The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-07-25

regretted Lnat his majesty Has oCSll III "
exercise the veto power III the way he has.
If it had been exercised so that someone
besides His Majesty could be considered
responsible for it, it would be another mat
ter but in this veto he has cut himSelt
clear of his Ministers and their advice, so
that we are compelled to acknowledge that
he alone and individually Is responsible for
this act This is unfortunate, for 1t brings
the House necessarily into direct COLLISION
with His Majesty and no one eISe-a col
EsiOn that must necessarily become more
and more unyielding and aggressive with
a repetition of such vetOeS on his part. BY
yetoing on his own responsibility, he has
necessitated personal debate with him,
as it were, on the part OF the House, out
of which he cannot come with the dignity
of his office unimpaired. Wit, sarcasm and
ridicule. and other legitimate weapons of
debate, when publicly levelled against the
DositiOn and reasons advanced by the Soy
ereign, cannot but bring him into a posi-
ton not intended for the occupant of the
throne, but yet by diSregarding the advice
of his constitutional advisers, and launch
ing out for himself, he forces such a per
sonal issue upon the House. Cannot
the King see where such course Will
eventually lead him?
Rep. PaehaoIe Gnterrupting)-Has not
the Constitution specifically given His
Majesty the right to veto?
Rep kinney-Certainiy and what is
more the Supreme Court has decided that
q
but to have a right is one thing, to exercise
it is another For instance, this House
has the undoubted right to reduce His
Maiesty's salary to fifty cents for the ben-
NAL period, but it does not necessarily fol
low that it would be wise or just for this
House to exercise that right. In the same
wav, the fact that His Majesty has the
right of veto, does not necessarily prove
that he can exercise 1t as he pleaseS, and
that is the whole issue to-day, viz: Has
NJ hot oil
the line of safe constitutional precedent,
and as a public trust, or has he exercised
it for himself personally and contrary to
the spirit of the Constitution and the
purposes tor which that power was dele
gated to him under the Constitution? We
believe that veto against the advice of the
Cabinet is unWiSe and dangerous as a pre-
cedent and otherwise, and should be allowed
only III an extreme national emergency,
which certainly is not disclosed in the COM
mOnplace arguments against the bill set
forth IL the Kings message. Ii such rea
sons are deemed sufficient by His Majesty
to Justify an attempt on his part to annul
by veto a measure brought forward
by his own Government, and to do
it on his own responsibility, there
is hardly any important bill that does not
run an equal risk of veto, for most any
measure has some good arguments against
it, as good in fact as those which have any
foundation set forth in this veto message.
consider the reasons set forth in the Kings
message sufficient to Justify him IN vetOlng
against the advice of his Ministers, is to
admit that the principle OF irresponsible
power is part of the Constitution, some
thing incompatible with free government
and unknown to constitutional mon
archy. But some may say there is the
United States of America. Its presidents
and governors have personal veto I'M
hampered by advice and exercise it freely
have hes ri Of the CNroot
Republic being classed as a despotiC power.
In reply l say that fair inspection of the
veto power of a president or governor will
but confirm our position. Great Britain
and the United States are the two great
representatives OF constitutional govern
ment. They both arrive at precisely the
same results (rule by the people, by diff
ferent methods. The Queen never has
and certainly never would veto without
the consent of her ministry. This is neces-
sary, for she like our King is inviolable
and irresponsible and holds the throne to
herself and heirs forever. On the other
hand, the President is subject to the law,
can be impeached, is elected and holds for
only four years, and therefore can safely
be entrusted with much wider power of
vetO-in fact in his case it is not iTrespOn-
sible power at all, but put the President
absolutely above the laW-make him ire
spOnsible, let him hold for life with perpe-
tual succession to his heirs and with such
a veto power as he now has the Great Re
public would be despotic government and
nothing else. If His Majesty will sur
render his inviOlability as monarch for
position, like the Presidents subject to law
and impeachment; and will surrender his
life tenure for an elective tenure of four
years. and we might safely admit the wide
exercise of veto that he seems to be claim !
ing, but if he desires to hold on to all the |
prerOgatives of a monarch, let him also
recognize and live up to those limitations
of kingly prerogatives that make them
secure from abuse, the keystone of which is |
"never to depart from the advice of his |
constitutional advisers" I therefore shall |
vote not to sustain the veto.
Noon recess one hour.