The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-09-05
NEW WORK NOT
RUNNING EXPENSE
Howland's Pay Cannot Be
Charged Up to Main
tenanCe.

The effect of Attorney General Hem
enway's opinion denying the right of
the Public Works Department 20 COM
plete the Makiki reservoir and charge
the expense to running expenses of
the Honolulu water works system will
be make permanent the shutdown
which occurred when Auditor Fisher
refused TO audit the bills thus charged.
The similar decision as to Nuuanu
dam viii probably not have any effect
except to exhaust the remnant OF the
appropriation for the construction of
the dam, a little sooner than would
otherwise be the case.
The body of the opinion is as fol-
lows:
The questions referred to me. as 10
the legality of using the current APP
preparation made for running ex-
penses and maintenance Honolulu"
water works for the payment of, first,
cost of inspection at the Nuuanu dam;
and second, the cost of labor and ma
terial for the completion of the Ma
kiki reservoir, have met with my con-
sideration.
AS TO the Nuuanu dam inspection,
it seems to me that the contention of
the Auditor is correct, and that this
current appropriation cannot be drawn
upon for the purpose suggested. The
Nuuanu dam is, in my opinion, no
part of the present Honolulu water
system. 1t is new undertaking, still
in process of construction. Not until
it is completed and accepted by the
government, will it become a part of
the water system. Inspection of this
new work, while necessary and per-
haps imperative, cannot properly be
regarded as a running expense" of
the existing water system, nor can it
be regarded in any manner as main
tenance." Such inspection, it seems TO
me, is part of the cost of the dam,
and provision for it should have been
made in the contract let for the con-
struction of the dam or in some other |
manner out of the appropriation made |
by the Legislature to build the dam.
The question presented as to the |
Makiki reservoir differs somewhat |
from the question above discussed. BY |
Act 81, Session Laws 1907, the Legisla- |
ture appropriated the sum of $4,000 for |
the completion Makiki reservoir and |
made this sum Immediately available |
for that use. We must assume that |
this appropriation was based upon an |
estimate showing that the work |
could and would be completed for this |
amount or less. However, this amount |
proved to be insufficient and as | I'M |
derstand, since the first of July last, |
bills amounting to $1S91.70 have been
paid out of the appropriation for rum
ming expenses and maintenance OF wa
ter works in Honolulu.
It is my opinion that after the APP
preparation of $4,000 was exhausted, |
you had no power to use any further
or other sums for this work. The |
rule seems to be that where a specific /
appropriation is made for particular
object, the Legislature will be pre- |
sumed to have intended that no sums |
in addition to this specific appropria- |
ton should he used for that object. 1t /
therefore would be unlawful to use |
anv other funds for such work This |
rule is clearly laid down by the SUI
preme Court in an opinion furnished by /
said court to the Minister of the IN
terror. reported in Hawaiian, IA.
Aside from the fact that the reasoning
in this opinion appears conclusive, the
rule as there laid down is supported
by other authority in other jurisdic-
tions The case of the Makikt reser-
voir seems to me stronger in some
WAYS than the case presented to the
Supreme Court and upon which TINS
opinion was rendered In making the
appropriation for the Makik reser-
voir the Legislature chose to make it
for 1.-THE completion of that work. 1t
seems to me, therefore, that use OF
any other sums would be an attempt
by the executive branch to legislate
The rule above seems to me conclu- |
sive on this question, but II At were
not. then the reason which has been
given in the case of the inspection OF
the Nuuanu dam would apply as well
10 the case of the Makiki reservoir.
The work on the Makiki reservoir is
a new piece Of construction
work and the reservoir Is not as yet
part of the Honolulu water system
The cost of it's construction cannot
properly, as it seems to me, be con-
idered as running expense of the
water bureau, nor is it maintenance OF
he existing system. The appropria-
ion for those purposes should not
therefore, be drawn upon for the pay
nent of the bills in question.
--s.%.s.--