The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-21

Il
ing that contention, and great public
disadvantage from the reverse de-
cision, it may then be considered
whether there is any reason for
| qualifying the requirements OF minis
! terial responsibility to be found in the
words in the 18th Article, "unless
| otherwise expressed think that if
| these words were omitted, there could
| be no doubt of the right and necessity
of applying the article to the Kings
veto. What do these words "unless
otherwise expressed mean, but that
every constitutional act of the King
! shall have the consent and advice of
! his Cabinet, unless in those cases in
which the Constitution directs that
the validity of his act shall be other
wise advised or consented to? As for
| instance, "he shall never proclaim
war without the consent of the Legis
Iature; and no military or naval force
sallh be organized except by authority
/ of the legislature Article %.
"By and with the advice of his
| Privy Council, and with the consent
of his Cabinet,n he has the power to
''grant reprieves and pardons." Ar
ticle 81.
"He NAV, with the advice of the
Privv Council, convene the Legisla-
ture in extraordinary session." Ar
ticle 2S.
Treaties "involving changes in the
law shall be referred, for approval, to
the legislature Article 20.
1t NAV be proper also to except from
the provisions of Article rs such public
acts of the King as could not be re-
uuired to have the advice of his Cab
met without manifest absurdity, or re-
suits subversive of the clear intent and
expressed objects of the Constitution.
The intent of Article 7S is certainly
not merely to furnish q mode of auth
enticating the Kings acts, but to
make their validity and constitution
alitv depend upon the advice and re-
sponsibility of some person or body
responsible as the King in some senses
is not, to the law of the land. This Is
what constitutional and responsible
government means. 1t can be secured
in no other legal way.
While this veto or restraining power
may, if the King has the right to use
it unadvised. become obstructive of leg
islation, it could not become so if its
exercise required ministerial consent;
for as surely as Minister should ad-
wise or consent to the exercise of that
power in any measure or manner un-
satisfactory to a majority of the Legls-
lature, that majority would quickly
find the remedy by a vote of Want OF
Confidence, which requires the imme-
diate removal of such Ministry.
Two-thirds of all the members
might, after ministerial veto, adhere
to the vetoed bill, and yet, in the
opinion of majority, the fact that
this reconsideration of the bill was OBJ
tanned by such veto might not be cause
for Want of Confidence in the Min
istry.
BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-BY EX-JUDGE
A. S. HARTwELT.
If the foregoing views are correct, it
is immaterial whether the Kings act
in this regard be considered legislative
or executive. According to the theory
of Won Hoist, the latest writer upon
Constitutional Law, the act OF the
President of the United States, in
vetoing Bills of Congress, is in no
sense legislative in its nature. The
King is equally component part of
the legislative power of the Kingdom,
whether his approval, as well as dis
approval, of Bills is made with, as if
made without Cabinet advice. In the
latter case, his power is subject TO the
important limitation of ministerial re-
sponsibility in the former, not.
1.-The cooperation of the President
in legislation. A bill passed in both
Houses of Congress becomes law as
rule by the approval of the President
Yet this right of approval must not be
considered as part OF the legislative
power, for the Constitution expressly
declares that ALI the legislative au-
thority granted shall vest in Congress.
The cooperation of the President in
the matter of legislation is intended
only as a control. Congress alone is
the author of the laws. If the Pres
ident has objections to raise against
the legislative conclusions of Congress,
he is in duty bound to submit the
latter for reconsideration. Then, in
order to become laws, they must re-
ceive two-thirds majority in each
House. 1t is, therefore, unquestion-
ably an abuse of language that the re-
fusaI to approve bill should be called
veto not only in ordinary speech, but
also in official Technology. The word
Is uOl 10 D6 III lllc SO1lSOlOuOlOll.
1t is borrowed from a state of affairs
essentially different, and does not
harmonize with the constitutional ma
ture of the Presidents cooperation
in legislation. The President has no
right to forbid Congress to do any
thing. He can only state that he does
not agree with it, and declare his
reasons therefor"
Won Holst's Constitutional Law of
the United States, l12.
The Constitution grants to the King
many powers, such as those of Com
mander-in-C Chief of the Army and
Navy,n Article 26; to grant pardons,
Article %; to convene the Legislature,
Article IS; to make treaties, and to
appoint public Ministers, and to re-
commend measures to the Legislature,
Article 80; to appoint a Regent or
Council of Regency to administer the
government in his absence, Article
SO; to coin money and regulate the
,,,rrar,.N- lI- low & rticle 26. IN declare