieve tns
present financial situation at al
BY the passage of appropriation
bills. This court has already
L held that the Legislature could
/ divide the biennial period. by passinE
one set Of bills for the time before m
county act should take effect and al
other set for the time thereafter
The opinion disc0untenanees the ice,
thar the Treasurer and Governor maj
supplement- the action Of the LeElsl2
tI1ra IN rhe exercise OF the Legislative
function OF passing appropriation bll-s
D On This the court says:
y Whether those officers could max
/ payments under the last appT0pr-a1lol
- bills n case thu Legislature should N
lenta, -aIly emit a single appropriation
as unnecessary without first sTec-tie2l
4 u and Independently repeating a II
! regular session the law, Z any. for Lht
r execution Of which a similar approI'r1a-
-Ion had been made by The preceding
: Legislature L Is UNNECESSARY 10 say
Il VIII b= time enough ID decide Ina
= question when IL arises
II On the question Of what constitute
: ne last appropriation bills The 1ol
lowing shows Lhe courts mind
- The appropriations Of 1901 were II
: ones 20 De deemed eappr0p-1atel- -El-i
the legislature should act and ON
such sums appropriated II L1e last al
r-opriz-5on bllIs shah De deemed Z
20 have bean reapuroprzate1' a ara nee
! essa~v 10 supply [1s d=1lc1eElcl=s
~ whether any new bills ara 21sS=- @
not Tbe new bills replace the O.
- ones as ta- Is they so The SUITS
n appropriated for necessary c1-'-I4- =
4 p=usas are The last ones VIII =-7-=---
: n -rz -f7-a euosen Of mat - u-l-
= -rev ara -e7zaceE and Only IN 50 a. q
/ -hav are ror replaced by Ihe new oIl@-
: There * nothing 10 indicate that II
> zen bills should De- applied 1irsr n
= -aen thar 2 shift should o made
i new bzus. 7 any should D. passed =
- -=-1ozs not covered by 7eVy Oils IL
- r-zv-f1-lz bslls--sll or CHER ol--s----
? ply 70 ne corresponding r-Tll=s =---- -
= POSES II he new biennial period =
= e=u- II 50 far as they are replaced .
q he new bills
= P=z=--s are given 70 show Wy q
- =+~ months. a7zIs cannot b. m 3a'
- -.----szio-7 q rh= legislative 7s---- z
- essence being -hz1 --=- might y =
=. <---=z czur5eI1uslE 20 any So