The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-14

The parallelism between Hawaii
and Great Britain is not perfect, be-
cause the latter country has govern
ment by Parliament, the Ministry
must have seats in one House or the
other and must be taken from the
party who are in the majority.
The Hawaiian. Constitution has
features resembling that of Great
Britain in some respects and in other
respects resembling that of the
United States and has many features
differing from both. And where the
parallelism fails the argument by
analogy fails with it. We are there
fore obliged to construe the Hawaiian
Constitution by its intrinsic features.
The arguments drawn from Eng
lish history would have cogency if
addressed to body that We're franz
ing a Constitution for Hawaii, bqt
they are of little weight in ascertain,
ing the true intent and meaning of
the instrument now formed and in
force as the fundamental law of the
land This Court sits not as d legis-
lature to make or amend the Consti-
tuition but to discharge the judicial
duty cast upon it by the law of inter
preting the Constitution.
The preamble of the Constitution
which reads:
"Whereas, the Constitution of this
Kingdom heretofore in force con-
tains many provisions subversive of
civil rights and incompatible with
enlightened Constitutional Govern
ment:
"And whereas, it has become inn
peratiye in order to restore order and
tranquility, and the confidence neces
sary to a further maintenance of the
present Government that new Con
stitution should be at once promul-
gated:
"Now therefore 1, Kalakaua, King
of the Hawaiian Islands, in my capa-
city as sovereign of this Kingdom,
and as the representative of the peo-
pie hereunto by them duly author
lied and empowered, do annul and
abrogate the Constitution promul-
gated by Kamehameha the Fifth, on
the Goth day of August, A. d. 1864,
and do proclaim and promulgate this
Constitutions"
Is urged as strong reason why we
should interpret the Constitution to
mean that the veto is an act of the
King which must have the consent of
the Cabinet
1t is evident from the whole scope
of the Constitution of 1887 that it
was the intention of its trainers to
curtail the Kings power in the gov
ernment. For example, Article 81 of
the Constitution of 1864 read; "To
the King belongs the executive
power" This article in the Constitu-
tion of 1887 reads: 'To the King and
the Cabinet belongs the executive
power" By Article 49 of the old
Constitution the Kings power of
veto was absolute and final By re-
turning Bill to the Legislature un-
signed and unaccompanied by any
objections, it failed to become law
and could not be brought forward
thereafter during the same session.
By Article As of the present Constitu-
tion this veto is limited and can be
overcome by a two-thirds vote of the
Legislature, thus accomplishing
substantial abridgement of the royal
power
1t is urged by the Attorney-General
that this limitation is ineffective, and
that at least thirty-two out of
House of forty-eight members must
vote in favor of vetoed Bill to make
it law, so that as some sixteen of the
members may absent themselves from
the House, practically vetoed Bill
can only become a law by unanimous
consent of the elective members. But !
the House has the power to compel
the attendance of members and the |
same difficulties would stand in the
way of the passage of Bill if vetoed
by the Cabinet
If the power of veto is vested in
the Cabinet the practical result
would be that no measure which they
should oppose and vote against could
become law unless two-thirds of the
elective members favored it. This
would give to Ministers a power
unknown in any other country and
completely obliterate the Legislative
power of the King.
The 48th article requires of the
King that, if he disapprove of Bill,
he send to the House his objections to
it which are to be entered upon the
journal, presumably in order that
they may be the subject of discussion
when the Bill is reconsidered.
Now, if these objections are the
Cabinets objections and not the
Kings, it would be an idle ceremony
for the Cabinet to reiterate, in the
form of Royal Message, objections
which they have already urged dur
ing the discussion in the Legislature
against the passage of the Bill.
1t is urged that as the 4Sth article
allows only the elective members of
the Legislature to vote upon bill
that has been vetoed by the King and