The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-02-07


of the present Government that a
new Constitution should be at once
promulgated:
"Now therefore l, Kalakaua,
King of the Hawaiian Islands, in
my capacity as sovereign of this
Kingdom, and as the representative
of the people hereunto by them duly
authorized and empowered, do an
null and abrogatc the Constitution
promulgated by Kamehameha the
Fifth, on the goth day of August,
A. ID. 1864, and do proclaim and
promulgate this Constitution -
Is urged rs a strong reason why
we should interpret the Constitution
to mean that the veto is an act of
the King which must have the con-
sent of the Cabinet.
1t is evident from the whole scope
of the Constitution of 1887 that it
was the intention of its trainers to
curtail the Kings power in the Gov
ernment. For example, Article 81
of the Constitution of 1864 read:
"To the King belongs the executive
power" This article in the Consti
tuition of 1887 reads: "To the King
and tie Cabinet belongs the execu-
tive power. BY Article 40 of the
old Constitution the Kings power of
veto was Z bSolute and final. BY re-
turning bill to the Legislature un-
signed and unaccompanied by any
objections, 1t failed to become law
and could not be brought forward
thereafter during the same session.
BY Article 48 of the present Consti-
tuition this veto is limited and can be
overcome by a two-thirds vote of the
Legislature, thus accomplishing a
substantial abridgement of the royal
power.
1t is urged by the Attorney-Gen-
eral that this limitation is ineffec-
tive, and that at least thirty-two out
of House of forty-eight members
must vote in favor of vetoed bill
to make it law, so that as some six
teen of the members may absent
themselves from the House, practi-
cally vetoed bill can only become
q law by unanimous consent of the
elective members. But the House
has the power to compel the attend
ance of members and the same diff
culties would stand in the way of
the passage of a bill if vetoed by the
| Cabinet
If the power of veto is vested in
the Cabinet the practical result
would be that ne measure which
they should oppose and vote against
could become law unless two
thirds of the elective members favor
ed it. This would give to Ministers
power unknown in any other coun-
try and completely obliterate the
Legislative power of the King.
The 18Th Article requires of the
King that, if he disapprove of bill
he sends to the House his objections
to it which are to be entered up .on
the journal, presumably in order that
they may be the subject of discus
sion when the bill is reconsidered.
Now, if these objections are the
Cabinets objections and not the
Kings, it would be an idle ceremony
for the Cabinet to reiterate, in the
form of q Royal Message, objections
which they have already urged dur
ing the discussion in the Legislature
against the passage of the bill.
1t is urged that as the 4Sth article
allows only the elective members OF
the Legislature to vote upon bill
that has been vetoed by the King
and thus the Cabinet are excluded
from this privilege, this was sc
framed in order that the Cabinet
should not back up a measure We
toed by themselves, through the
King, by their own votes. Other
reasons more satisfactory to us are
that the Cabinet were not allowed tt
vote on vetoed bill in order that
they might not place themselves ir
q position of open antagonism to thu
King, and that measure which thu
King disapproved of should, in or
der to become law, have sufficien
merits to secure the approval o
two-thirds of the House who repre-
sent the people not including tn
J special advisers of the King.
1t was said at the argument tha
a decision contrary to the views o
] the government would lead to result
most disastrous to the present ant
/ future welfare of this Kingdom.
We do not anticipate such results
but as Judges sworn to discharg
our duties conscientiously and fear
, lessly we are not moved by sue
, considerations, if we can arrive q
conclusions which commend them
selves to our consciences and ou
, judgment as we have iu this case.
{ The judgment OF the Court is tina
the Act entitled San Act to provid
{ for the discharge of certain dutie
: heretofore performed by the govern
/ ors of the different islands" has nc
become a law, having been disar
, proved of by the King in the man
, ner provided for by the Constitution
We deem the cause shown by TIL
respondent is sufficient and the rul
is discharged.
A. L. JUDD,
r. NIorrr,xy