The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-12-09
TREASURER TALKS
TO SUPERVISORS
SENDS A NOTICE TO THE BOARD
WHICH Is THOUGHT TO BE DIS
COURTEOUS-BOARD's ACTION.

The Supervisors of oahu County
have refused to pay Judge Whiting a
fee of 5000 for the legal services which
he rendered the Treasurer in connec-
ton with the recent blanket warrant
litigation and hence the following
letter which was read to the Board at
last nights meeting;
Honolulu, December 8, 1905.
| D. Kalauokalani, Jr., Esq, Clerk, Coun-
ty of Oahu, Honolulu.
Dear Sir: / have the honor to ac-
knowledge receipt of your communica-
| tion of December 9Th, reading as fol-
| lows:
"At the meeting of the Board of
| Supervisors held the 9Th inst, in their
office, Mcintyre Building, 1 was direct
ed to acknowledge receipt of your
communication relative to a request for
payment by the Board of the sum of
two hundred ($2O0.0O) dollars for pro-
fessional services rendered by Judge
Whiting in re Blanket Warrant Test
4 \ y
that the Board Of Supervisors can not
appropriate county money for personal
bills"
While not desiring to enter into a
controversy touching the wholly I'M
justified and insulting insinuation con-
tanned in the sentence last above
quoted, which 1 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 1 am sure would have saved
them from taking such ungracious ac-
lions 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 I 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 a
(blankeO 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, 1 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 devel-
oped) that Mr.. Adams had actually
paid the money out. Under these cir
cumstances 1 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 I had not the least
reason to doubt, for at the time had
before me Attorney Douthitt's opinion
on blanket warrants as rendered to
the Board of Supervisors just a short
while before. To freshen your memory
bit on that opinion, 1 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 dis
erection 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 Super
Visors."
With the foregoing before me, con-
cluded (and rightly as the Supreme
Court has since declared), that it was
my duty to pay the Andrew Adams
warrant, and 1 accordingly advised the
County Auditor that it would be paiG
on presentation.
On September Sth or 9th and before
the Andrew Adams warrant was pre-
AASAaGlaAAGGIDSG
"/T NN"L