The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1906-03-09

it would he 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.
hapiolani Park is Territorial insti.
tuition. 1t is regulated and governed
by board of trustees appointed by
the Governor of the Territory of Ha.
waii, called the Kapiolani Park com
mission. There was 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
kAplo!ani Park, it would be powerless
to do so. 1t is not county nstitu-
tion, and the County Act has in no
wise disturbed the rights and powers
Of this commission. 1t is mainly and
tinguished and differentiated from
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 /.
the Kapioani 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 tho
Geographical area oc the park in ques,
tion 1t situated within the Territorial
confines of the County of Oahu. but
such fact does not necessarily change
the legal aspect of affairs
'rhe question may vel 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 60,
81, 62 and SO of the Revised Laws, ana
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
Kapiolani Park. the Superintendent of
Public Works has not now, and never
has had, any direct supervision over
1t, 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 IL, Hawaiian Re.
ports, at page 769 thereof:
, Creating counties and providing for
their government does not require, and
: therefore does not imply, the abroga-
ton OF the functions i'm respect to Ter
, ritorial 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
J not consider that the Act unduly en-
croaches upon their prescribed func-
/, tions."
This portion of the decision in ques-
tion was in response to the objection
urged by Mr.. w. r. Castle with refer
ence to the transfer of the powers of
l the superintendent of Public Works
over roads and highways throughout
the Territory. The Supreme Court
held in that case that the transfer of
such powers from the Superintendent
of Public Works to the Supervisors OF
b, the various counties was not an abro-
: CATION of the functions OF the Superln>
e tendent of Public Works, but modi-
ncation of the same. So therefore,
: with regard to the other parks former
Y ly controlled and managed by the Su-
, perintendent of Public Works, 1t may
f. well be urged that such transfer to the
s counties would not be an abrogation
OF the functions of the Territorial Off
[ Ger, but modification of the same.
1 But such condition does not obtain
, with regard to the Kapiolani Park,
because the Kapiolani Park was never
under the control of the Superinte end
> ent of Public Works
' Can 1t be claimed that the Kapio-
lani Park Commission could force the
County of Oahu to make appropria-
a tions for the use of Kapiolani Park "
II the Board of Supervisors could be
. forced to appropriate moneys for the
maintenapce of this institution, then II
would be a legal claim "chargeab BILE
against the county: 1t could be EN-
. forced" by legal proceedings-bu
. hardly believe that the Board of SUI
= pervisors OF this county could be le-
y gally forced 20 pass appropriations fol
" The purpose named; and therefore II
must follow. by logical deduction. tina
" II the Board OF Supervisors OF thi'
county could not legally be forced -
T make such appropriation. then IN,
" claim would not be enforcible agains
u the county. and II the claim is not en-
foroible against the county, then th'
y Board OF Supervisors could not b'
vi forced Ia audit or allow such claim,
G. In conclusion, ! viii state that you
y honorable board is vested with Ger
u tain prescribed powers, beyond whio'
"a IL can not 60 Much as your boar
would desire 10 make the appropra
o ton In question, stlll IL can only ac
n within the scope of the power Veste'
lr In IL hy law, ! am, therefore, of IN
ol opinion that inasmuoh as the CLAIM
Is not legal Claim against the coun
W tv and could not be enforced as sucl
n that your board has no power 20 max