Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1905-12-09

Moore, which was unanimously adopt.
sd, exonerated Supervisor j. X. Paele.
The report was as follows
Your committee appointed to inves.
Itigate the charges made by Mr.. Keanu
against Supervisor Paele and the
lcounter charges of Supervisor Paele
against Mr.. Keanu beg leave to report
as follows:
The bone of contention seems to be
the method of construction of the
bridge at Punaluu.
Your committee made an inspection
Of the work under construction and
examined witnesses at Punaluu and
Laie with reference to tho various
charges and counter.Charges.
There is no doubt that gross care.
lessness and ignorance has been shown
ly the workmen employed on the
bridge In the foolish and incompetent
method employed In building the con.
crete retaining wall. loose rock being
dumped into the water until II reached
high water mark and the concrete
! luilt thereon, the result being that It
would not stand the pressure required.
Your committee states for the bene
fit of the Board that the present con.
crete wall is built on good coral foun.
dation and will be lasting and durable.
The charges made that the men EN-.
rloyed by Keanu on the bridge were
Intoxicated is true. II Is fact that
there Is no love lost between the vari.
Gus factions living in Koolauloa dis
trict Since the Inauguration of Coun.
~ government more money has been
appropriated for road work than ever
before and the various factions are
Clamoring for the lions share of the
work.
Mr.. Keanu we believe Is an honest
and well meaning man. but he Is not
able to cover the district allotted to
him.
The charges made against Mr.. Paele
are not borne out by facts and are
frivolous and should be dismissed. Mr..
Paele deserves a great deal of credit
for the interest and time he has given
to the work. the results being appar'
Cnt to anyone who has watched the
work on the windward side of Oahu.
Your committee would suggest di
vision of the Koolauloa district into
Two districts, one from Kuala to Hau
TO Hauua, and would further recon-
mend that Mr. Andrew Adams be ap
pointed overseer for Waimea, Laie to
Hauula. to serve without pay, he to
appoint his luna from his district. such
luna to receive pay from the regular
monthly appropriations.
JOHN LUCAS.
II. T. MOORE.
The meeting opened at 7:4O. Pres
ont were Supervisors G w. Smith
chairman: II. 7. Moore, Frank Archer
j. X. Paele, L. r. Adams, Andrew Cox
and Jack Lucas; Clerk Kalauokalani
Auditor James Bicknell, Stenographer
Aea, c. Bolte, Deputy Attorney Gener
al NJ. F. Prosser. County Attorney L
A. Douthitt, Clerk Buffandeau. Audi
tors Clerk Mahelona, Mr.. Mendonca
and members of the perss.
The Chair called for a report from
the special committee appointed to In.
vestigate the Koolauloa road trouble.
This report was read by the Clerk as
above.
Archer thought the report all right
except that the suggestion OF dividing
the district would, II carried out, be
on eXtravagant use of money.
Moore insisted that the district was
big enough for two men to keep both
busy travelling.
Archer said Eva, bigger district,
had only one overseer. Moore and
Lucas reminded him that there was a
railroad through Eva.
| Adams moved the adoption of the
report.
The Chair asked Archer If he
thought the work In Eva could be bet.
ter done by two men.
Archer thought Nawakoa could do
better alone.
But II We were to lose Nawakoa-,
OF course he Is an exceptional man"
said Mr.. Smith.
Archer thought one man who knew
his business was enough in Eva.
Moore said the report eXonerated
Mr.. Paele and then, as he understood
1t, made certain recommendations. Ike.
anu should not be retained. He was
incompetent.
Cox seconded Adams motion OF
adoption. The motion carried.
The Chair: MIR. Paele, | congratu
late you upon your eXoneration."
Paele moved that All Sing be asked
20 appear before the Board to receive
instructions. Carried.
Adams said the Board would prob
ably receive a proposition in regard
&c a memorial band stand at Aala park
Tor the Japanese dead in the Russian
war, 1t was merely a question wheth
er the Board would consider 1t or not
County Attorney Douthitt, as re
quested gave his opinion on the sig
nificance of Section SO of the County
Act, saying: 1T appears to me that
the language of Section SO Is suffi
GENTLY plain and Is not in need of in
depreciation" He added: The bud
get or estimate Of expenditures car
not be construed in the nature OF al
appropriation for the amounts therein
named"
Following Is Section So: Section SO
] 1t shall be the duty of the Board o
| Supervisors on the 18th day of DeCem