The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1876-05-17
constitutional Inquiry.

EDITOR GAzErTE:-The late discussions upon the
constitutional rights Of Cabinet Ministers to vote,
have been carried on by the members OF the Assem-
bly,, rather advocates for and against the resolu-
tion than as impartial judges anxious to find the
truth. There can be no adequate reason why the
question should not have been discussed and dis
posed of on its own merits; but now that it is set
tied no one will claim that this was done.
Not much, if any, attention appears to have been
paid by the government side of the Assembly to the
provisions in article 20 of tue Constitution that
1.-The supreme power of the kingdom in its exercise
is divided iuto the Executive, Legislative, and Ju-
dicia these shall always be preserved distinct"
which is re enactment OF part of article % of the
preceding Constitution. The principle of keeping
the three functions OF government distinct in their
exercise, Is well understood there can be no dis
cussion about its effect II applied to the question ut
issue. The two Hawaiian Constitutions have 50 de-
fined and emphasized this principle that 1t holds the
position of leading and influential feature which
cannot be ignored. and which should rather out
weigh other inconsistent clauses than be outweighed
by them. If instead of consuming time by profit
less debate US to what is neaut by holding seats
CT c1teio mobiles 10 the Legislative Assembly," or
as to the meaning Of the somewhat obscure clause
that, the legislative power of the three estates Of
this kingdom is vested in the King aud the Legisla
tive Assembly" they had interpreted them with the
help of that other more definite enactment that the
Executive Legislative and Judicial powers shall in
their exercise Railways be preserved distinct" it
would seem that more consistent and cnnscien-
tous if not more satisfactory ~ conclusion might
have been obtained. The argument of precedent in
this matter is of little avail. Parliaments are not
bound By presidents. They should do their duty,
however much their predecessors may have failed in
doing theirs. What though the intelligent princi-
pie OF article 20 existed in dormant state in our
constitutions for q years. # may be that II holds
benefit for The people whenever the time shall come
for conscientious Assembly 10 give it its due eff
feet
There are no vital principles which make 1t nee
essary that the Ministers should vote in the Assem-
bly,; even numerically, their vote is of little conse
quence at the present time, with the list of Mobiles
crammed to bursting.
II is 10 be regretted that the administration should
not set the example of treating all questions their
merits, instead Of leaning comfortably back upon
certain reliable minority made more reliable by their
own disputed votes. The fact that The present Con-
stitution promulgated in wrong aud uuprin-
cped way, does not make it right now, for those
who accept II, TO treat it with disreSpeci Any au
thoritatiye action which tends TO nure the suprema
cy Of law, or to lower the popular respect toward
the fundamental law, is sure to bring loss to the
commonwealth, no matter how polite necessary
such action may have appeared. WATcHMAN.