The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-02-03
SHERIFF vs.. GOVERNOR.
TEs Veto Question Argued Before
7zs Supreme Court II Banco-
The Validity Of The Governor .
Dates Act = Tested by the GeE-
eFnar Of Maui.

delivered before ne flll Cont n banco
n sEe c2se q Thomas u. Everett,
>1=-E II Mani. - Robert H Baker.
l5-ovs-1o- = t2221 Island Pursuant ID
ID Act passed during the session Of
1SS-- ID provide IN The discharge o.
certain duties heretofore performed by
1he Governors = The different Islands. =
ills Vlzz-1zE II This case had made 2 de-
-n4z3 II the defendant tor the transfer
ID m sc--z2a- u the records d his Office
L5-1ve-z2o- Baker having refused u CON-
Fly with ch5s demand, : wit o. man
DAMS vas 4pp-5ed f0z 70 enforce com
V-zz-ce
His Exc=-lency The Attorney General
appeared IN plaintiff, and Meszrs. i
Eosa and T VI Hatch for defendant
TIE Attorney General read the appli-
cation setting to-th the facts, the salient
features q which arg Is above stated
M Rosz read the reply, which ad-
-1.1se5 rhe main Ezcts alleged. and stated
5-1EtE1=r t1zr defendant nj only was. but
= sri tle Governor q Maui. l. denied
cbs existence d any Law requiring de-
5eD5zn- % transfer the records Of his
oGoe, and claimed that inasmuch a. he
rzi been appointed 70 such Office OF the
z1h = October, 1886, he could only be
removed By impeachment.
M Ashford understood that the issue
vas solely q 70 whether there exists any
Lax Commanding the transfer Of the
records ir0n the late Governor 10 the
Sheriff q Maui. Everything else was
admitted. An attempt had been made
% introduce the question as 10 whether
Or not the defendant is now the Governor
q Maui, but he declined 70 accept that
challenge, as il did not affect the present
issue. He then produced copy OF the
Hawaiian Gazette" supplement Of Jan
uary :, 1888, containing the official pub
LEGATION 81 the Act On which the case was
based, and proceeded to read section l,
providing for the discharge OF certain
duties formerly pertaining to the Office
d Governor; and section 2, providing
that "ali records heretofore kept By the
several Governors shall, not later than
the 1st day Of January, 1888, be trans
ferred 10 the persons appointed to per-
form the said duties"
Mr.. Hatch interpOsed a contention
that the burden rested upon the Govern
ment To produce the original manuscript
Of the law, the official record Of all Iegis-
lative proceedings connected with it and
the Kings message concerning it.
4fr. Ashford denied that it rested with
the Government. They had simply TO
support the validity Of the law But it
was competent for the other side TO show
anything they wished.
The Court ruled that the publication
Ias sufficient prima facie evidence, but
presumed Mr.. Hatch would consider his
remarks as a notice to the Attorney
General to produce the documents.
Otherwise it was not incumbent upon
the Government To produce them.
The manuscripts were then put in evi-
dence.
Mr.. Ashford proceeded to refer to the |
lack Of the Kings signature and the |
manner in which the laws had been pro- |
mulgated, maintaining that the course |
adopted was in accordance with the |
terms OF the Constitution-more par
ticularly Articles IS and IS.
Dir. Hatch, in the course of his argu-
ment, contended that the record clearly |
showed that the Act had lot become
law in the manner required by article As
The certificate Of the President of the
Legislature, which was affixed to it,
showed that the Act had been returned,
together with a message giving certain
reasons for the omission Of the King TO
afix his signature. Everything was
done by the King which the Constitu-
ton required. The Legislative body did
not choose to reconsider the Act as pro-
yided in article 4S, and he submitted
that there was no provision in the Con
stitution which could be construed as
giving them discretion III that matter.
All the provisions were mandatory. 1t
was nowhere provided that an Act
should have the consent of the Cabinet
Their functions were entirely executive.
He submitted that the Court could not
go outside article 48 in considering the
validity of this law, and there was no
ambiguity in the wording of that article
Its explicit wording could not be set
aside by any general provision. The 2
sections which were evidently relied
upon by the opposite counsel did not
refer to the enactment of laws. Execu-
tive acts of His Majesty We're one thing
and legislative acts another. Article A
provides that "the legislative power :
is vested in the King and the s
Legislature (Nobles and Representa- l