The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-02-07

pTOpOSlUlOn IuaU Ine hluS uppIoNSS
or disapproves by and with the adj
vice Of the Cabinet than in the
other proposition that he signs or
refuses to sign by and with the con-
sent of the Cabinet. We may go
further than this and be strictly
within the principles of interpreta-
ton; if the words are fairly suscep-
tible of both interpretations, which
/ do not admit, that one must be
adhered to which is in sympathy
with the spirit and purpose of the
Constitution; the object of the Con-
stitution is the securing of civil
rights and enlightened constitutional
Government. IL seems to Inc that the
grant OF the power of veto to the
King Independent of all advice or
responsible authority would be an
obstacle to the securing of civil
rights, a cause of division and con-
flict between the Crown and the
Cabinet and a menace to public
tranquility and therefore inconsist-
ent with the spirit and objects of
the Constitution, and unlikely to
have been intended by its trainers.
Is the power of veto as Royal pre-
negative and which can only be
over-ridden by two-thirds vote
of all the elective members of
the Legislature, consistent with
enlightened constitutional govern
ment? This is a matter of opinion,
but the slaves of the two greatest
constitutional governments on earth,
those of England and the United
States of America, give an unquali-
fed negative to this question. The
development of the principle of gov:
eminent by the House of Commons
has rendered absolute the veto power
of the English sovereign. Cooley's
constitutional limitations *15 note l.
In America the President holding
office for a brief term and liable TO
impeachment, may at his own dis
erection veto bill from Congress,
but it may be passed over his veto
by two-thirds of a quorum of each
House of Congress.
The contention of the respondent,
if correct, makes the veto act a royal
prerogative; but the constitution in
Article 30 has defined the royal pre-
negatives as follows: cit is the
Kings prerogative to receive and
acknowledge public Ministers to in
form the legislature by royal mes
sage from time to time of the state
of the Kingdom, and to recommend
to it's consideration such measures
as he shall judge necessary and ex-
pedient." This being an affirmative
grant of prerogatives to the King
implies an exclusion of all others,
and is especially decisive against the
admission by means of the interpre-
tation of doubtful expressions of
another prerogative of serious con-
sequence and not in sympathy with
the general tenor of the Constitu-
ton. The word prerogative as used
in reference to the powers of SOW
ereign, has definite meaning gained
through the great conflict between
the Crown and Parliaments of Eng
land; it may be said to have no
other meaning than given by Web
ster's Dictionary in the following
definitions: IAN exclusive or pecu-
liar privilege; prior and indefeasi-
BILE right; fundamental and essential
possession; used generally of an
official and hereditary right which
may be asserted without question
and for the exercise of which there
is no responsibility or accountability
as to the fact and the manner of its
exercise If the respondent is
right in his theory of the case, the
sovereign is entitled to a preroga.
tive in addition to those enumerated
in Article 80, and of great import
ance and far reaching consequences
l am unable to arrive at this inter
probation. The question whether the
act of veto is executive or legisla
tive in it's nature might be of import
ance in this case if the 18th Article
did not exist, and the 41st and 3ls1
Articles remained unaffected by
other explanatory words; but there
can be no question that the 7stl
Article makes the Cabinet the ad
yisers of the Crown with control
ling authority in all matters of state
Legislative as well as executive
except as to those matters which thu
Constitution otherwise provides for
If the 4Sth Article is not controlle,
by the 18th Article it can only b
because its own language distinctl
makes it an exception, which, as
have more fully stated above, it doe
not do.
1t may not be necessary that tn
veto message should be counter
signed by member of the Cabinet
but it is necessary that it should b
by and with the advice and consen
of the Cabinet, however such con
sent may be evidenced,
1t seems to me therefore that tn
law in question is valid, and thu
under its provisions the responder
is bound 10 deliver to the complain
ant the records referred to in til
complaint. SANFORD b. DOLE.
Honolulu, Feb. 6, 1888.
The Attorney-Gener G. w. Asl