The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-08-02
SAYS WARRANT
SHOULD Be PAID
Continued from page one)

Section 81, subdivision 3, Chapter II
of the County Act, vests the power Of
the authorization and expenditure of
County funds in the Board of Super
visors, and reads as follows:
ITO authorize and supervise the ex-
pendture of all funds belonging to the
County"
The language of this paragraph IS
plain, and unquestionably the Board of
Supervisors has the power to direct
how public funds may be expended.
The duties of the County Auditor
with relation to the issuance of County
warrants will be found in Section rs,
Chapter IS of the County Act, which
Section does not authorize the Auditor
to issue any warrants upon the Treas
urer, unless the claims of the persons
entitled thereto shall be first legally
examined, allowed and ordered paid by
the Board of Supervisors"
Right here it may be remarked tina.
the Board of Supervisors has legally
examined, allowed and ordered paid"
warrant No. GO in favor of Mr.. Samuel
johnson for .Le sum of $1446.44 1t IS
plainly apparent that the Auditor could
not issue a warrant upon the County
Treasurer unless in pursuance of ac-
ton previously taken by the Board Of
Supervisors with regard to the issu-
ance of such warrant. The Auditor,
when the claim has been allowed and
ordered paid by the Board of Super
Visors,' is protected so far as the is
suance of his warrant upon the Treas
urer is concerned, and when a claim
has been legally examined. allowed
and ordered paid by the Board of Su-
pervisors," it then becomes the duty of
the County Auditor to issue a warrant
on the Treasurer for the payment of
the same. In other words. the Auditor.
IN issuing such warrant, does so in
purely ministerial or clerical capacity
Subdivision of Section 81. CHAPTER
p of the CSunty Act, with relation to
the duties of the County Treasurer.
reads as follows:
"Disburse County moneys only m
County Warrants issued by the County
Auditor except on settlement with the
Territory"
Unquestionably, the County Treasur-
er could not pay to any person ahy
by the County Auditor.
When a warrant is Issued upon the
County Treasurer by the County Audi
tor, it has become the duty of the
County Treasurer to honor and pay
such warrant and in this behalf Il
might be added that the duty Of the
County Treasurer in paying such war
rant is purely ministerial, the County
Treasurer or Auditor not having any
discretion in the premises, such power
being vested in the Board of Super
visors as hereinabove pointed out.
Therefore, it seems to me that the
County Treasurer cannot 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.
Therefore, when Warrant No. SO was
ordered paid to Mr. Johnson, the Coun-
ty Treasurer is protected when such
money is paid to Mr.. Johnson, and the
Treasurer is not authorized or expect
ed to see to it that each and every
dollar embraced in the amount of the
warrant is properly paid TO the persons
for whom the warrant Is drawn, mas
much as the warrant is payable to Mr.
Johnson. If these moneys should not
be properly applied by Mr. johnson 10
the persons entitled thereto, then the
remedy of such persons would be
either against Mr.. Johnson or the