The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-01-10

so far as we know. 1t may suit the
purpose of the Ministry and their
helpers to make false presentation
of this kind, but the intelligent pub
lie know better. The sole question
to decide is whether Article 4S of
the Constitution, which specifies how
bills may become laws, makes the act
of returning bill by the King to
the Legislature without his signature
and his reason therefor, q legislative
or an executive act. We contend
that it is legislative act, and that
as such the King exercises his deli
berative right as a component part of
the Legislature, subject however to
review by the House, and to having
his objections over-ruled by a two
thirds vote of all elective members.
The veto, as it is called, is not an
irresponsible personal act of the
King. He simply sends bill back
to the House for reconsideration,
and by so doing he becomes respon-
sible to that body. If his reasons
are considered sound and good the
bill fails; if the contrary, the bill is
passed despite his objection and be-
comes law. Where then is there
anything in this process having
semblance to the "prerogative of
personal, irresponsible, royal veto?"
Nothing of the kind is either meant
or intended.
The BULLETIN contends that the
veto, so called, is legislative and
not an administrative act, and Article
4S clearly shows that it is so, by the
exclusion of Ministers from partici-
pating in the final vote upon the
question that the bill pass notwith-
standing the Kings objections
thereto. If Ministers were to count
ersign message from the King Civ
ing his reasons for refusing TO ap-
prove bill, and if the Legislature
were to pass it Notwithstanding, the
Government would be defeated, and,
under the theory of responsible
Government, should resign. But
the Constitution guards against such
q contingency. 1t says in effect
that the functions of Ministers shall
cease when they present bills passed
by the Legislature to the King for
signature. 1t thenceforth becomes
question between the three CO.
ordinate branches of the Legisla-
ture, to wit, the King, Mobiles and
Representatives If the King in his
discretion returns Bill to the Legs-
lature, Ministers have no RESPONSE
bility in the matter. The issue lies
between the King and the other two
branches of the Legislature sitting
together as one House, and is to be
decided as prescribed by the Consti-
ton.
This is our position, and until the
contrary has been determined by
competent judicial authority we
shall hold to it's soundness. Further
more, we contend that the Govern
ment led the House into maze Of
error on this question, which must
entail more or less confusion in the
administrative work of the King
dom. The history of the session
demonstrates that this claim to coun-
tersign all acts of the King was an
afterthought, because laws were
published "by authority without
being countersigned by any Min
lister and if the after contention OF
Ministers be correct there is not a
valid law on the statute book since
1864, because none of them were
countersigned by a Minister up tc
the latter part of the extra session
and the requirement of the Consti
| tutiOn old Or new IN this pOint is
identical.
Article Al of the new Constitu
ton states that the Cabinet "shal
be His Majesty's special advisers il
the Executive affairs of the King
dom. No act of the Kin!
shall have any effect unless it b
countersigned by a member of tn
Cabinet, who by that signatur
makes himself responsible" !" Thi
refers clearly and exclusively t
executive acts. Article ~ of tn
Constitution of 1864 states that TIL
Kings Cabinet "shall be His Ma
jesty's special advisers in the Exc
cutive affairs of the Kingdom.
" = No act of the King shall hav'
any effect unless it be counter
signed by a Minister, who by tha
signature makes himself responsi