Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-04-10
THE KEWALO SITUATION.

Editor Honolulu S'tar-Bulletin,
Sir: Does this community know
shat the legislasture proposed to pay
l,ordYOung Engineering Company,
Limited, from $4,000 to $780, 900 dam
ages claimed by them in the matter
of the KeWalO fill?
That this payment would be an in
justice to the taxpayer is apparent
upon a little study.
/ l. The contract for the keWalO fill
with the superintendent of public
works was illegal and the LOrd-HOung
are net entitled to any damages for
the breach of the same in any court
ut law.
2. The government cannot be held
liable to repayment of moneys spent
or losses sustained under illegal con-
tracts Many cases of this nature
have arisen where illegal bonds have
been issued and the money paid for
those bonds lost. If it were other
wise it would Oe very easy matter
for government employ ees to mlaW-
fully obtain money in unlimited
amounts and burden the people with
taxes for its repayment
g. Most of the money claimed is
for actual loss incurred during the
time the dredging and pumping work
was held up in the courts. In other
words, payment is not asked for work
actually done for which the govern
ment received or might have receiv-
ed benefit, but for time spent in idle,
ness.
Lcrd-Young had one of two courses
to pursue when suit was brought to
stop the filling. One course was to
admit that the contract was invalid
and cease all operations under it, the
other course was to do as they did,
insist that the contract was valid and
ask the Judgment of the court.
If they had pursued the first course
they would not have suffered the loss
sustained during eight months Of idle
ness for which they are now claiming
compensation.
They elected to rely on the contract
and in this the court held that they
were wrong Now that they have
found out their mistake, they ask the
government to pay them for their
blunder Pay them not only the dam
idleness, but Il prOpOrtiOnate share or
office expenses which they claim is
chargeable to this contract, and in adj
ditiOn $1,000 and over for tn" cost OF
their unsuccessful litigation. In every
form Of litigation the unsuccessful liu'
giant must pay his own attorneys and
generally all costs Of court. The sue
ceSsful litigant might have some mo-
raj claim for his legal expenses from
the government which were OCCASION
ed by the unlawful acts Of the super
intendent of public works and the
board of health But, if he should
ask the government TO reimburse him,
he would he doing an idiOtic thing
1t is claimed and admitted that
LOrd-HCung entered into this con-
tract in good faith, but that by no
means entities them to compensation
for work which they did not do, and
indeed for work which they might
have done, tor it makes no difference
in principle whether the government
received benefit or not. 4 claim OF
fair play could be made probably in
a great majority Of the cases where
public servants exceed their powers.
All business men must Of necessity
rely upon their own Judgment in bust
ness transactions and if they are I'M
fortunate enough to make unentOrCe
able or Improbable contracts. they
have to stand the loss, the question
of fair play does not enter into the
proposition 1t is merely a question
Of legal liability and sound Judgment
In case the work had been per
formed and the government had actu,
ally received the benefits therefrOm..
even then the legislature would have
no right 10 vote the public money for
the doing Of that which there was no
right to do. If it were otherwise. GOV
eminent officials could without author