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

with legislative power. That the hlnS
is a part of the law-making power is
further evidenced by article IS OF the
Constitution, which declares that the
enacting style IN making and passing all
Acts and laws shall be, BE it enacted
by the King and the Legislature of the
Hawaiian Kingdom"
Article Al of the Constitution defines
the Cabinet and prescribes that they
shall be His Majesty's special advisers
in the executive affairs of the Kingdom. 3"
Reading this article with article IS leads
to the conclusion, which is not forced
one, that the 'acts" OF the King which
require the advice of and consent OF the
Cabinet are confined to executive acts
and do not include Legislative functions.
II article Al had made the Cabinet the
special advisers of the King in all affairs
of the Kingdom there would be more
room for the contention that the ''acts"
referred to in article IS included legis
lative as well as executive.
It may we'll be commended that as by
the 41st article the Cabinet are His
Majesty's special advisers in the eXecu-
tive affairs OF the Kingdom, and that no
act of the King shall have any effect I'M
less it be counter8igned by a member OF
the Cabinet, who by that signature
makes himself responsible, the effect of
article IS is to require in addition the
consent of the whole Cabinet, and thus
the responsibility is thrown upon the
whole, and the Inconvenience OF a di-
vided Cabinet obviated. The counter
signature of a Minister to a legislative
act of the King is not required because
Minister could not be subjected to i'm
parchment for such an act.
Since the argument the Attorney
General has filed a brief, in which he
says: cit has not hitherto been consid-
cred, and do not think it is necessary,
that the Kings signature to laws be at
tested by any Minister"
On the argument the Attorney Gen
eral strenuously insisted upon such
necessity, and quoted from Webster's
dictionary and other authorities as to
the meaning of the word "act" in sup
port of his contention.
1t seems to us it being thus conceded
that the signature OF the King to an Act
of the Legislature is not an 'Act OF the
King within the meaning of article II
requiring countersigning by Minister,
it follows that the message declining to
sign must come under the same rule,
and therefore the substantial part of the
Attorney Generals position fails. But it
is urged that there is no analogy be
tween the veto power of the President of
the United States, which is individual
and irresp onsible, and that Of the King
of these Islands, because the Presidents
term of office is limited and he is subject
to impeachment, and in these methods
the will of the people may find express
sion against vicious use OF this power.
This argument, it seems to US, is good
reasoning why the trainers of the Con-
of the United Strtes were will
ing to trust the President with this
power, but it is no argument against the
view that the articles in both the Amer
lean and Hawaiian Constitutions which
define the veto power of the Chief Elk
ecutive, being identical in language, Go
not in both cases entrust them with a
power of veto which can be exercised ac-
cording to individual judgment.
Great Britain is held up as the great |
examplar. In that Kingdom, by its un-
written Constitution, the Sovereign has
the veto power, but as the historian |
says, "It is hardly possible to |
circumstances in which Sow
9ign so situated can refuse to assent to !
4 bill which has been approved by both
of the Legislature. Such re-
.usal would necessarily imply one OF two
position to the advice OF the Ministry,
or that the Ministry was at issue on a
question of vital Importance, with ma
GRITTY, both of the Commons and of the
lords. On either supposition the coun.
ry would be in a most critical state, in
which, if long continued, must end in
evolution.
Macaulay's History of England, vol
V, p. 137.
But this comedies that the naked
light of veto exists in the Sovereign of
treat Britain, though it would be dan
erous to exercise it. Burke, in his let
er to the Sheriffs OF Bristol, says: The
Kings negative to bills is one of the
most indisputed of the Royal preroga-
ives; and it extends to all cases what
oever. l am far from certain that if
everal laws, which l know, had fallen
nder the stroke of that sceptre, that the
ublic would have had a very heavy
1ss But it is not the propriety of the