The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-03-07

| have employed them to do the work at
the time il was done. and unless II had
power to do so. its allowance of a
claim for such services is Illegal, how
ever beneficial the work may have
been to the public, and any taxpayer
feeling aggrieved may have relief by
appeal GemmiI VS. Arthur, 125 Ind,
25S.
The Supreme Court of Iowa, in the
case OF Foster VS.. Clinton Co, 81 Iowa,
541, has to say upon this subject as
follows:
''Unless the law requires or author
! ICES payment of the claim against the
county. the board of supervisors has
| no power to allow it under Code 1873,
section 303, authorizing the board to
examine, settle and allow all just
claims against the county.
The language used in the case last
! quoted is almost Identical with the Ian
/ guage of our County Act with refer
| ence to the disposition of public funds.
| Our Act, relating to the Auditor s du-
ties, provides as follows:
! Snail issue warrants on the County
! Treasurer in favor of persons entitled
thereto in payment of claims and de-
mands chargeable against the county
lowed and ordered paid by the Board
of Supervisors.
| 1t will be readily seen that the pro-
visions of the Iowa statute are almost
Identical with the language of our
County Act, and if the words are not
| the same, the spirit is.
/ could go on Indefinitely citing
many additional authorities in support
of the principles above announced, but
| it would be a waste of time so to do.
Therefore, the board will readily see
that it can make no appropriation of
public moneys unless the person for
whose benefit it is made had a legal
: claim, enforcible against the county.
! Kapiolani Park is a Territorial insti-
tuition. 1t is regulated and governed
by a board of trustees appointed by
the Governor of the Territory of Ha-
wall, called the Kapiolani Park COM
mission. There was a special statute
of the Territory of Hawaii creating
this commission, and defining the du-
ties of the commission. The county
{ has no control over kapiolani Park or
over this commission. The county does
not employ any of the laborers working
therein. The commission or the labor
ers employed therein are in no way be-
holden or responsible to the county. If
the county should desire to discharge
or remove any one of these commits
sioners or any person employed in the
kapiolani Park. it would be powerless
to do So 1t is not a county institu-
ton, and the County Act has in no
wise disturbed the rights and powers
of this commission. 1t is mainly and
essentially a Territorial park, as dis
.s-l,~ IL N1,l
county park. 1t is just as much for
the use and benefit of the people of
the County of Maui as it is for the
use and benefit of the people of the
County of Oahu. Then on what the
cry could it possibly be urged that Il
the Kapiolani Park is for the use and
benefit of the whole Territory, why
should the County of Oahu be obliged
to maintain it? 1t is true that the
geographical area of the park in ques,
ton it situated within the Territorial
confines of the County of Oahu, but
such fact does not necessarily change
the legal aspect of affairs
The question may well be asked as to
what position the parks other than
Kapiolani Park are in. This question
is easily answered by referring to the
provisions of the Revised Laws with
respect to these other parks. These
provisions will be found In chapters so,
81, 62 and SO of the Revised Laws, and
it will be observed that in each OF the
chapters mentioned the Superintendent
of Public Works is vested with the
duty of maintaining the same. AS to
Kapfolani Park. the Superintendent of
Public Works has not now, and never
has had, any direct supervision over
it, this power having been vested III
the commissioners by a special act of
the Legislature. In seeking to ascer-
tain the exact status of these other
parks, it becomes necessary to read a
portion of the decision by our learned
Supreme Court in the case of Castle
VS.. the Secretary of the Territory, re-
ported in volume IS, Hawaiian Re-
ports, at page 1853 thereof:
Creating counties and providing for
their government does not require. and
therefore does not imply, the abroga-
ton of the functions in respect to Ter
ritoria1 affairs of the Territorial Of
ficers such as the Attorney General
and Superintendent of Public Works
AS far as officers other than the At
torney General are concerned. we do
not consider that the Act unduly en-
croaches upon their prescribed func-
tions."
This portion of the decision in ques-
ton was in response to the objection
urged by Mr.. w. r. Castle with refer
ence to the transfer of the powers of
the superintendent of Public Works
over roads and highways throughout
the Territory. The Supreme Court
held in that case that the transfer of Z
such powers from the Superintendent
OF Public Works to the Supervisors of
the various counties was not an abro-
cation of the functions of the Super1n>
tendent of Public Works, but a modi-
hcation of the same. So therefore.
with regard to the other parks former
ly controlled and managed by the Su-
perintendent of Public Works. it may