The Hawaiian gazette., 1916-04-18
MONEY HANDLING
Al PUBLIC TRUST,
SAYS THIS JUDGE
u, 90 ~ }E----t, " y ssAsEE
Stuart Believes No Funds Should
Be Paid Out When Doubt
- Arises A.,
- .EErft a. 49,. ~.
.. --
NO EXPENDITURES UNLESS
AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE
Not Question How Far To Go Be-
fore Citizen Attempts To
60 Stop Il
Il.

Judge Stuart expects some time next
week to decide the four injunction suits
instituted by Judge Arthur A. Wilder
against Governor Pinkham, a number Of
the latter's t'eabinet" officers anu
members of the public utilities and
harbOT commissions.
Straw That Shows the Way
During the argument on the demur.
rers fled by the government counsel
Judge Stuart, when the four demurrers
were submitted to him, said a few
things in regard to the expenditure of
public moneys. His remarks were as
follows:
1.-THE four demurrers are submitted to
the court. l Will rule on them just
as soon as I can if you get those mat
tiers in, will rule on them anyhow
but do the best yon can. If you will
point out these points and propositions
here you will help the court.
NOW let me say to you what is run.
ming in my mind at this time, and | am
basing II more on just the common
sense view Of the matter, for law il
nothing more than commonsense.
81 think all men who have the hand
ling of public money occupy a position
sof SpOblic trust, and when they pay
out that money or start to pay it out
they ought to be able TO place Their
finger on the authority for the paying
out of that money. Unless the author
ity islgiven / do not believe that, a.
] am reasoning now, it exists. There
should be authority for every public of
fcer to do whatever he threatens to dc
or intends to do, in the statutes. He
has no discretion otherwise.
And Cases Differ
"Another thing, and it is more in ref.
erenee now to your decisions that you
cited yesterday from Kansas and Wis
consin. have known of those case,
and think you will find that they rest
upon sound doctrines, but / want you
to consider whether this exists in this
case as against those cases cited.
"In all those cases we will assume
that the boards and different officers
were proceeding under statutes author
izing them to act. but in some cases tn
action did not proceed far enough, we
will say in all of them, because there
was some discretion left in the board or
some officer in reference to the action,
and there is no knowing how they might
do.
But the basis of all those claims was
legal bass, that is, it was something
that they were to do lawfully and there
was q discretion given to them as to
how they would act.
"Now the claim, as I understand it,
made here, and think it must be
made in order for these injunctons
to be sustained or be allowed, is that
there is no discretion in these boards
or any of these officers to allow these
claims; they are Illegal claims and the
officers are not able to place their
finger on the authority in the statutes
for the appropriation of public money
in this way. and therefore it does not
make any difference about what may
be the course of procedure.
Threats to do Something
As fast as they say we are going
to consider it and we threaten we will
allow it, why, that is threat to do
something that the law does not allow
them to do.
1.-THE position of the plaintiff is,
the law does not allow them any dis
erection about paying out as he alleges
1t is not question whether they give
notice, it is not a question whether
they have taken this procedure or that
procedure or the other it is the cues
ton there is no authority for it and
they have no right to consider il and
have no discretion in reference to IL,
and | think that these complaints
must go that far.
If they have discretion | do not
believe n court of equity ought to step
in and interfere with the discretion
of any board or officers, but they have
no right to claim discretion to do
an unlawful act or to do an act that
is not provided for by the law where
they cannot place their finger upon
the authority.
81 do not think that anything is i'm
Piled in favor of the action of officers
Who are handling public money. 7
think the authority must exist. If
one board can conclude it had the au-
thority to vote away funds under its
control and another one vote away
funds under its control without any
express authority of statute, why, we
would soon be in bad shape.
Suggestions Simply
Now, am simply making these
suggestions, If there is any authority
at all for the boards making these al.
lowances and they have simply gone
on and exercised their discretion that
the law gives them, do not think
that court OF equity ought to inter,
fcre; perhaps at least as permanently
az asked for. But if there is no dis
erection about ii, If it is really for
purpose not provided by law, and they
are simply using up funds and going
on to see how far they can go, I do
not think they have a right to go any
distance at all. They ought to be stop
ped right then and there. not specu,
late upon how far they can go before
a citizen should attempt to stop them,
L-Mnlaaa IhaN hnNn nnthnriLu In an L. -