The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-02-14

of propositions that are entirely pre-
sumed and not at all dictated by the
plain and obvious force of the words
cited from the document. Their
honors set out to discover whether
the power of the King in approving
or Disappearing of bills passed by the
Legislature is controlled by Article
rs, and to determine whether Article
As is an exception to the general
words of Article rs. The words in
this Article, they say, (which provide
for the exceptions to which they shall
not apply, are unless otheTqoise er-
pressed" They attempt by two def
nitions, in separate connections, to
show what this excepting clause
means. First: This means that any
act which the Constitution requires
to be done by the King shall be done
by him by and with the advice and
consent of the Cabinet, unless the
article defining the act to be done
shall of itself show that the concur
renee of the Cabinet is not required"
This definition, we unhesitatingly
say, does not fit the structure of
Article rs, and is only supported by
the Court in risky process of Undue
ton out of other parts of the COnsti-
tuition. Proof of the position here
taken is plain to an inspection of the
syntax of Article rs. The clause
unless otherwise expressed" is
placed not so as to govern any des-
cription of ''any act" that lis to be
done or performed by the King"
the Court would have it-but is in
serted parenthetically in the clause de-
ining the meaning of how dnysuch act
is to be done. The proper definition
would therefore be after the manner
following "This means that any act
which the Constitution requires to be
done by the King shall be done by
him by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Cabinet, unless the Article
defining the act to be done shall of
itself show in express terms that the
concurrence of the Cabinet is en-
GUIDED" The phrase, that the con-
currence of the Cabinet is not re-
quired," is so general in its apphca-
ton as to leave it a matter of opinion
with the King when he requires the
concurrence of the Cabinet This
would, however, be contrary to the
general tenor of the Constitution as a
whole. But it may be said, on the
other hand, that such an option can
not be the Kings when Article Il
makes the members of the Cabinet
His Majesty's special advisers in the
executive affairs of the Kingdom.
The principle is, Notwithstanding,
applied by the Supreme Court to Ar
ticle rs, and Article rs involves any
and every sort of act, executive or
Legislative, to be done or performed
by the King. Secondly, their honors
present the following definition of
Article rs, almost identical in intent
with their other one, but more sweep
ing in effect: "Since the 18th Article
contains the words, unless otherwise
expressed, therefore any act of the
King which does not, by force of the
article which defines the act, require
the consent of the Cabinet, is ex-
cepted from the operation of the gen
era! rule laid down in Article 49,"
This is preceded by the opinion that
the plain and obvious meaning of the
whole context of Article As is that the
power of the King to approve or dis
approve a bill is a personal, individual
right. and this article standing alone
would never have given rise to
doubt" Certainly it would never have
given rise to doubt in such case, with
the one exception that the Judges
elsewhere discuss as to why members
of the Cabinet are excluded from
voting upon the reconsideration of a
vetoed bill. Neither would there be
any doubt of the Kings personal, in
dividual right to perform any other
act required of him in the Constitu-
ton, without the advice and consent
of the Cabinet, if the article author
izing him to perform such act were
set standing alone in naked sim
plicity. For instance, take Article
Il, and apply the Courts definition
of Article Is to it : ARTICLE Il. The
King appoints the Justices of the
Supreme Court, and all other Judges
of Courts of Record. Their salaries
are fixed by law" The appointment
of Judges by the King does not, by
force of the article which defines the
act, require the consent of the Cabi-
net" and therefore, according to the
Court, lis excepted from the opera
ton of the general rule laid down in
Article 76" Accordingly, His Ma
jesty magnanimously waived very
important privilege in filling the late
vacancy on the bench with the Cabi-
nets nominee if he had any other
preference to crafty Truly, the
last state of the country is worse than
the first, if the Courts judgment be
carried out to all its logical conelu-
sions.