The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-02-11
IL
SATURDAY, FEB. II, 1888.
The VETO DECISION.

the veto question with discomfort.
This is natural enough, considering
the dictatorial positiveness with
which our contemporary maintained
the noneXistence in the Constitution
of the Kings right to veto a bill
without the concurrence of his
Ministers. The Supreme Court,
whose proper function is to inter-
pret the Constitution and laws of the
Kingdom, having failed to sustain
the "Gazette's" position, has, Of
course, committed a grave error, has
given a wrong Interpretation, and is
evidently incompetent for the dis
charge of so important a function!
The "unillumined lay mind" of our
contemporary is q better authority
on constitutional law, by far, than
the four professional gentlemen,
learned judges of the Supreme
Court, whose judgment upholds the
veto; that is, in the opinion of
the ''unillumined lay mind" afore-
said. Only most people will
probably accept the Courts inter
probation of law in preference to
that of the Gazette. -
No doubt, any person or any
journal has right to criticise the
Courts decision in this or any other
matter, within reasonable bounds,
so long as the purity of motive is
left unimpugned. The Court itself
intimated this in its judgment on a
case of contempt not long since.
Therefore there can be no objection
to those who have an itching that
way discussing the Courts finding
re the veto. Although exception
may be fairly taken to our contem-
porary's assertion that "a very con-
spicuous feature of the opinion of
the majority of the Court consists III
special pleading in support of. pro-
positions that are entirely presumed
and not at all dictated by the plair
and obvious force of the words citeC
from the document" This is rather
overstepping poetical licence. "Spe
cial pleading" by judge on the
bench in any case, especially "ir
support of propositions that are en-
tirely presumed" is not consonant
with the duties of that high office
and we do not for one moment adj
NIT that the four judges have com
mitted such an offence, nor woult
we say that Mr.. Justice Dole, whc
recorded dissenting opinion, did ;
similar thing on the other side.
The Court bad to decide whethe
or not the Constitution gives til
King the right of veto, Independent
of his Ministers. The question wa
simply this: Is the veto in tn
Constitution and not whether i
ought to be there. A majority o
the Court favored the affirmative o
the proposition, this conclusion, il
their own words, commenting itsel
to their consciences and their judg
ment. The four judges say that tn
veto is in the Constitution. We hav
all along said the same thing. l
the Constitution is wrong in this re
gard, let it be amended.
There is no occasion for the "Ga
zette's'' assertion, that "the las
state of the country is worse tha
the first, if the Courts Judgment b
carried out to all its logical conclu
sions," nor is there 'cause fo
grievous disappointment to al
friends of responsible government.
This is all extreme talk and shee
nonsense. The Kings veto unde
the new Constitution is not absolute
as before, but limited. 1t can b
oyerridden by two-thirds vote o
the Legislature. And we ventur
the opinion that the composition o
the House under the present Consti
tuition, with oflice-holders ruled out
may be relied on to cast two-third
vote in favor of any measure whicl
the country is really desirous of
The writer considers himself