The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-12-11
T H r.
ABOUT THE PARDONING POWER.

The remarks by our contemporary the
Herald" yesterday, on the subject OF
prison reform were exceedingly opposite,
and in the general line OF argument
adopted by the ADVERTISER on the same
day. The truth appears to be that the
authorities here depend a great deal for
the safe keeping of prisoners upon the
difficulty which men encounter in getting
away from the Island. But this is by
no means so difficult task as one might
suppose, as past experience abundantly
demonstrates
If one were not liable to be accused of
belittling the prison management, one
would be apt to conclude from what is
daily passing before ones eyes, that the
authorities of the Hawaiian Kingdom
are playing with criminals and towing
with crime. We have recently had
something approaching to general gaol
delivery without any official announce
ment OF the fact The public do not
know, and cannot know under the cir
cumsiA1Ces, who or what manner of
men have been pardoned and turned
adrift on the community. If the men
who We're pardOned were serving out
sentences for trivial offenses or in pay
ment of fines, no objection would be
made to a sweeping-out of the prison;
but the case is different with thieves,
burglars and assasSins. They should be
compelled to serve out their sentences.
Public safety demands this as a measure
of precaution.
But no one really knows what has
been done, or who has been pardoned.
The entire responsibility in this case
rests with the Privy Council of State.
The Cabinet can only recommend to the
Privy Council; action is taken by the
latter body. 1t may happen that for
some reason the Cabinet may recon-
mend a general and indiscriminate exer-
else OF the pardoning power; but the
Priyy Council would not be bound to
give effectto such reckless recommen-
dation. The Constitution is clear upon
this point. Article % says: "The King,
by and with the advice of his Privy
Council, has the power to grant re-
prieves and pardons, after conviction,
for all offenses except impeachment"
The Privy Council, therefore, is response
BILE for the exercise of royal clemency. tits
not an absolute prerogative of the Crown;
it is not a duty with which the Cabinet
is charged; and the Privy Council should
at least have sufficient independence to
resent any attempt to make it a tool to
serve any purpose whatever. Ii the
Privy Council be not tenacious of its
rights under the Constitution, then one
of the constitutional safeguards against
arbitrary government is pushed aside,
and long stride taken on the road to-
wards despotism.
We speak in this pointed way of the
Privy Conncil because in the matter of
pardons, if report runs true, and on
another occasion to which reference
was made in the ADVERTISER, we do not
think that it discharged its duty with
that measure of fearless and conscien-
tiOus independence which the Constitu-
ton presupposes. We do not suggest
anything against the Sovereign, for he
Is expressly exempt from responsibility
by the Organic law, which is the founda-
ton of our Government Article Is OF
the Constitution reads: "The King CON
ducts his Government for the common
good, and not for the profit, honor, or pri-
vate interests OF any one man, family,
or class OF men among his subjects"
This is the theory upon which the
Kings Government is formulated; if
the conditions and principles specified in
Article IS OF the Constitution are nullifed
it Is not the Sovereign but his Ministers
and the Privy Council of State who are
responsible, and who should be held to
strict account. In the matter under re-
view, as we have already said, it is the /
Privy Council and not the Cabinet
which is responsible.