The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1880-08-25

The Article in our Constitution, which incorpo-
rates the meaning of the old maxim that The King
can do no wrong" is of late strangely misunder-
stood in some quarters, and perhaps purposely mis-
represented, especially to the natives The extract
which give below from an excellent law authority
"Broom's Legal Maxims,' shows clearly what the
law of England on the subject has been from
" time immemorial This view of the matter ap-
plies with no less, but with with greater force in
country like this where the office of the chief Ex
eoutive is held by election and where the oath to
support the law of the land was required in order
to obtain recognition end lawful status as a Con-
sttutional Monarch Criticism of official acts and
especially of the character and acts of the Kings
officers who are no less the officers of the people,
for they manage the affairs of the people, is lawful
and proper and has for centuries been regarded as
the duty as well as the privilege of loyal subjects
in every country which has a constitutional basis
for its government But 1t is not right to use dis
loyal language, in criticising such matters. All
good citizens are concerned in seeing to it that
their wishes and views are expressed in temperate
and respectful terms. The result of such a course
Will IN the end be gratifying to every part of the
body polite.
1T is ancient and fundamental principle of
the English Constitution, that the King can do no
wrong, but this maxim must not be understood to
mean that the King Is above the laws, i'll the IN
confined sense of those words and that every
thing he does is of course lust and lawful. Its
true meaning is-First, that the Sovereign, indi-
vidually and personally and in his natural capa-
city, is Independent of and is not amenable to
any other earthly power or jurisdiction, and that
whatever may be amiss in the condition of public
affairs is not to be imputed to the King so as to
be answerable for 1t personally to his people.
Secondly, the above maxim means, that the pre-
rogative of the Crown extends not to do any in
jury because, being created for the benefit of the
people, it cannot be exerted to their prejudice,
and it is therefore fundamental general rule,
that the King cannot sanction any act forbidden
by law SO that, in this point of view he is under
and not above the laws and is bound by them
equally with his people"
The King, moreover, is not only incapable of
doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong; when
ever, therefore, it happens that, by msinforma-
ton or inadvertence, the Crown has been induced
to invade the private rights of any of its Subjects
as by granting any franchise or privilege to
subject contrary to reason, in any way preju-
The law will not suppose the King to have meant
either unwise or an injurious action, for egdem
mems pJdesH8ftHr regis qtde Hst JHTis ct gGe
debet prdeseTfiH IN dubHis, but declares that
the King was deceived in his grant; and there
upon such grant becomes void upon the SUPPOSE
ton of fraud and deception either by or upon
those agents whom the Crown has thought proper
to employ. In like manner, also, the King s
grants are void whenever they tend to prejudice
the of public justice. And, in brief, to use
the words of a learned judge, the Crown cannot
In derOgation of the right of the public, unduly
limit and fetter the exercise of the prerogative
which Is vested in the Crown for the public good.
The Crown cannot dispense with anything in
which the subject has an interest nor make I
grant in violation of the common law of the land,
or injurious TO vested rights. In this manner it is,
that while the sovereign himself is, in personal
sense, incapable of doing wrong, yet his acts may
In themselves be contrary to law and, that ac-
count, be avoided or set aside by the law