Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1909-03-01
Supervisors Can't
Hire WOrkn1en
Continued From Pege y


this power delegate it can the power be evolved
from based upon any legislative act ordinance rule of pro-
cedure or resolution of the board whatsoever.
The evidence properly rejected which the defendant
offered to show the purpose of the action taken by the board of
supervisors of the county of Oahu January t. 1909 Just
before the hour of noon when its Office expired in aboishng all
"boars, committees, commissions officers, positions and employ
mcnts heretofore created by it and repeating al Noton
votes ORDERS resolutions rules and regulations creating tend
ing to create the well he rules and regulations
heretofore adopted by this board and now in force"
The petition showing that i'll this the had been
examined allowed and ordered paid the plaintiff contends that
under McClandhan Trent II Haw. 100 1885, there no
power which the himself has TO decline pay
rant which has been legally examined allowed and ordered paid
by the board of supervisors te law does constitute him
authority to scrunizc the acts of the board and pay
refuse to pay warrants payment of claims passed by the board
according i'll his opinion the action of the board legal
Illegal The opinion goes state: "Tle only way in which
payment of an unauthorized fraudulent illegal claim be
prevented after warrant has been issued by the auditor would
be by Injunction of a having jurisdiction Of such mat
ters but iegaty fraud lack of authority appears this
case The defendant insists that since under Sec 1873 of the
Municipal Act (Which is Act rs S. L. 1000 which was not in
the County Act he would be liable to the city and county and
his bond he pay any demand the treasury author
lied by law, ordinance this charter che has the power TO
refuse pay if he thinks that the claim is illegal" In Lymdn
Mcguire, II llaw 49, refusal grant writ of mandamus
to compel the auditor of the county warrant on the
treasurer in payment of claim for salary crs clerk
affirmed the court holding that "a county auditor has the right
in proper question the validity of claims allowed and
ordered paid by the board of supervisors and that tire claim in
that not a lawful claim.
Upon the whole of opinion that Sec authorizes
the treasurer to refuse payment of based upon claim
which in his opinion is unlawful otherwise the provision
to restrain illegal use of municipal funds would he imperative
Sec of the Municipal Act gives the city all the powers of
every description of the then existing county of Oahu and
declares that the municipality the of the said county,
Sec OF the County Act the county supervisors powcr
OPEN construct maintain and close up public Streets highways
roads alleys trails and bridges within its boundaries Under
this power thus transferred to the city, the selecting engaging
and employment Of persons perform the service required in
U,n lnf
supervisors has express power under Sec 20 of the Municipal
Act 10 fix the hours of labor service required of all
employees and aborers in the service of CITY and County
and to fix their compensation" But who are to employ the
aborers employees the supervisors whose general functions
defined by the act Legislative the mayor who is made
by the act the chief executive occr The division appo
tonment Of public work conveniently and properly made
according to the nature of the required as for instance
maintaining roads and bridges and clearing streets would nat
ualy under head sanitation and health another and
so Each head subdivision department requires in order
that 1t receive proper attention. persons TO be
placed in charge authorized employ do the work
required to be done Under the County Act the board of super
vsors appointed the charge of each department and
the chiefs OF departments appointed engaged and looked after
the employees the chief of the departments being subordinate
officers OF the board under the power expressly given
board by Par of Sec. 90 of the County Act (Ac s. L.
l9O5) 10 appoint such subordinate officers NAV deem
necessary for the public serc but this power not given to
the board of supervisors by the Municipal Act If this power
were not otherwise placed by the might be implied
tended by the plaintiff from the power to maintain road bt
the act Sec ST. gives to the the power of appointing
with the approval of the board all officers whose appointment
not otherwise specially provided for in the by law
According to the plaintiffs theory this power would be
fined the appointment of the mayors secretary other
officers being specifically mentioned, with the possible exception
OF inspectors OF elections According to the theory of the defend
ant most relied upo the officers rcfcrrc those spcc
cay named III the act but actually existing under the county
government particularly those whose offices created under
territorial law and who continued exercise corresponding
functions under the county These according to defend
ants contention, would be appointed by the mayor with the
approval of the board of supervisors and would naturally and
by necessary implication have the selecting of their own en-
ployecs.
There parts of the which inconsistent with either
theory but of the opinion that the decided preponderance
OF argument supports the contention of the defendant The
power to select employees might in the absence of any other
power be inferred from the power given the supervisors 10
make contracts and to do all things necessary and proper
carry into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers
vested IN said City and County any officer thereof (Sec
20 Far 2O, but such construction forcchand unnatural
1t admitted that the enumeration of city and county officers
III Secs 2 IS and 80 is not exhaustive the existence of others