The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-09-09

''The Legislature will have to meet
the situation with a general act, said
Auditor Fisher, in speaking of the deci.
sion of the Supreme Court yesterday
on the appeal of James A. Thompson
from the Auditor s ruling refusing to
/ issue a warrant for the services of
4! Thompson in typewriting the report of
the Tax Commission. The refusal was
based on the provision of the salary
appropriation that NO officer or other
employee of the Territory holding more
than one office or employment shall be
authorized to draw more than the
salary of the highest grade of the office
or employment held by him, provided
the aggregate of the salaries to any
person shall not exceed one hundred
dollars per month; and he shall be en-
sation.' This is provision which it
has been usual to add to salary appro-
priation bills for good many years.
''The provision, continued Auditor
Fisher, is aimed at very bad prac-
tice, a practice that the provision has
practically prevented ever since it was
adopted. 1t used to be that clerks and
employees in all departments were con-
stantly being appointed to do clerical
or other work from some other depart
ment, typewriting and that sort of
thing, and being paid for it in addition
to their salaries. Ostensibly this work
was done outside of office hours. But
the result was that more and more at
tention was directed to securing this
sort of extra. employment, and there
was constant exercise of pull to get
it. The object of the provision was to
do away with this. They were paid
a salary for. their services to the gov
ernment. and that was the extent of
public funds they could draw.
CYLINDER this decision of the Supreme
Court it is clear the purpose can now
best be secured by the passage of a
general act covering the whole subject.
That means was proposed during the
last Legislature, and a bill to that
effect was drafted. But for some rea-
son it did not get through. 1t would
be much better to have general act,
~ Nv
there should be a failure to
put this provision in the appropriation
bills, the general act will cover the sit
uation.'
The Supreme Court directed the Au-
ditor to issue the warrant for the
amount due Thompson for the work for
the Tax Commission $60.40, on the
ground that this was in the nature of
a contract, and that by doing the work
Thompson did not become an employe
of the Territory, or hold an employ
ment within the meaning of the act. |
On this point the court says, Justice
Wilder writing the opinion:
The expenses of the tax commission |
were provided for in Act 127, s. L. |
1907, entitled "An act making appro- |
priations for the departmental use of |
the Territory and which did not |
contain the provision in the other act |
which has been referred to.
It is clear, and conceded, that |
Thompson, by virtue of being clerk |
nf hn RI 10 <xf ba
tory, and it is equally clear that doing |
the work in question for the tax com |
mission did not make him hold more |
than one Office. The question, then, is,
Did Thompson by virtue of his con-
tract with the tax commission, become |
an employee of the Territory or hold |
an employment within the meaning Of |
the statute referred to?
A common and ordinary meaning of |
the word employee is one who works
for a salary or wages under directions
See Is eye. 1882, Century Dictionary
We think this is the sense in which it
IS used in the appropriation bill. 1t
also involves the idea of continuity of
service and excludes that of being en-
gagged for special or single transac-
ton. As was said by the U. S. Su-
Dreme Court in Louisville. etc, Rail
road Co. Y. Wilson, 13S U. s. sol, sos,
the terms Officers and employees
both, alike. refer TO those in regular
ind continual service. Within the or
linary aceeptation of the terms, one
who is engaged to render service in
particular transaction is neither an
'ficer nor an employee. They imply
continuity of service and exclude those
employed for a special and single
An attorney of an indi-
-idual. retained for single sair, is
lot his employe. 1t is true, he has
to render services, but his en-
,agement is rather that of a contract
n than that of an employee.
The contention of the auditor if up
eld would lead to results not aantem-
lated by the statute. For instance,
n attorney could not be engaged by
he attorney general and paid out of |
he Incidental fund of his department
n more than one case a month If tie
I'll for services were over 800. aor
ould anyone do work for the Terri
orx- Of tho kind hare