The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-21
THE VETO QUESTION.
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian
Islands-February Term. 1855
In Banco.
Ar1Iias espl'; a, w w I've; 1IeIeS5i ~, Petition
,il! III ~ .sit1uI ialii'lii for Man
Defendant. va ~ '''''
BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF.

case is, whether the requirement of
Article IS of the Constitution, that
'swhenever by this Constitution any
act is to be done or performed by the
King or Sovereign it shall, unless
otherwise expressed, mean that such
act shall be done and performed by the
Sovereign by and with the advice and
consent of the Cabinet,n applies or
does not apply to that portion of Arti-
Gle As of the Constitution which de-
fines what is commonly termed the
Kings veto, and which reads: "Every
bill which shall have passed the Leg
islature shall, before it becomes law,
be presented to the King. If he ap-
prove, he shall sign 1t, 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 reconsider it, etc., to
B end of Article IS.
The material facts in the case are,
; that "An Act to provide for the dis
a charge of certain duties heretofore per-
formed by the Governors of the differ
= ent Islands, passed the Legislature
2 and was then presented TO the King,
o who, within ten days thereafter, but
}, without the advice or consent of his
q Cabinet, returned the same TO the Leg
islature with a written statement
i HiEiith w lluiSGll' III NllItlA llt uG-
clared that he withheld his signature
5 and approval for certain objections
? named. The Bill was received by the
/ Legislature, but the written statement
,e was not recorded on its journal; the
a Legislature regarding the Kings
c action on the subject as not conform
ing To the Constitution, because it was
not advised or consented to by his
L Cabinet, and also because his written
i, statement of his objections was not
y counteTsigned by any Minister, under
n Article II, and therefore, as null and
void. The Legislature further regard
@, ed the Bill as becoming law in the
b, same manner as if it had not been
" returned by the King within said ten
days.
q 1t is eontended, in behalf of the Gov
eminent, that the requirement of Art
a, icle IS applies TO the action of the
King in returning legislative bills IN
= signed, with his objections thereto
u If this contention be correct, the
logical result follows, that this Bill
= became law by reason of the failure to
return ii censututionally.
tn As far as the exercise of the veto
power is concerned, there is no appar-
NJ ent or inherent difficulty in this con-
lol tention In the nature of things the
" AAllE NtilA eS W tll llSANG HIS NoDAlSl
h advice and consent, as a condition pre-
m cedent to his returning bill, declin-
re ing TO sign it, and giving his reasons
er therefor, as not. The fact that it is
isl his personal signature, which he per-
ts Sonally declines to give, that he re-
a1 turns the Bill, and that his objections
il to the Bill are required to be stated to
vt the Legislature is in no way incon-
b: sistent with the Cabinet advising and
We consenting thereto. There could be
er no question that his signing the Bill
ought to have his Cabinets advice and
/, ] consent; why net the reverse?
The disapproyal of legislative bills
-, with or without ministerial response
bility would in the opinion OF many
thoughtful persons, mark the distinc-
ton between parliamentary govern
ment and a somewhat limited absolu-
ut tism, in respect of the so-called veto
m power If under the present Constitu-
ed ton, ministerial responsibility cannot
)n be invoked for the exercise of that
on power then the only limit upon its
$40 exercise lies in the power of two-thirds
sc of all the elective members of the Leg
ng iSlature to approve the bill on recon-
tiff sideration and thereby make it law i'll
lvi spite of the veto. The ineffeetiveness
nal of this limitation upon an otherwise
nul absolute veto may be illustrated by the
or fact that sixteen of the active members,
me by absenting themselves, could make it
Is. impossible to pass the Bill over the veto,
me as there would remain but thirty-one
r members besides the member occupy
, bI ing the office of President of the As
the sembly (supposing the President is not
lg entitled to vote; while at least thirty
kel two members must vote in favor of the
Bill in order to make it law. Practi-
tn cally the vetoed Bill can only become
by law by unanimous consent of the cleo
nd tive members.
That the existence in the national
on Government of Constitutional Cab
oul' met, endorsed and supported by the
|. votes of a majority of the Legislature,
eni and of a Chief Magistrate vetoing the
st enactment of such majority, against
sh the advice of such Cabiuet, would tend
o TO be obstructive of legislation, if not
rot subversive of public tranquility, cam
lille not be questioned.
eir An eminent writer on the United
safe States Constitution, discussing the
the distinction between the traditional ab-
thu Solute veto Of the English Sovereign
rs and the American Presidential veto,
like saws, "it is well understood that it is
70 o. on account of this absolute effect of
ans the refusal Ito approve bills) that this
yer prerogatiVe has been wholly disused
ica since the reign of William III, and
ar that the practice has grown up of sig
: al nifying through the Ministry, the pre-
rTieC viOuS opposition of the executive if
al any exists, while the measure is under
he discussion in Parliament. 1t is not
Sh needful to consider here which mode
e of of legislation is theoretically or practi-
/ tn: caily the best. 1t is sufficient to notice
light the fact that the absence from our sys-
Id ] tenn of official and responsible advisers
etc, of the President, having seats in the
no legislature, renders it impracticable to