The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-14

show that the concurrence of the Cab
met is not required. An illustration
of this is found in Article 20, where
the King, His Cabinet and the Legis-
lature have the authority to require
opinions of the Justices of the Su-
preme Court. The context shows
that as the Cabinet have this author
ity, and the King also has it, the CON
currence of the Cabinet is not neces-
sary to enable the King to procure
such opinion.
So also in Article Al where the
power is given to the King to appoint
and commission his Cabinet and to
remove them upon vote of want of
confidence by the Legislature. From
the nature of the act of removal the
Cabinet could not withhold their con-
sent to the Kings act in removing
them. 1t is here expressed other
wise than that this act requires the
advice and consent of the Cabinet.
In Article 4S which prescribes the
method by which a bill passed by the
Legislature may become law, it is re-
quired that such bill shall, as a con
dition precedent, be presented to the
King. His mind must then act upon
it, for, ''if lie approge cf-HA lie shall sign
It and Il shall thereby become a lac" This
act of approval implies that lie has
become acquainted with its contents
and that in the exercise of his judg-
ment he deems it advisable that it
become law. The nature of this act
requires his reasoning faculties be
exerted as to the necessity and wis
dom of the measure In arriving at
his conclusions he may and ought to
ask and receive the advice of his Cab
met, but at the final moment of de-
cision he must settle for himself
whether the measure shall become
law or not, and if this decision can
be prevented by the Cabinet, then it
is not his act but their act.
Suppose the case of Bill passing
the Legislature which the Cabinet
thought should not receive the Kings
approval, but which the King was
desirous of approving. Could the
Cabinet veto such a bill? If so, in
what way should their failure to con
cur be manifested? By emitting to
countersign the Kings signature?
Countersigning by Minister is not
required by Article As of the Consti-
tuition which designates the steps to
be taken whereby a Bill shall become
effectual as a law. A construction
which would make the ministerial
counter signature of a law essential
to its validity would render invalid
every statute passed by the Legisla-
ture of this Kingdom since the Con
stitution of 1864 up to the special
session of including the whole
Penal Code, and throw the nation
into the direst confusion.
Article 4S also provides that Bill
may become law if the King shall
withhold it from the Legislature
after the lapse Of ten days from the
time of Its presentation to him. In
his case the King does no overt act
to the Bill He neither signs the
Bill nor returns it with his objections.
VIII it be contended that this con-
approval of the King re-
quires the consent of the Cabinet? If
so how shall it be expressed? By the
of a Minister when the
Kings name has not been affixed to
the Bill?
We think that the plain and obyi-
Gus meaning Of the whole context of
Article is is that the power of the
King to approve or disapprove a Bill
is a personal, individual right, and
this article standing alone would
never have given rise to doubt. Since
the 18th Article contains the words
. unless otherwise expressed" there
fore any act of the King which does
not, by force of the article which de
fines the act, require the consent of
the Cabinet, is excepted from the
operation of the general rule
laid down in Article rs. By
this reasoning we do not find Ar
ticle rs to be repugnant to Article 4S.
Force and effect is given to both ar
ticles, which is the proper method of
And in this view it is
not necessary to discuss the question
whether Article rs being later in the
instrument should control an earlier
article.
What is the nature of the act of
the King in approving or disapprov-
ing bill? Is it an executive or legisla-
tive function? 1t is to be noticed that
Article 4S defining this function is
identical with the corresponding ar
ticle from the Constitution of the
United States, altered only so far as
to conform to the nature of our Leg
islature which consists of one House.
Pomeroy, in Section ia of his
Constitutional Law, says Although
the Constitution, in its general Ian
guage, vests the Legislative power in
a Congress which is declared to con
sist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, yet a reference to
other portions of the organic law
shows that this Congress does not, in
fact, possess the sole Legislative