The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1873-01-18
tCommunicatedl
The Attorney General in the Cabinet.


The Attorney General in the Cabinet.
His Majesty has suffered no unnecessary time to
elapse before taking the first step towards accom-
plishing the promise made in his submission to the
people, that he would restore the Constitution OF
1852. We so term the suggestion of amendments TO
the Constitution of 1864 presented in the Royal
Message of Tuesday, because we wish TO think that
if His Majesty did not literally and Immediately re-
instate the earlier instrument, he was well advised
TO do what he has done. Waving the discussion of
any other course which might have been taken, and
coming to the consideration Of these proposed amend
ments,-or rather, now, of one of them, that which
would detacb the Attorney General from the Cabinet,
we respectfully ask where does this idea come from?
Is it the idea of the Cabinet, and can they be unan-
imous on itr We hardly think these gentlemen. not
twenty-four hours in office, proposed to disrate one
of their own body, and divide the high responsibility
of his function as Law Minister among the remain
ing three. What is done by the King is supposed TO
be with the advice of his Ministers, but we must in
fer in this instance. from the want of time for Cabi-
net action, that it is a pre-ministerial act. We are
not aware of any public demand for this change.
We believe there is n general acquiescence in drop
ping the Hawaiian institution of Kuhina Nui, and
substituting the Attorney General in the fourth
vacant lumber. 1t was never complained OF as a
popular grievance, or felt TO be deprivation OF any
right, ancient or modern, that this Constitution in
cluded in the Cabinet the Chief Executive law
officer of the Crown. We thought radicals and con-
servatives, ins and outs, were ut one on that point !;
but without further inquiry as to the origin in the
ROYAL Message, let US consider what there IS to rec
ommend it.
Every change should have positive recommended
ton, otherwise the maxim " let we'll enough alone "
applies. We respectfully dissent from the premise
HTue c0nnsSESI th4t- theALtaI General baso but
eminent and from the argument that because his
special business frequently takes him from the CAPT.
tai he should be left out of the Cabinet.
Every chief of department is in frequent contact
with law that is, questions of statute law and gen.
eral law arise in connection with business, and while
there is much of routine when the course TO be pur-
sued has already been well settled, there are often
occurring questions of great Importance, and deli
cacy in their legal aspects. Of course reference
must be made to some law officer. The busy Minis
ter of Interior canno. take the time and will not
take the responsibility OF looking up and settling for
himself all the law questions which occur in his de-
partment nor will the other two, whether busy or
at leisure, proceed without advice which they are
entitled to have and which they can stand OH. The
officer who is the legal sponsor of the departments is
in most governments,-we think in all, resembling
our own,-a member Of the Cabinet. Upon 10 less
responsibility and with no less weight and dignity
does he discharge his high function. As an associate
and fellow member, he labors with the Cabinet both
in their formal meetings with the King and in in
dividual intercourse by interviews and by written
advice with one and another of the Ministers, as he
is required. An Attorney General not q member Of
the Cabinet, must be consulted Just as frequently
and just as cOnfdentially, and upon equal official
and professional responsibility, unless the Chief
Justice or some other substitute take his place in the
Government We have the impression that in former
years the Chief Justice and his Associates we're
much looked to for legal advice in Cabinet and Privy
Councils, and by the officers of Government. The
improperly of in fact uniting the Judiciary with
the Executive Department is obvious. We do not
think such a course could be intended by this pro-
posed amendment, for the argument of inconvenience
from the necessary absence of the Attorney General
from the capital in attending circuits, would apply
equally to the Chief Justice, who is sometimes OBJ
liged to be absent from the capital in holding circuit
courts, and even from the Kingdom for considerable
periods of time.
There are six circuit courts held annually, which
the Attorney General is required to attend, each in
yolving an absence from Honolulu of from ten days
to four weeks. We cannot see the force of the argu-
ment that because there may be all inconvenience in
his occasional absence, he should be dispensed with
altogether. These absences are at stated times, and
Cabinet business can generally be accommodated to
them but if it could not, there would be a Cabinet
without him, as we know that from the absence from
the Kingdom or vacancy of n portfolio the Cabinet
has been constituted of three individuals as often as
of four. Moreover, when what may be called the
state duty of the Attorney General seems TO require
that he should not leave the capital, the law provides
that be may appear in court by Deputy. This has
been done several times by the late respected and
learned Attorney General !
To drop the Attorney General from the Cabinet is
TO reduce the number of Ministers without a saving
of outlay. The Cabinet would then consist of at
most but three members, with the liability often as
we have seen, of there being n less number. The
deliberatiou of four men is presumed to be wiser
than that of three, more guarded, MANI sided, and
= AoB AGN sHoS ~- NAN~ NStHN
propositions have been made in the press from time
to time, 10 drop the Minister Of Foreign Affairs, be-
cause his departmental work could easily be dis
charged by the Minister Of Finance. In this way
one salary would be saved, but dropping the Attor-
ney General from the Cabinet saves nothing in
money.
As q Cabinet officer. the Attorney General is re-
ouired in the Legislature, whether he shall sit in the
upper or lower house. The most valuable sugges-
tions of legislation should come from one who is
officially executing the laws, and has brought to his
attention what is wanting and what Is wrong in
them. He could not so efficiently promote the needed
by only drafting the acts required, as by
and supporting them in debate. If a
officer is required anywhere in the Government,
i would appear to be In the place where the law is
made, and where his care and skill in the be-
ginning may save the courts and public much after
sbor and expense.
If it be claimed, that s provision of statute, that
he Cabinet and other officers of Government msy
demand the legal advice of the Attorney General.
would supply this necessity of having some legal adj
riser somewhere the same difficulty, of his absences
rom the capital, remains. Perhaps when this officer
removed from the Cabinet, and from The Constttn-
ron, we shall be asked to revert to the old system OF
District Attorneys. This thought opens the way TO
more than can be attempted in this article.
LIMA. I