The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1884-09-01
DISCUSSING THE KING.

Damon's letter in your issue of Fri
day raises very important question
with two sides to it. First as to the
right, second rs to the advisability
of discussing publicly the Kings
doings. | regret that ] cannot agree
with Mr.. Damon in his views. If
his theories were to be carried out,
the subject would have no redress.
He is also mistaken rs to his facts,
for in other countries not under the
control of an absolute sovereign, it
is not only considered proper, but
the acts of the sovereign are in fact
openly discussed. 1t is the duty of
the sovereign to govern according to
law, and if he does not he becomes
directly responsible to the people.
Even in the times of most tyrannical
monarchy in England, Bracton says
'The law malieth the King y
the King is under the law " . it
has invested him with dominion and
power and he is not truly King
where will and pleasure rules and
not the law" Also that to rule by
his own will is violation of that
contract whereby he reigns. 1t is
also laid down in so good an autho-
rity MS Blackstone (Vol. l., p. 237),
that "there cannot he stronger
proof of genuine freedom
than the power of discussing and
examining the limits of the
Kings prerogativc." The citizen
must exercise the privilege of jeal-
ously guarding the rights of person
and property of the individual, or
while he sleeps those rights may be
lost or seriously imperilled. When
soeyer it becomes evident that the
sovereign attempts to govern outside
of the powers and limitations of the
Constitution then the citizen has the
right to complain of the personal
acts of the sovereign, passing over
and beyond the Ministers, who by
the Constitution are responsible. In
England the Ministers are response
bic, because they actually do repre-
sent Government by the dominant
party and the sovereign is not n
political factor in the Government.
This of course would constitute
double reason why in England the
personal acts of the sovereign should
not be discussed, yet everyone knows
that these acts are discussed, and if
the sovereign attempts in any way
to interfere and govern personally,
the discussion is at once loud and
angry. In Hawaii the Government
is not representative; the Ministry
is not responsible except in the
pages of the Constitution. This is
the state of things to-day and has
gradually been brought about by
David Kalakaua. He was elected
King. He became by that election
party to a contract, the high and
solemn contract to govern according
to law and under the law. David
Kalakaua is to-day under the law,
and even though the law provides
that he is not criminally responsible
for its violation, yet he is responsible
to the people and every taxpayer.
Every person in the Kingdom has
the right, and il is the duty of
everyone TO discuss the acts of the
King provided he attempt TO govern
personally. 1t has been brought to
his knowledge that his Ministers
have violated the law. 1t is believed
by large majority of the thinking
people Of this community that the
Ministry have tramplcd the law
under foot, yet the King keeps them
in office rs the Government of the
country. lie thereby assumes their
acts and becomes responsible for
them, and so he puts himself before
the country, and the whole people of
right may discuss his acts. say
with sorrow, that ! with n thousand
others regret that things are as they
are. Very many of us were born
here; here are our families, our pro-
perty and all of our interests. We
have a regard for the native Gov