
    
      RE APPROPRIATION BILL. Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Court to the Cabinet.
   In eases where there is a specific appropriation provided for in the Appropriation Bill for a specific object, and also a general appropriation covering the class within which such specific object is included, it would be unlawful to expend any money from the general appropriation upon the specific object, in the event of the specific appropriation becoming exhausted.

Department op the Judiciary,

Honolulu, H. I., August 1, 1888.

To His Excellency L. A. Thurston, Minister of the Interior.

Sir : We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency’s communication of the 31st ult., wherein you state that “ His Majesty’s Cabinet respectfully request your opinion on the following question, viz :

“ In cases where there is a specific appropriation provided by the Appropriation Bill for a specific object, and also a general appropriation covering the class within which such specific object is included, is it lawful to expend any money from the general appropriation upon the specific object for which there is a specific appropriation, in the event of the specific appropriation becoming exhausted, leaving the specific work unfinished. An illustration of the question is as follows :
special appropriation.
Wharf at Hookéna.............................................................$ 3,000.00
GENERAL APPROPRIATION.
Wharves, Contingent.....................................................$ 10,700.00
New Wharves and Repairs................................................ 40,000.00
u Is it lawful to spend any money from the last two mentioned appropriations on the wharf of Hookena.
Another illustration:
SPECIAL APPROPRIATION.
Water pipes for Kalaupapa................................................$ 15,000.00
GENERAL APPROPRIATION.
Leper Settlement..............................................................®100,000.00
“Kalaupapa being a portion of the Leper Settlement, and the $15,000.00 being exhausted, is it lawful for the general appropriation to be drawn on for building cisterns, pipe bridges, laying main pipe and connecting by small pipes with buildings occupied by lepers.”

In reply we have to state that in our opinion, where the Legislature has appropriated a specific sum for a specific object, it was their intention that no money, exceeding the amount appropriated for the specific object, should be expended for the work contemplated, and therefore it would not be lawful to expend money in the manner or for the purposes suggested by the question.

With respect to the illustrations referred to in your communication, we observe that in the Appropriation Bill of 1886 to 1888 the items:

Wharves contingent...........................................................$ 10,700.00

New Wharves and Repairs................................................ 40,000.00

precede the item :

Wharf at Hookena............................................................. 3,000.00

but we draw no inference from this.

It seems to us that the Legislature intended that this sum and no more should be expended upon the work, and if the appropriation, based as we presume upon estimates made, was found to be insufficient for the purpose, it should be left to the Legislature to appropriate such further sum as may be necessary. It might be that had the Legislature in the first instance been informed that the $3,000.00 voted would not be sufficient for the purpose, they might not have appropriated any sum whatever.

The item for “New Wharves and Repairs” would apply to the building of new wharves which might be found necessary and for which no specific appropriation had been made, and for repairs of wharves existing.

The item for “ Wharves Contingent ” would seem to us to mean that this amount should be expended in replacing wharves which by any contingency might be destroyed.

We must, therefore, answer that part of the question which ■ refers to the “Wharf at Hookena,” in the negative.

With respect to that part of the question which refers to the item “ water pipes for Kalaupapa,” it follows, from what we have previously said, that we must answer this in the negative, and the more so as we find by the Appropriation Bill that this item appears in the General Appropriation for the Interior Department, and the item “ Leper Settlement $100,000.00 in a subsequent appropriation for the Board of Health.

Had there not been the Special Appropriation for the water pipes, we think the contention made by the Minister of the Interior in his correspondence with the Auditor-General might be correct, and that the vote could be expended in the manner suggested.

Yours respectfully,

A. F. Judd,

L. McCully,

Edward Preston,

R. F. Bickerton,

Sanford B. Dole.  