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

whether this bill became law upon
the lapse of ten days from the time
it was presented TO the King, ac-
cording to the provisions of Article
4S of the Constitution.
Article 4S reads as follows:
"Every bill which shall have passed
the Legislature, shall, before it be-
comes a law, be presented to the
King. If he approve he shall sign
it and it shall thereby become law,
but if not, he shall return it with his
objections to the Legislature, which
shall enter the objections at large
on their journal and proceed to re-
consider it. If after such recon-
sideration it shall be approved by
a two-thirds vote of all the elective
members of the Legislature it shall
become q law. In all such cases
the vote shall be determined by yeas
and nays, and the names of the per-
sons voting for and against the bill
shall be entered on the journal of
the Legislature. If any bill shall
not be returned by the King within
ten days (Sundays excepted) after
it shall have been presented to him,
the same shall be law in like
manner as if he had signed it, un-
less the Legislature by their adj
journment prevent its return, in
which case il shall not be law"
The respondent claims that the
bill in question, having been re-
turned unsigned by His Majesty
with his objections, to the Legisla-
ture, and there having been no re-
consideration thereof by the Legis-
lature, it has failed to become law
by virtue of Article 4S.
The complainant, on the other
hand, contends that Article As is
qualified and controlled by the latter
clause of Article Al, which reads:
"No act of the King shall have any
effect unless it be countersigned by
member of the Cabinet, who
by that signature makes himself
responsible" and by Article rs,
which reads as follows:
"Wherever by this Constitution
any act is to be done or performed
by the King or the Sovereign, it
shall, unless otherwise expressed,
mean that such act shall be done or
performed by the Sovereign, by and
with the advice and consent of the Ca
binet," and therefore, that the Kings
act in returning the bill in question to
the Legislature with his objections
thereto, without the advice and con-
sent of the Cabinet, and without the
signature OF a member of the Cab
met upon the statement of the
Kings objections to the bill was in
valid and not an objection to the
bill requiring reconsideration, as
contemplated by the Constitution.
This position is met by the res
pondent with the argument that the
act of returning bill to the Legis-
lature by the King with his objec-
tions-popularly termed veto-is a
legislative act and not an execu-
tive one, and that the above quota
tion from Article Al refers only to
executive acts; in support of this
view he refers to Article 81, which
says, "The person of the King is
inviolable and sacred. His minis
ters are responsible. To the King
and the Cabinet belongs the execu.
tive power. All laws that have
passed the Legislature shall require
his Majesty's signature in order tc
their validity, except as provided
in Article 49," and to Article Al
the first part of which has the fol
lowing: "The Cabinet shall consist
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
the Minister of the Interior, the
Minister of Finance and the Attor
ney-General, and they shall be His
Majesty's special advisers in The
executive affairs of the Kingdom
The respondent offers the further
proposition, that the expression O.
Article 4S in reference to the appli
cation of the Royal signature tt
legislative bills and theN refusa
thereof, withdraws such acts from
the rule laid down in Article 78
that is, that the approval and vett
of bills by the King are not required
to be by the advice and consent o
the Cabinet, because it is "other
wise expressed" or provided, il
J Article 4S.
The conflict of opinion as to til
meaning of the Constitution, brough
to the attention of the Court by thi
case, arises partly from the suppor
given by Articles 81 and Al of tn
Constitution above quoted in favo
of the theory that the Ministers ar
the advisers of the King only, 81
the executive affairs of the King
dom," and therefore that they ar
not his advisers in legislative mat
ters; and, it is argued by til
; respondent that when veto mes
: sage is sent TO the legislature,
t being legislative act, 1t is nc
: covered by the provision of Articl
: Al, that "no act of the King sha
. have any effect unless it be counter
signed by member of the Cabine
2 who by that signature makes himse
responsible. There is nothing i
the context which tends directly t
ehou, fhot fb;a &c, l;,,N;ta1 4