The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-09-15

the attorney gave Chairman Smith
later by request, namely: that the
treasurer's duty with regard to the
warrant was purely ministerial and
that he could not go behind the action
of the auditor and the board Of
supervisors. This opinion. he says. was
written upon the assumption and the
Information that the board had pre-
viously adopted a resolution ordering
The auditor to issue a warrant to the
treasurer, payable to Samuel Johnson.
Upon investiga ton, finding that the
board had not passed such a resolution,
the attorney communicated with Chair
man Smith, on August 8, informing him
OF the impression under which the
opinion had been written.
1T has always been my idea" Coun-
ty Attorney Douthitt writes to Treas
urer Trent, that before the auditor
draw blanket warrant his action
should be previously backed up by a
resolution of the board of supervisors
authorizing the auditor to draw war
rant in favor of the person designat-
ed by the board
In pursuance of such views he pre-
pared a resolution which was adopted
by the board in connection with the
w L. Frazee warrant for $14.25, which
resolution directed the auditor to draw
warrant in favor of Mr.. F'razee per-
sonalIy. This warrant, under an ar
rangement between the attorneys Of
fee and the treasurer. was to be made
the basis of a test case to be SUBJ
n1itted to the Supreme Court.
Then follows a relation of the facts
about negotiations between Mr.. Dou~
thitt and Mr.. Trent's attorneys, Messrs.
Kinney and Watson, for an agreed
statement of facts to be submitted to
the Supreme Court. The treasurer's
counsel insisted on the county attor-
ney's drafting of the statement. to be
afterward submitted to them for such
changes as they might deem advisable.
So he prepared a statement and sent
it TO Mr.. Kinney three weeks ago,
since when no reply from Mr.. Trent's
counsel had been received. He calls
attention to this status of the matter
because Mr.. Trent was quoted in yes
terday's Advertiser as saying:
Mr.. Douthitt and the board of SUI
pervisors have sidetracked the propo-
sition to submit the question of the
right or wrong of blanket warrants to
the Supreme Court in a friendly suit on
an agreed statement of facts, by the
issuance of the Andrew Adams blanket
AS to the Adams warrant Mr.. Dou-
thitt observes in Mr.. Trent's commune
cation that the treasurer had sought
legal advice, and upon this advice told
the county auditor that he would pay
the warrant on presentation, continu-
ing:
never advised you to pay the warrant
in question, and Furthermore that I
have never been consulted by you with
reference to it's payment.
and, Furthermore. the injunction pro-
ceeding in which you request me as
attorney to appear in your be-
half was commenced by Mr.. E. B. Nc
Clanahan, a member of the firm Of
Kinney, Mechanism & Cooper, while
an agreed statement of facts is now
in possession of Mr.. Kinney, the senior
member of that firm, concerning a
warrant which it was presumed you
would refuse to pay.
so far as I am concerned, I can see
a absolutely no difference as a matter of
law between the payment of the An
drew Adams warrant and the Samuel
Johnson warrant. AS you are aware,
you have refused the payment of the
Samuel Johnson warrant, but now you
are willing to pay the Andrew Adams
warrant.
There being no resolution of the
board of supervisors, previously passed,
authorizing the auditor to issue the
warrant in favor of Mr.. Andrew
Adams, I would advise you, as coun-
ty attorney, not to pay the same.
However should yOllr priyata counsel
advise you that it should be paid, and
you desire to act upon his advice, I
would suggest that you employ him to
defend the McClanahan injunction
proceeding"