The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1909-03-01

division or department requires, In
order that It receive proper attention,
some one or more persons to be paced
in charge authorized to employ men
to do the work required to be done
Under the County Act the board OF
supervisors appointed the persons in
charge of each department and the
chiefs OF departments so appointed en-
gagged and looked after the employees,
the chiefs of the departments being sub
ordinate Offices of the board under the
power expressly given to the board by
Par. 2 of Section So of the ounty Act
(Act 3 S. l.. 1905): ITO appoint such
subordinate officers as they may deem
necessary for the public service" but
this power Is not given to the board
of supervisors by the Municipal Act.
If this power were not otherwise plac-
ed by the act it might be implied, as
! contended by the plaintiff, from the
power to maintain roads, but the act,
section 81, gives to the mayor the pow
er of appointing, with the approval OF
the board, all officers whose appoint
ment is not otherwise specially pro-
vided for in the act or by law.
According to the plaintiffs theory
| this power would be continued to the
appointment of the mayors own secre-
tary, no other officers being spe-
officially mentioned, with the possible
exception of inspectors of elections.
According to the theory of the defen-
dant most relied upon, the officers re-,
| ferred to are those not specifically
named in the act but actually existing
| under the county government, parti-
l-cularly. those whose offices were Great.
ed under territorial law and who con-
tinued to exercise corresponding fune-
tions under the county act. These, ac1
cording to defendants contention,
would be appointed by the mayor, with
the approval Of the board of super
visors, and would naturally and by
necessary implication have the select
ing of their own employees.
There are parts of the act which arv
inconsistent with either theory, but we
are 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 in
ferred from the power given the sup
all things necessary and proper to
carry into execution the foregoing pow
ers and all other powers vested in said
City and County or in any officer
thereof" (Section % Par. 20), but sucn
construction seems forced and unna-
tural 1t is admitted that the enume-
ration of city and county officers in
Sections "a, 80 and SO is not exhaus-
tive, the existence of others being inn
piled in Sections H. q, 81 131, 141 and
LAG. Departments though not spe-
officially created are frequently referred
to and their power to employ subor-
dinates and employees is assumed in
Sections 13 and las. This last section
providing for the procedure when ad
ditional employees are required, is o.
especial significance. The supervisors
upon the recommendation of the ma
yor authorize the appointment of add
, tional employees and provide for theil
compensation the appointments ar,
made by the officers, board or depart
ment requiring them. This seems in
compatible with the appointment o
employees by the supervisors,
The plaintiff in this case does no
bring himself within the class of EN-
ployees employed by de facto office
holding legal Office with the powe
of appointment. He claims solely I'm
der his appointment by the committe
of the supervisors, ratified by tn
board. We are of the opinion that hi
employment was without authority c
a law and that he has no legal claim t
= his wages.
The order appealed from is reverse
p and the case remanded with instruC
"%tions to dismiss the petition and alter
native writ.
. j. w. Cathcart, City and County A
. torney, and F. w. Milverton First d.
y, putty City and County Attorney, fc
" plaintiff.
w. A. Kinney (E. NJ. Watson wit
III him on the brief for defendant
5 The Chief Justice added after real
II ing the decision:
Is Whether the act requires that IL
J. board of supervisors, when organize
d and, qualified to act, shall pass upon a.
C. pointments of heads of department
u made by the mayor elect is a questiC
y which cannot be decided unless pre-
W ented by some appropriate proceedin
u 1.-The Municipal Act appears to col
ID sist of the San Francisco charter, aft
CT eliminating many of it's important pr
10 visions which are connected with al
lp explanatory of those which renal
b. changing the names and adding fe
u e;p,D1a nrnvisiOng To pOQStrue SUI