The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-07-09

ARTICLE 43 of the Constitution of 1854,
under which this Kingdom is now ruled,
provides that 1.-The Ministry hold seats eE
c6ieio as Mobiles, in the Legislative Assem-
bly,"
1t Is not starting paradox, but putting
an honest question, to ask if this clause,
which gives the Ministers scats, does really
give them Uotes 1t is by no means unusual
to give seats ,cithout cotes, as witness the
French Constitution under the Consulate
and the first Empire.
In the "Act to increase the number of
the Representatives of the People in the
Legislative Council" signed by Kameha-
meha III, on the Both day of July, 1850,
Section enacts that "All His Majesty S
Ministers shall be entitled to seats, and
votes in the House of Mobiles" but the Con
stitution of Kamehameha v, 1854, declares,
Article 43, "The Ministry hold seats CT
OFFICIALS Mobiles in the Legislative Assem-
bly," Here is marked difference, in 1850
seats and votes, in 1864 seats or otfeiO. The
inference is easy to draw, the Constitution
of 1864, Article As, plainly declares: "The
Legislative power of the three Estates of
this Kingdom is vested in the King, and
the Legislative Assembly; which Assembly
shall consist of the Mobiles and Of the Rep
resentatives of the People sitting togeth-
ern
Now where then are Ministers who are
neither Mobiles nor Representatives of the
People; it is plain that the intent of the
Act is that they have no rote, they have seat
that they may be consulted, Intercepted
or invited to explain, or if necessary de
fend their actions, but surely not to pass
verdict Ministers voting that they have
confidence in themselves is too absurd
The marked commission of the words "dHt
uotes" from the Act of 1850, cannot be acct
dental, especially when followed by 81
sharp drawn a definition of the repositor,
of the Legislative power, which leaves nj
room for any one not Noble or Repre-
sentative.
Again the number of Mobiles is strict,
limited to twenty, so also is the number o
Representatives, and therefore the join
number of votes. The Minister of Financ
is Noble, the Minister of Foreign Affair
was, but is not Representative, the othe
two Ministers never were either; then hoy
can these three Ministers vote under tn,
limitations of the 45th Article of the e1
listing Constitution.
Again, the 4EuQ AIlCle VI tue e4lbllut
Constitution says that the Cabinet Minis
tiers shall be &C c6fcio MEMBERS of His Ma
jesty's Privy Council of State, which is il
marked contrast to the status assigned b
them in the Legislature, where they onl,
hold seats or e1fei0 1t cannot be that thes
three points have no meaning, and
meaning they have, it must be that tn
Ministers have no votes. First the oster
tatious omission of the words, sand UOtes,
from the Act Of 1850; second the appoint
ing the Ministers members of the Priv
Council but not of the Legislature, AM
thirdly the strict delimitation of the Leg
islative powers, wherein is no place 70
Ministers or any other, not Noble or ReI
resentative.
Now that statute laws relating to depart
mental duties are being broken througl
or brushed aside like eobwebs, it would b
well to have an authoritative interprets
ton of the Constitution and see that it j
adhered to.