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


executive affairs of the Kingdom,
and that no act of the King shall
have any effect unless it be counter
signed by q member of the Cabinet, |
who by that signature makes himself
responsible, the effect of Article rs
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
divided Cabinet obviated. The
countcr-signature of Minister to
Legislative act of the King is not re-
quired, because a Minister could not
be subjected to impeachment for
such an act.
Since the argument, the Attorney
General has fled a brief in which he
says: cit has not hitherto been con-
sidercd, and / do not think it is
necessary that the Kings signature
to laws be attested by any Minis
ter"
On the argument the Attorney
General strenuously insisted upon
such necessity, and quoted from
Webstcr's Dictionary and other au
thorities rs to the meaning of the
word "act,' in support of his con-
tcntion.
1t seems to us, it being thus con-
ceded that the signature of the King
to an Act of the Legislature is not
an 'act of the King" within the
meaning of Article Al, requiring
counterslgning by Minister, 1t fol-
lows that the message declining to
sign must come under the same rule,
and therefore the substantial part
OF the Attorney-General's position
fails.
But it is urged that there is no
analogy between the veto power of
! the President of the United States,
which is individual and irresponsi-
BILE, 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 expression against q vicious use
of this power. This argument, as
it.Seems to us is good reasoning why
the trainers of the Constitution of
the United States were willing to
! trust the President with this power:
but it is no argument against the
view that the Articles in both the
| American and Hawaiian Constitu-
tions which define the veto power of
the Chief Executive, being identical
in language, do not in both cases
entrust them with a power of veto
which can be exercised according to
individual Judgment.
Great Britain is held up as the
great eyemplar. In that Kingdom,
by it's unwritten Constitution, the
sovereign has the veto power, hut as
the historian Macauley says, cit is
hardly possible to conceive circum-
stances in which a sovereign so stu
ated can refuse to assent to bill
which has been approved by both
branches of the Legislature. Such
a refusal would necessarily imply
one of two things, that the sovereign
acted in opposition to the advice of
the Ministry, OF that the Ministry
was at issue, on a question of vital
Importance, with q majority both of
the Commons and of the Lords. On
either supposition the country would
be in most critical state-in state
which, if long continued, must end
in revolution
Macauley's "History of Eng
land" Vol. w., p. 1877.
But this comedies that the naked
right of veto exists in the sovereign
of Great Britain, though it would be
dangerous to exercise it. Burke,
in his letter to the sheriffs of Bristol,
says: "The Kings negative to bills
: is one OF the most indisputed of the
royal prerogatives, and it extends
, to all cases whatsoever. | am fal
from certain that if several laws,
, which | know, had fallen under the
{ stroke of that sceptre, that the pub
| lie would have had very heavy
. loss. But it is not the propriety o.
2 the exercise which is in question.
; The exercise itself is wisely for
4 borne. Its repose may be the pre-
8 servation of its existence, and it,
t existence may be the means of say.
ing the Constitution itself, on al
: occasion worthy of bringing i
! FORTH
}, The parallelism between Hawai-
S and Great Britain is not perfect
= because the latter country has /;
government by Parliment, the Min
II istry must have seats in one Hous
# or the other and must be takel
e from the party who are in the ma
v jority.
y The Hawaiian Constitution la
c features resembling that of Grea
: Britain in some respects and il
e other respects resembling that o
n the United States and has man,
j features differing from both. Ant
e where the paral!elism fails the argu
g ment by analogy fails with it. w
i are therefore obliged to construe tn
: Hawaiian Constitution by its intrin
n sic features.
s The arguments drawn from Eng
c lish history would have cogency i
4 4 /. 1 q