The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-07-24

THIS DAY, for the first time in the
constitutional history of the country, the
Legislature will consider the Kings re-
fusal to approve an act duly and form
ally passed, and decide whether the
veto shall stand or be overridden.
1t was the intention OF the makers OF
the Constitution that the veto power
should be so restricted by law that it
might only be exercised by and with the
consent and approval OF the Cabinet.
This would put it where it practically
resides in England. To remove all
doubt, Article 70 was drawn and put
into the Constitution. But the Supreme
Court has by its decision so in terpreted
the fundamental law, that the veto power
resides in the King as personal pre-
rogative. The Supreme Court evidently
believed that the King would in fact
consult the Cabinet and be advised and
controlled by it, as to the exercise OF
this power. That this belief was utterly
groundless has been demonstrated. This
veto has also shown other things, as, for
instance, that the King will not abide
by his promise to the people, given by
him in answer to the resolutions OF the
mass meeting of the 30th of June last
year; that an uncontrolled veto power
may produce the most illogical results;
that the King is brought into direct con-
flict with the undoubted opinion of the
great majority of the nation; that the
power will be used to produce confusion
and uncertainty, and many others. The
reply given by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs to the questions OF Mr.. Kamau-
oha shows clearly that this veto was
contrary to the express advice OF the
Cabinet. IT also shows the utter trivial
lty OF the King and his unfitness to take
that part in the legislation of the coun-
try assigned him by the Supreme Court
decision. All of his interest in the leg
islative proceedings is confined to the
reply to the address and the items of
the civil list This unfitness is shown
in a veto which would kill the Military
bill without this law we must continue
in the uncertainty and doubt left under
the law of 1886 as it now stands after
the decision of the Supreme Court. The
reasons given for the veto do not COM
mend themselves to thoughtful people.
Lawyers find no conflict with the con-
stitutional provision that the King is
Commander-in-Chief of the army and
navy. The President Of the United
States, the Monarch of England are in
the same position, yet no one denies the
power of Congress or OF Parliament to
exercise control by law. Whenever &C.
casion arises for the exercise of the
dormant power given by the Constitu-
ton, it is done: witness the two or three
instances during the civil war in the
United States. The King gives as one
reason that the Royal Guard is INSULT
cient in number. This is question for
the people who pay and who will see
that the Royal state is properly main
tanned. 1t is not valid reason for the
veto.
Measures of retaliation are proposed,
not by the Legislature, but by citizens.
1t is enough that after careful decision
the Legislature has declared its will.
Undoubtedly the dignifed and honor
able course will be pursued Of either
passing the bill in its present shape or
dropping it altogether.