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

corporation nor its officers can do any
act or make any contract or incur any
liability not authorized thereby. or by
some legislative act applicable thereto.
All acts beyond the scope of the pow
ers granted are void"
Mr.. Dillon further quotes with APP
proval the forcible language of the
learned late Chief Justice Shaw, who,
speaking of municipal corporations,
says:
They can exercise no powers but
those which are conferred upon them
by the act by which they are created,
or such as are necessary to the eX-
erci7e of their corporate powers, the
performance of their corporate duties,
and the accomplishment of the pur-
poses of their association. This prin-
ciple is observed from the nature of
corporations, the mode in which they
are organized, and in which their af-
fairs must be conducted"
1t is a we'll settled principle of con-
struction of grants by a legislative
body to municipal corporations that
only such powers and rights can be
exercised under them as are clearly
comprehended within the words of the
act, or derived therefrom by necessa-
ry implication, regard being had to
the objects of the grant. Any ambi-
guilty or doubt arising out of the terms
used by the legislature must be re-
solved against the corporation and in
favor of the public. In support of
this doctrine, ] cite the case of Min
ton VS. La Rue, % How. 435 This doc
trine has been affirmed and reaffirmed
by the highest court in the land. in
cases arising subsequent to the Min
ton case.
We must take into consideration that
the power of the Board of Supervisors
with reference to the disposition and
appropriation of public funds is a dele
gated power. and being delegated
power. it becomes necessary to adopt
a strict and rigid construction, rather
than loose and pliable one.
So, therefore, in endeavoring to as
certain what the powers of the board
may be with regard to the appropria-
ton of public moneys it will be neces-
sary to ascertain what may be the
subjects or objects of appropriation.
1t is specifically set forth in the Coun-
ty Act, as hereinabove quoted, that
the Supervisors can only make appro-
County. Now it must follow, that If,
in any given instance, there is no legal
claim enforcible against the County,
then the Supervisors would be VIOLA
ting their trust If they should make
appropriations for purposes which could
never be made the basis of a legal
claim against the County. 1t must not
only be a legal claim against the
County, but 1t must be enforcible as
such In support of this view, / beg
to call the attention of your Honora-
BILE Board to the action taken by the
Supreme Courts of a number of states
with reference to this subject The
Supreme Court of the State of Cali
fornia in the case of Linden VS.. Case,
46 Cal. III, decides as follows:
The Board has no power to audit
able to the County"
Richmond Co. VS., Ellis, 50 N. Y $40
, decides as follows:
The County court can not allow
claims against the County which grow
out of contracts which the County is
not authorized to make"
English VS.. Chicot Co., 26 Ark. 454:
"The allowance of claim by a
ly enforcibe, imports no acknowledge
ment to liability of the county there
on
, The following case, which was de.
cided by the Supreme Court of Indiana
is somewhat in point, and it will be in
, structive to learn what the Supreme
Court of that state had to say:
'Where parties voluntarily con
!, struct a levy upon private property
, subsequently dedicated to the public
the power of the board of county com
missioners to reimburse them depend:
wholly upon whether the board could
have employed them to do the work at
the time it was done. and unless it had
2 power to do so. it's allowance of a
l claim for such services is illegal, how.
4 ever beneficial the work NAV have
o hecn to the public, and any taxpayer
t feeling agpricved may have relief by
a anneal" Gemmil VS.. Arthur, 1875 Ind.
= 25S.
: The Supreme Court of Iowa, in tn,
ease of Foster VS.. Clinton Co., 81 Iowa
. 54l, has TO say upon this subject a,
u follows;
"unless the law requires or author
. ICES payment of the claim against tn,
: county, the board of supervisors ha
!, no power to allow it under Code 1873
" section 303, authorizing the board It,
examine, settle and allow all jus
a claims against the county
a The language used in the case las
u quoted is almost identical with the Ian
s guage of our County Act with refer
encc to the disposition of public funds
}. nmr Act, relating 10 the Auditors du
Al ties, provides as follows;
"a "Shall issue warrants ON the Count
81 Treasurer in favor Of persons entitle
5 thereto in payment Of claims and d,
"a mands charpeahle against the count
~ which have been legally examined, a
p lowed and ordered paid by the Boar
le Of Supervisors,
4, N will ho readily seen that the pr,
A. visions of tho Iowa statute are almos
N identical with the language OF ON
81 County Act, and II the words are nC
b. the same, the spirit is.
NJ | could go on indefinitely citin
Is many additional authorities in suppol