The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-01-19
THE SIX MONTHS BILL
PRESCRIBED As
GUIDING
CONTINUED from page 81

the legislature 10 cOmpel tne boNeihoi
tc keep 1t in session for the whole TERN
of two years in which they hold Office
by a course OF parliamentary delay.
This reduces the rule to an absurdity,
and shows that it is beyond the inten-
ton of this section. The only man.
datory requirement is. that the Gov
ernor call the Legislature in extra ses-
sion when they fail to act in their regu-
lar session, and this has been done. 1t
does not require him to call an extra
session until the Legislature shall have
acted. But il they fail to act in such
session, then the section states the
remedy. The argument that the leg
islature did not fail to pass the neces-
sary appropriation bills in their extra
= session has no foundation in fact. BY
Z emitting the departments they did, the
appropriation acts are worthless for the
complete carrying on of the Territorial
Government, and a Government, which
is not complete in all it's necessary de-
partments, is not a government at all.
The failure, therefore, to provide for
the Police and Judiciary, is as much
a failure to provide for the Govern
ment, as though the failure had eX-
tended to all the departments of the
Government. 1t is beyond the power
of the legislature to pass appropria-
ton bills wipinS out departments of
Government when the laws, requiring
these departments, in order that there
shall be legal and valid government
within the Territory are still in force.
These observations apply to all de-
partments whose appropriations are
not contained in the eighteen months
bill, but which, by the laws of the Ter
ritory, are necessary to the carrying on
of the government thereof. If it were
held that the Governor must cali the
legislature in extra session and con-
J tinue SO doing until they should pass
appropriations covering these various
departments, then the precedent would
be established that whenever legis-
lature, for purposes of it's own, wished
to force the Governor into granting 1t
a perpetual session, it could pass such
appropriations as it deemed proper,
leaving out, say, an appropriation for
the Treasurer's department, without
which the Government of the Territory
of Hawaii could not continue under its
present laws. In such case the Gov
ernor would have to keep it in perpet-
ual session until it did make appro-
priation for that department, because
he would be powerless to act under the
latter portion of Section a. This ques-
ton reduces the situation to an alb
surdity. and shows the fallacy of such
reasoning.
1t may be argued that the legisla-
ture has the right to regulate appro-
priations as it pleases; to appropriate
or withhold to establish or repeal an
office; to provide or refuse to provide
( for certain objects that have been pro-
vided for by previous legislatures.
With certain exceptions, not now nee
essary to be referred to, this claim can
be admitted, with this proviso, that the
legislature can withhold an appropria-
ton for a salary or an object, which is
not specifically provided for by exist
ing laws That is it's privilege and
within it's power. For example: the
legislature failed to make an appro-
priation for an Assistant Superntend-
ent of Public Works during the last SIX
months of 1903 There was no sepa-
; rate law creating this office, and the
legislature therefore, acted within its
powers in failing to appropriate sal
airy therefor. Had such office been
created by statute, the legislature
would not have been justified in failing
to appropriate a salary therefor until it
had first repealed the statute creating
the office.
Applying this illustration to the ques-
ton at issue-specfic laws existing at
the time when the legislature acted in
said special session, provided for GER
tain police, judiciary and other officers,
nf These
laws were not repealed by the lesisla-
ture, and are still in force. They are
necessary and essential parts of the
Government, and the legislature has
failed to make appropriations therefor.
This the legislature did not nave the
legal right to do, and therefore the pro-
vision in Section "a, calling the previous
appropriation bill into action. is in full
force and effect.
The only question remaining Is, what
is the last appropriation bill under
which the Treasurer may, with the au-
vice of the Governor, make payments!
It seems to me very clear under the de-
csion In Re Robert Boyd, supra, that
the so-called six months bills are the
last complete appropriation bills under
which warrants should be drawn.
These bills, the Supreme Court held,
are complete appropriation bills for the
period they cover. They cover every
portion of the Territorial Government
necessary to be provided for. They
are the latest expression Of the will OF
the people, as voiced by the Legislature,
as to the needs of the various depart
ments, and under such bills for the
last six months. the Government has
been carried on successfully. To go
back to the bills of 1901, when we have
an appropriation for 1908. which the
Supreme Court has held to be COM
plete, I feel would be mistake and
would be questioned, as they would not
be the last appropriation bills.
Resnectfllly submitted,