The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-02-07

The judgment OF the Supreme Court
in the case OF Everett vs.. Baker, wherein
the plaintiff, who is the sheriff of Maui.
sought, by virtue of the Governors
Duties Act passed last session, to secure
the transfer OF certain records pertain
ing to the office of the Governor OF that
island, who is the defendant in this suit,
was rendered yesterday at noon. Among
those present in court to hear the de-
cision were: His Excellency Governor
Dominis, His Excellency Geo. w. Mer-
ril, United States Minister Resident
Major ]. H. WodehOuse, II. B. Ms.
Commissioner; Sir William Wisemann,
Bart, Hon. Chas. R. Bishop, the Minister
OF Foreign Affairs. the Attorney General :;
Hons. w. G.. Parke, Henry Waterhouse,
j. B. Atherton, and W. d. Alexander;
Col. c. p. Iaukea, Messrs. J. II. Patty,
r. W Irwin, S. Jackson of Auckland;
E. Muller, B. E . Dillingham;, F. Brown,
H. W Schmidt, Jas. G. Spencer, A. S.
Wilcox and the following members of
the bar: Messrs. A. S. HartweI, V. V.
Ashford, w. A. Whiting, Chas Creigh-
ton, A. z. Peterson, A. Rosa, J. L.
Kaulukou, F. NJ. Hatch, A. C. Smith,
E. Ward, w. A. Kinney, J. A. Magoon,
J. NJ. Monsarratt, and j. NJ Poepoe.
The opinion of the Court, bearing
the signatures of the Chief Justice, the
First, Second and Third Associate JUS
tees, was read by the first named. After
somewhat exhaustive preamble, set
ting forth the facts, His Honor contin-
ued thus:
BY THE COURT.
The certificate attached to the Act I'M
der consideration makes it known that
the Act was returned by the King I'M
signed, with message setting forth GER
tain reasons why he refused to sign the
same, and that such message was not
countersigned by a Minister; that His
Majesty's act in SO returning the same
was done without the advice and consent
of the Cabinet, and that the Legislature
considered that this was not refusal or
veto, as popularity styled, within the
meaning of Article 48 of the C0nstitu-
ton.
If there had been a constitutional
veto of the Act or Bill it is clear that by
the provisions of Article 48 it was left
for the Legislature to reconsider and
make the bill law by twO-thirds vote
of the elective members, and that fail
ing this the bill remained vetoed.
The controlling question then is
whether the refusal of the King to sign
bill which has been passed by a ma
jority of the Legislature requires for its
validity to be done by the advice and
consent of his Cabinet, evinced by the !
counter signature OF Minister, or is the |
individual right OF the King.
We are thus led to consider what is |
the meaning of Article As of the Consti- |
tuition and whether the power of the |
King in approving or disappearing of
bills passed by the Legislature is con-
trolled by Article 70, and to determine
whether Article 46 is an exception to the
general words of Attic le IS. The words
in this article which provide for the ex
ceptions to which they shall not apply,
are "unless otherwise expressed"
This means that any act which the
Constitution requires to be done by the
King shall be done by him by and with
the advice and consent of the Cabinet,
unless the Article defining the act to be
done shall of itself show that the con-
currence OF the Cabinet is not required.
An illustration of this is found in Article
40, where the King, his Cabinet and the
Legislature have the authority to require
opinions OF the Justices of the Supreme
Court. The context shows that as the
Cabinet have this authority, and the
King also has it, the concurrence of the
Cabinet is not necessary to enable the
King to procure such opinion.
80 also IN Article IL where the power
is given to the King to appoint and com
mission his Cabinet and to remove them
upon vote Of want of confidence by the
Legislature. From the nature of the act
OF removal the Cabinet could not with
hold their consent to the Kings act in
removing them. It is here expressed
otherwise" than that this act requires
the advice and consent of the Cabinet.
In Article 4S, which prescribes the
method by which a bill passed by the
Legislature may become law, it is re-
quired that such bill shall as condition
precedent, be presented to the King.