The Hawaiian gazette., 1909-03-02
MAYOR SCORES
COURT VICTORY

In clearly written opinion by
Chief Justice Hartwell and concurred
in by Associate Justices Ballou and
Wilder, the Supreme Court yesterday
decided that Charles Coster was not
to be included in that ''class of en-
pioyes employed by de facto officer
holding a legal Office with power of
appointment and that his employment
was without authority of law and that
he has no legal claim to his wages.''
In brief, the decision of the Su-
preme Court holds that the appoint
ments made by the committees of the
Board of Supervisors are not legal.
but the decision does not declare spe-
critically where the appointive power
does lie under the proper interpreta-
ton of the charter.
Chief Justice Hartwell admitted
that there is considerable difficulty in
constituting the charter, for he spoke
as follows when the decision was hand
ed down yesterday morning:
whether the act requires that the
Board of Supervisors, when organized
and qualified to act, shall pass upon
appointments made by the Mayor.eiect
rs question which can not be de-
eided unless presented by some appro-
pirate proceeding.
"The municipal act appears to con-
sist of the San Francisco charter. after
eliminating many of its important pro-
visionsI which are connected with and
explanatory of those which remain.
changing the names and adding few
simple provisions. To construe such
an act. it is evident, has presented no
little difficulty"
Case Summed Up.
The case is summed up in the opin-
ion of Chief Justice Hartwell, as fol
lows:
"This is an appeal by the defend
ant Getty and County Treasurer Il. H.
Trent) from an order of the circuit
Judge for a peremptory writ of man
damus and from the writ commanding
the defendant to pay to Che plaintiff
the sum of $30.15 upon warrant in
his favor issued by the Auditor of the
City and County of Honolulu
payable out of the appropriation made
by the Board of Supervisors for main
tenance of roads, Honolulu district
payroll, and being plaintiffs wages at
$s5 month, fixed by the Board of
Supervisors for his service as fore
man of the Fourth District stables,
maintained by the city in connection
with the care of and maintenance of
its public roads. The plaintiff was en-
ployed by Supervisors Quinn, Aylett
and Kane, the boards committee on
roads. bridges, garbage, parks and
public improy ements. The defendant g
objection to paying the warrant was
that the plaintiff was not lawfully EN-
ployed by the committee of the board
"The pleadings and briefs are volu-
minous,' continues the decision. Gre
citing the proceedings of the board
of supervisors, an opinion of the City
| Attorney and letter or message to
the BOARD by the Mayor giving his
version of the law, but when every
thing possible is written and said on
the subject, the controversy comes
down to the question whether, under
the municipal act, the Board of SUI
pervisors has power to select and en-
gage employees, as well as to fix their
wages, for public service in connection
with the care and maintenance of the
public highways, for if it has not this
power it can not delegate it nor can
the power be evolved from or based
upon any legislative act, ordinance,
rule of procedure or resolution of the
board whatsoever.
Interprets Act.
The decision holds that under Section
1873 of the municipal act the Treasurer
was authorized to refuse payment of a
warrant which in his opinion was un.
lawful, otherwise the Supreme Court
believes the provision meant to restrain
illegal use of municipal funds would be
imperative.
The decision further states that
"Section of the municipal act gives
! to the city all the powers o. every de
scription of the then existing county OF
Oahu and declares the municipality i:
81 the successor of the said county. Sec
ton of the county act gave the
r County Supervisors power to open, con
e struct, maintain and close up public
r streets, highways, roads, alleys, trails
n bridges within its boundaries. Under
n this power, thus transferred to tn,
: city, the selection, engaging and EN-
e ployment of persons to perform tn,
e service required in maintaining public
d highways becomes necessary. Thu
It Board of Supervisors has expires
n power under Section 90 of the munich
e pal act ITO fix the hours of labor o
re service required of all employees an,
e laborers in the service of the city an,
e county, and to fix their compensation.
But who are to employ the laborer
is or employes-the Supervisors, who's
p general functions, as defined by tn
a. act, are legislative, or the Mayor, VIII
is made by the act the chief execu
le tive oficer9'
,, This portion of the decision is in
~ terpreted to mean that the Suprem
~ Court tnInks the Mayor has the az
IN pointive power, but whether the ST
~ pervisors must pass on his appoint
N ments is another disputed ailment @
nr the municipal infant.
--ss$.e---