The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1883-12-20
rms AnYERIlSER,S poCIRlNE.

-----------------
the ADVERTISERS DOCTRINE.
The power of Cabinet Ministers,
or what the Advertiser people desire
should be the power of Cabinet Min
listers, is laid down by that paper in
unmistakable terms. Every man is
at liberty to form his own opinions,
and in free country like this every
man has perfect right to express
those opinions in words. But we
question either the honesty or the
intelligence of any man who endea-
vors to support his opinions by in
correct statement of facts. This is
what our contemporary has been
guilty of. If he is not guilty of dis
honesty, we see no way for his es-
cape from the charge of ignorance.
The question is asked, "Can any
or all the Judges of the Supreme
Court call in question the acts of
His Majesty in Cabinet Council?"
The answer appended is, " No SINH
lar thing was ever heard of before in
any country whether its constitution
were monarchical, oligarchical or
republican.
An editor who is an Englishman
and has had experience in the Aus
tralian Colonies, should know that
this statement is at variance with
truth. We refer him to the cele-
brated colonial case, now historical,
in which Justice Boothby voluntarily
declared certain Act of Parliament
unconstitutional, and therefore in
valid; and when Sir Dominick DAILY
the Queens representative, in Cabi-
net Council, sought to enforce the
Act, the learned Judge detied him;
and when he endeavored to overcome
the difficulty by removing the Judge
from the bench, he again failed.
After many months of contest Judge
Boothby triumphed, and the stand
which he had taken all through was
declared to be perfectly valid by the
highest tribunals of the British En-
pire. This is not the only instance
in the history Of that Empire in
which Judges of Supreme Courts
have "called in question" acts of
rulers in Cabinet Councils, as the
editor of the advertiser can find by
referring to Prof essor Irvine's 'tBri-
tish Constitution. The more we
contemplate the matter the greater
is our astonishment that any man
with a common school education
should be SO ignorant as to say, 'no
similar thing was ever heard of be-
fore in any country"
Aside from misstatement of facts,
the doctrine enunciated by the Id
Uertiser is utterly opposed both to
the theory and practice of modern
constitutional Government, monar-
chical and republican alike. Absolute
power and control by ellis Majesty
in Cabinet Council is the doctrine
of our contemporary. "If," says
he, ''the constitution of this country
gives them (the judges) that po-
wer," to ''question the acts of His
Majesty in Cabinet Council" ''the
sooner it is amended the better for
everybody" There is no mistak-
ing the meaning Of this. "a Judge
acts but under the Kings commits
sion, he is a subject of the realm
and public servant" True, and
are not Ministers subjects of the
realm and public servants? And is
not the King also subject of the
realm and public servant? Ever
in England, where the divine
right " theory is recognised, the
Sovereign is SO regarded, and ''sbt
is bound, as much as any of her sub
jects, to keep the laws" Doubly
so should it be here where the
"divine right" doctrine has M
existence either in belief or prac.
tice. Here Judges and Ministers
receive their commissions from
the King; the King was elected b.
the legislature the Legislature, o
a majority of its members, wer'
chosen by the people. Who, then
form the foundation stone of the
governmental structure as constituted
in Hawaii? The PEOPLE.
We say, 'sLong Live the King
but down with all such doctrine
as those enunciated by the A1oer
fSoao