The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-02-03

t0Z the AC1TI 40 akfR1N th-> ~ NAAS - u -
Of article - without w.ing them out
altogether. Applying the general rules
q construction 10 the instrument under
review. Il would Re seen that the topic
IN thst part Of II commencing al article
- IS the legislative power. Article 4,
which provided, among other things, for
the countersignature OF member Of the
Cabinet. related 10 the executive power
Il the scope and design OF the instru-
nent had been 70 abolish thsvet0 power
il would have been easy 70 omit article
IS. and as for the veto power being
vested in the Cabinet. that would GER
tainlv De new feature III Constitutional
history. The particular words OF article
IS must be taken Is against any general
expressiun L would have been 3 sim
pie matter 70 say that the Cabinet alone
should exercise the veto power II that
had been the intention.
MI Justice Dole asked whether coun-
SCI would not consider the Supreme
Court . legislative body If X should rule
that the Law was unconstitutional and
thus expunee i from the statute book.
Mr.. Hatch replied that if the Court
had powers the exercise Of which was
essential to tce validity OF the Law, then
those powers would be legislative; but
IN the case suggested the act Of the
Court would be destructive rather than
creative.
Mr.. Ashford, in his reply, sought TO
show that in the absence Of any legal
veto the Act had become law. Article
IS, which provides that wherever by
this Constitution any act is 10 be done
or performed by the King or the Sow
ereign, II shall, unless otherwise ex-
pressed, mean that such act shall be
done and performed by the Sovereign by
and with consent Of the Cabinet, " must
be considered as controlling ali other
articles, and must be understood Is If il
were tackled on in the shape q q chorus
or refrain OF every preceding article OF
the Constitution. Article IS must Be
read as if article IS were tackled on It a
q proyiso. In order 10 show more clearly
the intention Of those who framed the
instrument, he referred briefly 10 the
history OF the country during the time
Immediately preceding its promulga-
ton. The preamble, he said, was elo-
quently instructive on that point. Il
was there set forth that in the opinion
Of those through whose instrumentalIty
it was promulgated, there were certain
provisions in the old Constitution which
were Fsubversiye Of civil rights and in
compatible with enlighted constitutional
Government. j." The great exemplar Of
constitutional monarchy, was, Of course,
Great Britain, and the history OF that
country went to show that "enlightened
Constitutional Government means
nothing less than popular sovereignty.
1t means that there is no person or class
OF persons, On the throne or on the
throne, whose personal viii shall OPP
psse that Of the people. Why was the
old Constitution incompatible with en-
lightened constitutional Government %
Because the Monarch had the absolute
right Of veto. He was responsible only
to his Maker and his conscience, and to
no earthly power. Under the new Con-
stitution the act of afixing the Kings
signature TO an Act OF the Legislature
was not legislative act on his part, be-
cause the Act would become law whether
he affixed his signature or not The
signature simply signiied his approval.
The Attorney General denied that the
Cabinet had no Legislative functions, as
commended by counsel for the defense. /
The Kings legislative powers were ex-
ercised by the Cabinet on his behalf in
the Legislature, in the Council Chamber !
and elsewhere. He could do no Iegisla- /
tive act except through his representa- |
tives. When vetoed bill is returned to |
the Legislature the Cabinet have not |
right TO vote on it. Why? Because the
veto was placed there by their advice.
Counsel then traversed at some length |
the annals Of English history to show
the extreme rarity of the exercise Of the
veto power by English Sovereigns, and !
he special conditions under which in
certain isolated instances it had been
TO. One of the objects OF the
new Constitution, he commended, was the
abolition OF the personal veto power.
# it were the case that any repug-
nance existed between any Of the arti-
les OF the Consultation Though lie did
lot admit that there was then article
IS being later in place, must be accorded
controlling force over article 48. In
counsel adverted to the
ranscendant importance of the decision
n this case and its far-reaching conse-
Iuences to the future political status of
he Kingdom. If the Court affirmed .