The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-03-06

is that the above workings permit the
County Supervisors to appropriate
money for Aala and Makiki Parks,
but prohibit them from making ap-
preparations for Kapiolani Park. L
beg to suggest to him that they neither
permit appropriations in the one case
nor prohibit it in the other. That the
clauses in question have nothing to do
with the source of the funds which
are to keep the parks in order; but
simply serve to define what use is to
be made of the several pieces of land
described, irrespective of the form of
the government or the personnel or
title of the public officers who provide
the funds or care for the several
parks.
3. Mr.. Douthitt is mistaken in his
assumption that the statute E'specif-
cally prohibits the Park Commission
rom receiving assistance from the
,ounty or is limited to territorial sup
oort. On the contrary, section 766 Of
5he Revised Statutes provides that the
commission shall expend upon the park
81 all FUNDS which may be hereafter re-
ceived on account of said park from
Territorial appropriations or other
wise; thereby expressly intimating
that kaplolani Park was not to DO
limited 20 Territorial appropriations.
4. 1t mas been intimated that an ap-
preparation by the county, to be spent
Dy the Commission, would be illegal,
because the Commission is an indepen-
dent body not under the control of the
County Supervisors.
Whether the principle invoked is
sound or not is immaterial, as it is
based on an assumption of facts which
do not exist. The Commission directs
tue expenditure of the appropriations
made by the Supervisors; but the Su-
pervisors make appropriations only af
ter they are Informed as to exactly
what the money is to be used for; and
pay the money directly. to those to
whom it becomes due, on payrolls and
vouchers submitted to the County Audi
tor. No money is paid to the Commits
sioner by the Supervisors.
5. I submit that there is no statute,
either directly or indirectly excluding
any public park in Honolulu from
financial assistance by the County Su- |
pervisors. If there is no specific prohi |
bition of such assistance, and Mr.. |
Douthitt is still in doubt as to the in |
tention of the legislature, | call to his !
the rule of law that the de- |
bates in the legislature may be con- |
suited in such cases. Such debates !
show affirmatively that there was much |
discussion of the subject, and that the ,
legislature deliberately and specifically |
declined to make any appropriation for
any park in Honolulu, on the express
ground that they were for the pleasure
of the people of the County of Oahu,
and the County Treasury should there
4 he oe ho5
nance. The County Supervisors knew of
this argument and intention and I'M
assumed the obligation.
6. Without expressing any opinion
as to the legality or otherwise, of a
county appropriation in support of the
I submit that the reasoning
against the school appropriation is far
stronger than against appropriations
or Kapiolani Park.
The legislature recognized the duty
md assumed the obligation of provid-
ng for the schools. The sole difficulty
n connection Herewith is that the
legislature did not appropriate enough.
On the other hand, the legislature !
id not recognize the duty or assume
he obligation of supporting Kapiolani
r any other park, but expressly repu-
lated such obligation and left such |
arvice to be provided by the county,
-ithout whose support it must be aban-
oned.
I sincerely hope that after Mr.. Dou-
litt has had further time to study the
Nv of the matter, he may see his way
ear to advise the Supervisors that
,ntrary to his first impression their
of the law relative to
appellant Park has been correct.
LORRIN A THURSTON.