The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-02-07

His mind must then act upon 1t, for, III
he approves OF it he shall sign it and it
shall thereby become a law" His act
of approval implies that he has become
acquainted with its contents and that in
the exercise of his judgment he deems
it advisable that it become law. The
nature of this act requires his reasoning
faculties to be exercised as to the neces-
sity and wisdom of the measures. In
arriving at his conclusions he may and
ought to ask and receive the advice of
his Cabinet, but at the final moment OF
decision he must settle for himself
whether the measure shall become law
or not, and ii this decision can be pre-
vented 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 DESTROYS OF APP
proving. Could the Cabinet veto such a
bill? If so, what way should their fail
ure to concur be manifested? By omit
ting to countersign the Kings sigma
ture? Countersigning by Minister is
not required by Article As of the Consti-
tuition, which designates the steps to be
taken whereby bill shall become effect
ual as a law. A construction which
would make the Ministerial counter
signature ola law essential to its validity
would render invalid every statute
passed by the Legislature OF this King
dom since the Constitution of 1864 up 20
the special session of 1887-including
the whole Penal Code, and throw the
nation into the direst confusion.
Article 48 also provides that a bill
may become a 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 this case
the King does no overt act to the bill.
He neither signs the bill nor returns it
with his objections. VIII it be con-
tended that this constructive appl oval OF
the King requires the consent of the Cab
met? Ii SO, how shall it be expressed?
By the signature of Minister when the
Kings name has not been affixed to the
bill?
We think that the plain and obvious
meaning OF the whole context OF article
48 is that the power OF the King to APP
prove or disapprove bill is a personal,
individual right, and this article stand
ing alone would never have given rise to
doubt. Since the 18th article contains
the words "unless otherwise expressed"
therefore any act of the King which does
not by force of the article which defines
the act, require the consent of the Cab
met, is excepted from the operation of
the general rule laid down in article IS.
By this reasoning we do not find article
70 to be repugnant to article 48. Force
and effect is given to both articles,
which is the proper method OF construc-
ton. And in this view it is not neces-
sary to discuss the question whether
article IS, being later in the instrument,
should control an earlier article
What is the nature of the act of
the King in approving or disap-
proving a bill? Is it an executive or
legislative function? 1t is 10 be noticed |
that article 48, defining this function, is
identical with the corresponding article |
from the Constitution of the United |
States, altered only so far as to conform
to the nature of our Legislature, which |
consists of one House
Pomeroy, in section ia of his econ
stitutional Law" says: although the
Constitution, in its general language,
vests the legislative power in a Congress
which is declared to consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives yet a
reference to other portions of the organic
law shows that this Congress does not,
ton. No law can be passed without the
consent of the executive, unless two
thirds of both Houses shall finally con-
cur therein. The assent of the President
is as necessary to the enactment of any
measure having the nature OF law, as
that of majoritySof both branches of
Congress. In this the President legis-
lates. His affirmative or negative de-
cision is a step in the process OF creating
and not of executing laws. By virtue OF
the various provisions of the Constitu-
ton, the Congress is in fact, though not
and in terms, composed of
three distinct bodies-President, Senate
and House OF Representatives and all
must concur, with the single exception
just noticed, that a two-thirds vote of
both the other branches avails against /
the dissent of the executive"
In Fowler VS.. Pierce, Cal. 165, it was
held that in approving a statute, the
executive acts as a component part OF !
the law-making power, and his power of l