The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1876-01-08

fully and hlay-
The remarks Of Mr.. Preston may be briefly
summed ny .. follows
The cssc q Rex " AA1a is s-m-Shai lidsr-s &c ia-
The remarks q ihs learned J-lzs Relefts7a ana DaTs ae
entitled &; sTesl: oo@ztssIaa- Bat no,-it s2-33a=- fass
agreed w5ta tEs CEa-l 5Gsi-e and oTlsa}-f fh9 war-u b. az
rest Of Ju5-mea;
Tae 4zad SECTION q ts C5-s:lasau avF=4-s 90 c5lleIT.-ts
iogE separate persons 30 GI tbs CaL-lei ef4ces. b., there
nothing to prevent 0ze person holding Iso Offices
The Indictment 3 Preseate5 by John : Walker, Attorney
Genepl ef the kingdom, By Edward Presteu. hs Depcty. Mr.
Walker Is Attoruey General the words q interim may Be
treated as sGrPrsase, bas if not hey mean 10 more than The
Constitution says, theu tie Ministers shall hold o8oe daring
His Nsj=sty's pleasure.
TIE Indictment was presented adsis-dIy. This Cosrt vM
~, coREr1I the cho.ce Ct as Majesty He en appoint aay
person 20 Office h deems suitable Tbs Court VIII lot e.
qglre as to The htszss OF Cabiaet Ministers, nor whsther sup
posing one Minister should h5d tEo o1ces they are inc7m-
PatibIe-
The argument Of Inconvenience and The iupossib-uJy Ct Ihe
Attorney General saeiug hu.el! s. Minister ct Finance caa
have 10 weight here Its a matter for the Legislature, ani II
the Ministers cannot justify themselves there th-y ~A b held
responsible
The appoiatmeat il. not made by the Ministers. f. is D.,
the King himself and can only be controlled by the legislature.
The decision Of the Court was delivered by Mr..
Justice Harris, as follows
This motion is urged on similar grounds as q
like motion in The case OF Rex ". Akiua. tried at
the April term Of OF this Court in 1866 and it
will be seen b. reference to the files Of that case,
that most, it not all the argument used in this
case were advanced then, when motion was denied
By the fun Court after full argument.
The first point made is that the Indictment is
signed J. 5. Walker. Attorney General and
that Mr.. Walkers appointment as Attorney Gene
raj is al interim. The addition Of al interim -
subtracts ~nothingf rom the authority Of the per
son holding the office. The Office of the Attorney
General is one which is held during the Kings
pleasure, is not appointIble for any certain time
OF for life and the words al interim are not
in any way different in effect from " during the
Kings pleasure - they are added tor the purpose
of indicating to all persons that the appointment is
merely temporary.
1t is said that the constitution contemplates that
there should be four advisers TO the ~king-Cabinet
oGicers-and that it is not conforming with the
constitution when two OF these offices is held by
one person. This may be all very true, and it
may be that a prolonged neglect to ill all the OIL
ces would be Il neglect to perform the duties re-
quired by the constitution in this respect but it
by no means follows, that in case Of a vacancy oc-
curing. by death or otherwise, Hi Majesty must
I'll it up precipitately without taking time to con-
slider, and that he can not delegate the authority TO
act for the time being, to another Ministerial Office,
or that all or any OF the functions of government
must be suspended.
But, it is said, the cabinet is not full, His Majesty
has not the requisite number of advices. How
many votes would Il person doing the business of
two Offices give in the legislature? Now, it
must be apparent that whether the cabinet is full
or not, or whether any one gives two votes, or
none at all in the legislature. can make no differ
cnce in the business of the Court. These ques-
tinnc n boya M pnSsihIo nfT.ct on tho riUhtS If
this prisoner. Let us reverse the case and suppose
Il sudden vacancy in the office of the Minister of
Finance, and the King asks the Attorney General
to do the duties, for a short time would ii be that
his acts as Attorney General would be void > Sup
pose the Minister of Interior TO be doing the duties
of the Minister of Finance, temporarily. or vice
versa. would his acts dore in both Offices be void +?
Or if only one, which one? So likewise. in this
ease, why should we declare the acts of Mr.. Walker
here void any more than his acts in the Finance
Office? Or shall we declare them both void. Ogi-
ces subordinate or interfering with one another
are Incompatible, such would be Judge and Sheriff,
Judge and Clerk of the Court and it may be
Minister of Finance and Register of Public Ac-
counts. But in this case. one Office is not subordi-
nate to the other. nor do we see that the duties
of one in any way interfere with the duties of the
other.
Fl is not for the Court to inquire as to the con-
venience or inconvenience of one person holding two
appointments. Our inquiry is confined to the CON-
p~atibility or incompatibility of the two offices under
consideration. These two Offices are not declared by
the Constitution or statute to be incompatible, nor
are they inherently, like the Office of Judge and
Sheriff.
Blu, it is said that the Attorney General is obliged
to account quarterly to the Minister of Finance for
receipt of fines and penalties. So does every other
Office for receipt on account of the Treasury, as the
Minister of the Interior-more especially.
Suppose, as has been said before, the Attorney
General to be performing the duties ad interim for
the Minister of Finance. he would equally have to
account with the Minister of Finance on his quarter
ly returns. 1t certainly would make no difference
as regards his duties as Attorney General in this
Court, that he may, for the time being, be doing the
duties of Minister Of Finance.
1t could hardly be said that this Court could de-
pose him, or refuse him the opportunity of doing his
duty as Attorney General, and certainly they would
have no authority to prohibit his doing the duties of
Minister of Finance. Now, will it be said that his
acts as Minister of Finance were void, as, for exam
pie, his appointments of fiscal officers; granting
receipts for moneys paid into the Treasury, promises
to pay money by the Treasury? Most certainly not.
This furnishes as an analogy for the question pre-
| scented by this motion.
We cannot say that the performance Of the duty
of presenting this indictment by the duly Commits
stoned Attorney General is rendered impossible by
the fact of his also holding 4 Commission as Minister
of Finance.
Motion overruled.