The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-14

opinion But whereas in the United
States since the Legislative power is
vested by the Constitution in the
/ ." Congress of the United States,
there may be differences of opinion as
to the character of the Presidents
act, the question admits of no doubt
as regards the King Of these Islands,
for Article A reads: 1.-The Legislative
power of the Kingdom is Vested in the
King and the legislature, which shall
consist of the Mobiles and Represent
atives sitting together"
The Kings act in approving or dis
approving bills is the exercise of a
legislative function, for he is by the
organic law constituent of the law
making body. It cannot be seriously
contended that Article A, above
quoted, should be coupled with Ar
ticle rs, and that without Article AZ,
which gives the Cabinet seats in the
Legislature, they would be vested
with Legislative power. That the
King is a part of the law-making
power is further evidenced by Article
76 of the Constitution, which de-
clares that the enacting style in max
ing and passing all acts and laws
shall be: :" Be it enacted by the King
and the Legislature of the Hawaiian
Kingdom"
Article Al of the Constitution de-
fines the Cabinet, and prescribes that
''they shall be His Majesty's special
advisers in the executive affairs of
the Kingdom" Reading this Article
with Article rs leads to the conclu
sion, which is not forced one, that
the ''acts" of the King, which require
the advice and consent of the Cabi-
net, are confined to executive acts
and do not include Legislative func-
tions. If Article Al had made the
Cabinet the special advisers of the
King on all affairs of the Kingdom,
there would be more room for the
contention that the "acts' referred to
in Article rs included Legislative as
we'll as executive.
1t may we'll be contended that as
by the 41st Article the Cabinet are
His Majesty's special advisers in the
executive affairs of the Kingdom, and
that no act of the King shall have
any effect unless it be countersigned
by member of the Cabinet, who by
that signature makes himself respon
sible, the effect of Article rs is to re-
quire in addition the consent of the
whole Cabinet, and thus the response
bility is thrown upon the whole, and
the Inconvenience of divided Cabi
net obviated. The counter signature
of Minister to Legislative act of
the King is not required, because a
Minister could not be subjected to
impeachment for such an act.
Since the argument, the Attorney
General has filed brief in which he
says: 1T has not hitherto been con
sidered, and I do not think it is neces-
sary that the Kings signature to laws
be attested by any Minister"
On the argument the Attorney
General strenuously insisted upon
such necessity, and quoted from
Webster's Dictionary and other au-
thorities as to the meaning of the
word "act," in support of his conten-
ton.
1t seems to us, it being thus con
ceded that the signature of the King
to an Act of the Legislature is not an
act of the King" within the mean
ing of Article Al, requiring counter
signing by a Minister, it follows that
the message declining to sign must |
come under the same rule, and there
fore the substantial part of the Attor
ney-General's position fails.
But it is urged that there is no
analogy between the veto power of |
the President of the United States,
which is individual and irresponsible,
and that of the King of these Islands,
because the Presidents tern of office
is limited and he is subject to i'm
peachment, and IN these methods the |
will of the people may find expression
against a vicious use of this power
This argument, as it seems to us, is
good reasoning why the trainers of
the Constitution of the United States
were willing to trust the President |
VIII GnIS pOWSl OlJ ~ 10 IlO oI 5u-
ment against the view that the Ar
ticles in both the American and Ha
waiian Constitutions which define the |
veto power of the Chief Executive,
being identical in language, do not
in both cases entrust them with a |
power of veto which can be exercised |
according to individual judgment.
Great Britain is held up as the
great exemplar In that Kingdom,
by its unwritten Constitution, the
sovereign has the veto power, but as
the historian Macauley says, sit is
hardly possible to conceive circum-
stances in which a sovereign so stu |
ated can refuse to assent to a bill |
which has been approved by both
branches of the Legislature. Such a
refusal would necessarily imply one
of two things, that the sovereign
acted in opposition to the advice of |
the Ministry, or that the Ministry |
IL