The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1905-10-27

the future. In this connection the
"new" and "old' roads, which are
county officials. Governor Carter's lett
THE GOVERNOR LETTER.
Oct. 81, 1905.
Hilo Chamber of Commerce, Hilo, Ha-
waii.
Gentlemen:
Up to the present have not had an
opportunity to reply to your letter of
Sept 23d. re the bond issue.
It pleases me to note your approval
of the plan of keeping the debt of the
Territory at a minimum. Common
sense would dictate such course.
With this three-quarters of million
dollars the Territory will have ex-
hausted fifty per cent. of her borrow
ing capacity, and will be paying nearly
S500.o0 day interest, and this with
out any provision as yet being made
by the Legislature to meet this indebt-
edness.
During the last session of the Legis-
lature, Treasurer Campbell made a
suggestion (Which I approved) that
the revenues and proceeds from the
sale of public lands be set aside for
the redemption of our bonds. The rev.
enue for the last year was some $780,
10000, and the sales under S40,00000,
with which, If not increased, it would
take some twenty-four years to pay off
our present debt Such an act would
not bind the future, and whenever the
sales or revenues from the lands in
creased to such an extent that they
made too large sinking fund, the
amount could be reduced. But no, it
did not appear as if either the people
of the Territory or their representa-
tives felt any responsibility as to the
debt they were creating. 1t was
easier to let posterity do the worry
ing.
Many of the arguments brought for
ward in regard to this loan question
seem to miss the point entirely, and
dwell rather on the necessity of the
work contemplated than upon the wis
dom of making an expenditure with
borrowed money.
Previous to the passage of this loan
, bill, county act had been passed
, which. If constitutional, would revo-
, ment. The Legislature had been
OllOuBn OHC cApCllCuCO WhCle SuCu dl
act had been declared unconstitu
; tional, and they could not forsee the
, result of the second act, and could not
legislate in any way with certainty.
There must of necessity in such a
change be a transition period-one OF
friction and difficulty. For instance:
If they had legislated on the theory
that the counties were to take charge
| &c n,,I 4hA -,
act had been declared unconstitutional,
it would have been impossible to do
! any work on roads at all without a
special session of the Legislature.
Now the situation has been entirely
altered as the act has been tested and
found constitutional.
5 There seems to have been an indef-
mite plan that the Territory should
: build new roads and the counties re-
pair and maintain the old ones. But
} no definition has as yet been laid down
, as to what is new road work. Every
body has different idea in regard
to it.
note you, too, make distinction
between work on "new" and "old"
roads, and I would be very much
obliged if you would give me defini-
ti0n of what you consider NEW
road, for have had all kinds of argu-
} ments presented to me in regard to
this question, and it is often apparent
that the desire for the appropriation
molds the argument. You know, u
shovelful Of dirt taken out Of the gut
ter and thrown on the road can be
considered as "new'' work; IL is
"new' in the sense that it has never
been done before.
1t was argued during the last ses-
sion that certain districts with a small
/ population and long distance would re-
quire assistance in their road work.
And there was considerable talk of the
: Territory maintaining the belt roads
? around the Islands as Territorial.
D But nothing could be done with any
: certainty at that time, and in my
: opinion it is absolutely necessary that
: the Legislature should declare Just
/ what roads are to be Territorial roads,
t and whether or not the Territory is to
Q be responsible for their maintenance
}. as well as construction. I know of no
0 authority by which the Executive
Q could settle such a question.
You argue that road extensions are
D largely Territorial matters because
2 the counties outside of Honolulu have
Q not the means to carry out such work
|, Is it not then the means that you want
s rather than that the Territory should
c build roads? If so, all that is neces
h sary is that the Legislature should Sc
allot the revenues as to give the coun
II ties outside of Oahu sufficient mean
to carry on the work. I can not agre,
in the argument that until all tn,
means are given to the counties, the!
q are entitled to Territorial assistance
q The trouble now is that Territory ant
i county are too much mixed up.
II You state in your letter that i
Q would be in line with the idea of de
D. veloping county government to plac
a, the responsibility on the county o
l. selecting the specific purposes o
1t county expenditures. I am willing T.
t follow this to the extent of their owl
It current revenues, but I believe tina
e before the counties are allowed to boz
'r row money they should in each in
l. stance go to the Legislature with
i request or accommodation for tn