The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-12-09
POSITION ON WARRANTS

Dear Sir: ] have the honor to dc-
knowledge receipt of your communlca-
ton of December 9th, reading as Ioi-
lows:
At the meeting of the Board of
Supervisors held the 9TH inst. in their
office, Mcintyre Building, l was direct
ed to acknowledge receipt of your
communication relative to a request for
payment by the Board of the sum OF
two hundred ($200.00) dollars for pro-
fessional services rendered by Judge
Whiting in re Blanket Warrant Test
Case. [ am also directed to inform you
that the Board of Supervisors can not
appropriate county nic:ley for PERSONAL
bills.''
While not desiring to enter into h
controversy touching the wholly I'M
justified and insulting insinuation con
tanned in the sentence last above
quoted, which I understand to be the
language of the instructions under
which your communication was writ
ten, feel it incumbent upon me to en-
tighten the members of the Board as
to certain points in connection with the
question at issue, full understanding
of which / am sure would have saved
them from taking such ungrac1ous ac-
ton as your letter reports.
The Andrew Adams ''blanket war
rant was passed at a meeting of the
Board of Supervisors held on Sept. 6.
According to newspaper reports OF the
meeting (Which have never been de-
MED, so far as 1 know, a little
"scrap' was INDUCED in between Su-
pervisors Adams and Lucas as to
whether the warrant should be issued
in blanket form or not. I quote
from the report of the meeting as it
appeared in the Advertiser:
chairman Smith FASTENED to state
that if the Board wished to issue
(blanket) warrant it could do so.
There was the mandamus method to
pursue if any individual (meaning the
Treasurer) did not like IT..
Wishing to avoid any clash with the
Supervisors, if possible, | made an in
vestigation and found that all the par
ties whose claims appeared on the An
drew Adams warrant had signed their
names to the warrant as having re-
ceived from Mr.. Adams the respective
amounts due them; and was further
informed by one of the Supervisors
Enormously, as it afterwards devei-
oped) that Mr. Adams had actually
paid the money out. Under these cir
cumstances / thought the warrant a
proper one to pay, and was so advised
by my private counsel. That my will
lingness to pay this warrant would
meet with the approval of the County
Attorneys office [ had not the least
reason to doubt, for at the time L had
before me Attorney Douthitt $ opinion
on blanket warrants as rendered to
the Board of Supervisors just a short
while before. To treshen your memory
bit on that opinion, l beg to quote
from it as follows:
"When a warrant is issued upon the
County Treasurer by the County Audi
tor. it then becomes the duty of the
County Treasurer to honor and pay
such warrant; and in this behalf it
might be added that the duty of the
County Treasurer in paying such war
rant is purely ministerial, the County
Treasurer not having any
discretion in the premises, such power
being vested in the Board of Super
visors Therefore it seems to
me that the County Treasurer can not
go behind the action OF the Auditor or
the Board of Supervisors and refuse to
honor a warrant presented to him which
is in due form, authorized and ordered
paid by the Board of Supervisors.
With the foregoing before me, [ con-
Guided (and rightly, as the Supreme
Court has since declared), that it was
my duty to pay the Andrew Adams
warrant. and / accordingly advised the
County Auditor that it would be paid
on presentation.
On Sept. Sth or 9th, and before the
Andrew Adams warrant was presented
to me for payment, a bill of injunction,
issued out of the First Circuit Court,
was served on me, enjoining the pay
ment of the warrant, and commanding
me to appear and answer on date
fixed. l Immediately referred the mat
ter to the County Attorney; who
neither agreed nor refused to represent
me in the case, until the eve of the
date set for the hearing, and decree
would have issued against the Treas
urer by default if I had not personally
and secured a continuance.
Under date of Sept. IA, l received
from the County Attorney long com
the kernel of which 1
quote briefly as follows:
$50 far as ] am concerned | can see
absolutely no difference as a matter of
law between the payment of the An
drew Adams warrant and the Samuel
Johnson warrant (the subject of the
opinion hereinbefore quoted).
| have never advised you to pay this
Andrew Adams warrant.
80 | would advise you as
County Attorney not to pay the same.
However. should your private counsel
advise you that it should be paid, and
you desire to act upon his advice, L
would suggest that you employ him to
defend the MeClanahan Injunction pro-
ceeding.'
| was quite willing to make use of
this suggestion voluntarily offered by
the County Attorney. but thought it
due the Supervisors that the matter
should first be referred to them. Ac-
cordingly, under date of Sept. 18th [
addressed a letter to the Board setting
forth the situation quite in detail, and
asking for the engagement of special
counsel to defend the Board g position
in the matter. From newspaper re-
ports I learned that this letter was
read at meeting held on the same
evening, and ordered ''placed on file''
the usual humble fate of communica-
tons from the Treasurer
Hearing of no objection on the part