The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-05-29


| This amount was collected and ex-
pended, but the item is merely put in
| the form of clam in order to Sc
| cure an appropriation for future use,
! instead of making direct appropria-
tion for the coming period. In any
case, the item does not properly be-
! long in this bill which carries only
items of previous fiscal periods.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
! 9. To reimburse Ridgway & Ridg-
wav for services rendered Fourth Cir
| cult, $4,000
1t appears that at one of the terms
of the Circuit Court. the representa-
tive of the Attorney General s de-
partment was delayed day in cross
ing the island, and the Judge insisted
upon proceeding with the calendar.
! The Sheriff had either to forfeit his
case or take the responsibility of en-
ploying counsel. An attorney was
found who, though unprepared, would
appear Immediately and conduct the
case, if he could have clerical assist
ance, and the services of Mr.. Ridgway
were secured. The next day the Dep
uty Attorney General arrived.
Bills were presented to the proper
considered too high Ridgway & Ridg-
way were offered $4,000 as a compro-
mise, but absolutely refused it. The
fiscal period ended, and there is no
evidence to show that they have
changed their opinion and are now
willing to accept the same.
10. To reimburse An Nam, $500.
This is a claim for the refunding of
bail money deposited by All Nam for
one All Tai on March 10Th, and for
feited on March 20, 1905. 1t is claim
ed that the attorney employed for
number of different men arrested at
the same time had the wrong case de-
ferred, owing to some misunderstand-
ing, that the claimant IS bail was
wrongly forfeited, and that on apph-
cation to the Judge for resembling
order, it was found that it was too
late, as the money had been deposited
in the treasury.
The facts do not substantiate the
claim. The money was not deposited
in the treasury until March 25th, and
there was ample opportunity during
the five days to secure an order from
the Judge, resembling the forfeiture;
and there is no evidence that the case
has ever been reopened. 1t thus APP
pears that the accused was at that
time satisfied to forfeit his bail.
IL. w. J. Yates, expenses as wit
ness, Ter. VS.. E. M. Jones, $500.
II. ID. K. Kealohapauole, expenses
as witness, Ter. VS.. E. M. Jones, $1,000.
IS. Solomon Nahupu, expenses as
witness, Ter. VS.. E. M. Jones, $500.
These three items are claims for eX-
penses in connection with a trip to
Honolulu as witnesses, involving $1-00
a day for thirteen days and $500 for
horse hire, during March, 1904. There
is no evidence of any agreement to
pay the $100 day and expenses, in
addition to transportation / have
been unable, with the time at my dis
posaI. to determine whether or not the
steamship fares in each case were paid,
but it is fair to conclude that as they
are not presented they We're paid at
the time The Attorney General s de-
partment can give no information as
to why these items were not presented
during the period, when there was
money available. There is no require
ment in the law that witnesses should
be paid $1.0O a day. The plan origi-
mated in certain cases where witnesses
could i'll afford loss of time, and has
now become almost general, and is one
of the many ways by which the appro-
priations for the various circuits are
so often exceeded.
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
IA John NJ. Kea, bill, Dec. 80,
1903, $4.05.
Is. Pacific Transfer Co., bill, Dec
80. 1903, $1.25.
I6 David L. Wilmington, bill, Dec.
50, 1908, $685..
These three bills are unpaid bills in
the ATTORNEY Generals department,
which. in answer to my request, re-
ported that there were no unpaid bills
in that department. On investigation,
it appears that the first item, $4.05,
was not presented to the Auditor dur
ing the period, the bill having been
carelessIy mislaid. Every endeavor
should be made to have all the Terri
tory's expenses paid in the fiscal pc
Rod in which thew are incurred, and
thus reduce the number of unpaid
claims to the minimum. Those in
charge of the departments have been
repeatedly warned that if the negli-
gence is on the part of a government
employee, he viii be held responsible:
while if the negligence is not due to
them, then the claimant should stand
ha