The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-02-08

partly from the support gwen by articles
81 and IL of the Constitution above
quoted in favor of the theory that the
Ministers are the advisers of the King
only, Sin the executive affairs OF the
Kingdom and therefore that they are
not his advisers in legislative matters
and, it is argued by the respondent that
when veto message is sent to the Leg
islature, it being Legislative Act, it is
not covered by the provision of article
Al, that ''no act of the King shall have
any effect unless it be countersigned by
a member of the Cabinet, who by that
signature makes himself responsible -
There is nothing in the context which
tends directly to show that this provision
is limited to executive acts and this con
clusion must be arrived Aft received
at all, through the mental process OF ar
gument. If it is necessary to consider it
in the light of the whole OF article Al
and OF article 81, it is equally necessary
to consider it in the light of article IS,
which comes after the others and there
by has the greater force, which is sweep
ing in its terms, and which admits OF no
exception to lis application unless such
exception is expressed in the statement
OF the act to be performed by the King
Chief Justice Story, in the 190th sec
ton of his Commentaries on the Con-
stitution of the United States, says, "a
constitution of government founded by
the people for themselves and their pos
terity, and for objects of the most mo-
mentous nature, for perpetual union, for
the establishment of justice, for the gen
eral welfare, and for a perpetuation OF
the blessings of liberty necessarily re-
quires that every Interpretation of its
powers should have a constant reference
to these objects. No Interpretation of
the words in which these powers are
granted can be a sound one which mar
rows down their ordinary import so as to
defeat those objects. That would Ito
destroy the spirit and cramp the letter."
This statement of one of the principles
upon which the Constitution OF the
United States should be interpreted, is
as applicable to our Constitution, which
we learn from its preamble, was founded
by the people of the Hawaiian Islands
and proclaimed by the King as their
representative, for the securing of civil
rights and enlightened constitutional
government, and for the restoration of
order, tranquility and necessary public
confidence The Constitution signifies
new departure, it abrogates the old con-
stitution, which it declares subyersive Of
civil rights and incompatible with en-
ightened constitutional government.
Our Constitution, then, must be inter
preted with a constant reference to civil
rights and enlightened constitutional
government. Reading it carefully
through and considering it as whole,
we find that it exhibits a definite and
consistent purpose to attach reepOns-
Utility to power in every case. under
stand by the Constitution that all powers
not expressly given are reserved by the
people, the source now of all political
power, and that they intended that gov
eminent should be conducted solely for
the benefit of the people and not for the
benefit OF rulers. We find, upon an ex-
animation OF its provisions, that the
King may appoint an heir with the con-
sent of the Mobiles, that he may proclaim
war by consent of the Legislature, that
Il nf ho I,,;,-
Countil convene the Legislature to ex-
sessions, that he NAV make !
treaties affecting the tariff with tie ap-
prevail of the Legislature, that he may |
coin money and regulate the currency by |
law, that is, through a legislative enact |
ment, that he may remove members of !
the Cabinet upon vote of want of con-
tidence by the Legi lature or upon their
conviction of felony. In all these cases
he acts without prerogative, and by
virtue of the advice, consent or con-
illusions of responsible officers or depart
ments of government. Then in regard
to the rest of the constitutional acts of
the sovereign, some fifteen in number,
we have the sweeping provisions of
article rs, which, it seems to me, may be
said to apply to all constitu-
5ional acts of the sovereign whether ex-
9cutive or legislative, unless an ex-
,eption is made in the definition of the
act itself or of the method OF performing
t. The cases that have referred to, in
which the Kings performance depends
lpon the action of responsible officers or
OF government, would seem
% be the exceptions contemplated by
article 7S, in its proviso unless other
wise expressed
This brings US to the question whether
Irticle As contains expressions which
axe the act of vetoing a legislative bill