The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-01-17

may be informed that the Hawaiian
mountains are not quaking on ae-
count of his absence, neither are the
native people, from whose suscepti-
bilities he farmed a fortune, suffering
in the slightest degree from the with
drawal of his benignahcy.
The Bulletin has demurred to our
description of the Kings refusal to
sign bills on his own responsibility.
That paper denies that there is such
an issue raised as the validity of the
personal, irresponsible, royal veto"
Its denial is natural, for clear defni-
tions are not what suit the vetoists,
whose cause is unsupported save by
eu parte assertions of premises con-
structed to fit a previously formed
conclusion. Nothing can be clearer
than that the veto is exactly what it
is described in the above phrase. 1t
is personal" inasmuch as the re-
auested advice of his Ministers was
set aside in its exercise by the King;
g Irresponsible because both the
letter and spirit of the Constitution
ribs the sovereign of all responsible
ity; "royal," in being an assumption
of personal and irresponsible +"
regal power. The Bulletin adds that
4" the veto, as it is called, is not per-
sonal irresponsible act of the King"
In support of this proposition our
contemporary, with mastery disre-
gard for coherency, recites descrip-
ton of the method by which the veto
is exercised and to be acted upon,
epitomized from the article providing
for that act without reference to
other constitutional provisions de
timing the agency in the matter.
Our contemporary has repeatedly
laid stress upon its own definition of
the veto, as being Legislative" and
not an administrative" or executive
act. There is some difficulty in seeing
any improvement this definition,
even allowing it full force which we
refuse, confers upon the position of
the vetoists. Allowing for the sake
of argument that Article Al refers, as
the Bulletin contends, only to execu-
tive acts of the sovereign, and assum-
ing to the same extent that the veto
is Legislative act, the final and
therefore supremely binding defini-
ton of the Kings constitutional
powers, in Article rs, makes no ex-
emption of legislative acts in restrict
ing the King to do nothing, except
where expressly authorized in terms
to the contrary which he is not in the
veto article, without the advice and
consent of the Cabinet. 1t is impos-
sible to intelligently construe the
clause, "unless otherwise expressed"
in Article Is, in any other way than
to make it mean that wherever an act
is to be done by the King, no matter
in what department of government,
such act shall be done by and with
the advice and consent of the Cabi-
net, unless the language authorizing
the particular act precludes the in
PREVENTION of such advice and consent
either in whole or in part. Several
articles might be quoted in which the
advisory functions of the Cabinet are
divided with the Privy Council.
The Bulletins premise that the veto
is Legislative and not an executive
act is not so unassailable as that
paper would make appear Webster
defines the veto as an authoritative
prohibition especially the power
possessed by the Erecahive branch
of a Legislative body, as a King,
President, Governor, etc, to negative
bill which has passed the other
branches of the legislature; also the
act of exercising this power" This
shows that the agent in performing
the act of veto is executive, and
surely the agency characterizes any
performance. No legislator simply,
can perform a veto, therefore it is alb
surd to claim that the act is exclu-
sively a Legislative one under any
system referred to by the lexicOg-
rapher. The reasonable view to be
taken is that the legislative and ex-
ecutive elements vary in proportion
under different systems of govern
ment. Where there exists a written
constitution appeal for a definition
must be made to the text of the doc
ument. Under the English unwritten
constitution, the authorities define
the disallowance power as one of the
sovereign's prerogatives, understood,
however, in these days, to be exer-
cised through the advisers of the
Crown The Hawaiian written Con-
stitution does not yield support to
the BuIletin's dogma, but on the CON
trary contains manifold evidence that
the veto partakes more of an execu-
tive than a legislative nature. By
specifying the Legislative functions
of the component parts of the Execu-
tive, the Constitution leaves no room
for inference as to what these func-
tons are. First, as to the King. it is
his "prerogative" (Art. 3O) Ito in
form the Legislature by royal mes
sage, from time to time, of the state
4