The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-04-23

MAUI April II, 1881.
EDrroE GAzETTE:-In the GAZETTE dated April
10th, you write about Norway, and the decision
the Supreme Court has come to. As | see that
your statements are based ON false foundation
partly and have mistakes originating from a lack
of knowledge of that country and its laws and the
origin of the present strife going on there, hope
YOU will forgive me in taking the liberty TO glvc
you a short but true representation of the facts.
No wonder that my country is SO little known; it
is a small kingdom, and deemed of little or no i'm
pOrtance in the European concert"
Before going into details, will draw your atten-
ton to few points in your articles you say; 1T is
well known that for several years past, the king
has maintained an attitude in opposition to the
repeated decisions of the Storthng, or Represent
alive body, and that again and again has he null
lifted by veto the votes of the two Chambers, and
this on very important constitutional questions"
Now, here are two great and very important mis-
takes. First we have only enc House, not two.
Our representative body, Strothing, is indirectly
elected, tue electors electIng certain number OF
mon who again elects the number OF the Strothlng
| lParlament, | shall hereafter call it,. After
the Parliament has assembled, and declared itself
duly constituted, opened by the King or his rep
resenative, the Parliament divides itself into two
Chambers, Lagthing and Odelsthlng. Every
/ proposition. whether from the Ministry or from
| any of the NJ. p. has first to pass the Lagthing
| then the Odelsthing and lastly the Parliament, 50
| that every law before being laid before the King
for sanction has TO be read three times last In the
/ penum. lle Ldgtulng ana Only
divide the work to be done, that is all. We have,
l am glad to state, no gentry in Norway, and never
will have it is forbidden by law.
l. Second; you say, Constitutional questions.
That is not so. There is only one question: which
| now they have tried to settle, butt aye failed.
| Further down you write: whether the
Kings veto is suspensory or absolute, whether ne
can really stop legislation only delay 1t. SDgH-
EaiIU ehorgh, II appears that iehIe oreT1cheiDiHg
majority Of the legal profession ia NOIrdy, declare
that under the existing constitution, the veto Is
rot suspensory only, but absolute, their decision,
though practically unanimous, IS OF no avail
against the popular cry against absolute veto, on
| which every election has been fought for some
time past" There are two kinds of veto in Norway,
not one as it appears above. We have as most
countries have. what we call our Constitution, or
Fundamental law. That law says that it can only
be altered, when the Parliament and King agree
Consequently, the Parliament alone cannot alter
it, neither can the King. Our constituents who
| made that law in 1874, thought and said that a
fundamental law is not toy to be used as casual
majority chooses, but is to be the solid base upon
which the country and its inhabitants can rely.
foundation law, which can be altered according
to the wishes of casual majority, IS no tunda-
mental law at all; the country would be then like
q ship without rudder, or without a steady hand
to hold it, and it would consequently IN every re-
spect suffer by the wriggling. which would be the
result. Alterations in this law, can, according to
the same,-as a majority of the legal profession
in Norway say lsee above)-be vetoed by the King
! if he thinks that the alteration would do more
! harm tlan good he. stanOluI dDONt all
| is supposed to see everything clearer than many
nav most of the voters he knows or ought to know
better than they what will be the result of the
said alteration and acts accordingly By the King
mean the King and his Ministers or Councillors
This is the absolute veto. Then comes the suspen-
. sorry veto, that is he can veto every common Law
two times but If the law passes the third time IN
! altered he has no veto. The law in question must
have passed unaltered, three separate elections
This IS his suspensory veto, in which everybody
! agrees. The NJ. 7. are elected for three years. sc
shat nine years will pass, if he uses the veto more
than once, which very rarely has happened. The
Parliament has acknowledged his absolute veto
as have stated it to be, several times from ISL
to 1880 Can you then, considering that, and alsC
the decision the "legas' came to, taken into con
sideration wonder that the Ministers advised bin
, TO do il when they found that the craved (crieG
for) alteration would not do the country any good
at least not in that form? Is a man to be treateC
as common malefactor, where many-the leg
ais too-agrce with him and he acts as his con
science tells him? / think not has It brougE
the country into debit No. Has it disturbed thu
peace with the other powers! Not bit. Has hi
, advised the King to do anything against the Law
| No. What then, is his fault? He would not con
sent to the majority in the Parliament. Labor on
/ will come back to this
D Then YOU say" forced to dispense witt
the dangerous services of his Ministers for the fu
ture it is to be hoped that be will not find it diff
cult to come to terms with the Storthing. In Eha
: respect has his Ministers been daHgeroHsf Tha