The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-02-08
THE VETO.
Dissenting Opinion of Mr.. jus ice
Dole.

! to provide for the discharge OF certain
duties heretofore performed by Governors
| of the different Islands" was presented
! to the King. Before the lapse of ten
! DAYS he returned it to the Legislature,
unsigned, accompanied with a commun-
ication setting forth his objections to the
! bill. This communication was not
! countersigned by a member of the Cab
| met, and it is in evidence that such re-
| turn of the bill with the statement OF the
| Kings objections thereto, was without
! the advice or consent of the Cabinet.
The issue raised by the pleadings in
| the case before the Court is, whether
this bill became a law upon the lapse OF
ten days from the time it was presented
to the King, according to the provisions
of article 4S of the Constitution.
Article IS reads as follows: every
bill which shall have passed the Legis-
| lature, shall, before it becomes a law,
be presented to the King. If he approve
| he shall sign it and it shall thereby be-
come a law, but if not, he shall return it
with his objections to the Legislature,
which shall enter the objections at
! large on their Journal and proceed to re-
| consider it. If after such .recOnsidera-
ton it shall be approved by two-thirds
vote of all the elective members of the
| Legislature, it shall become a law. In
all such cases the vote shall be deter
mined by yeas and nays, and the names
| of the persons voting for and against the
| bill shall be entered on the journal of the
| Legislature. If any bill shall not be re-
turned by the King within ten days
| Sundays eXcepted) after it shall have
been presented to him, the same shall
| be law in like manner as if he had
signed it, unless the Legislature by their
adjournment prevent its return, in which
! case it shall not be a law"
The respondent claims that the bill in
| question, having been returned unsigned
| by His Majesty, with his objections, to
the Legislature, and there having been
no reconsideration thereof by the Legisla-
virtue of article 48.
The complainant, on the other hand
contends that article 48 is qualified and
controlled by the latter clause of article
Il, which reads: Ono act of the King
shall have any effect unless it be coun-
tersigned by a member of the Cabinet,
who by that signature makes himself
responsible" and by article IS, which
reads as follows
Wherever by this Constitution any
act is to be done or performed by the
King or the Sovereign, it shall, unless
otherwise expressed, mean that such
act shall be done or performed by the
Sovereign by and with the advice and
consent of the Cabinet" and therefore,
that the Kings act in returning the bill
in question to the Legislature with his
objections thereto, without the advice
and consent of the Cabinet, and without
the signature of a member of the Cab
met upon the statement of the Kings
objections to the bill was Invalid and not
an objection to the bill requiring a re-
consideration, as contemplated by the
Constitution.
This position is met by the respondent
with the argument that the act of re-
turning a bill to the Legislature by the
King, with his objections-popularly
termed a veto-is legislative Act and
not an executive one, and that the above
quotation from article Al refers only to
executive Acts. In support of this view
ho 70 al u, ho
person of the King is inviolable and
sacred. His Ministers are responsible. |
To the King and the Cabinet belongs |
the executive power. All laws that have |
passed the Legislature shall require His |
Majesty's signature in order to their |
validity, except as provided in article |
IS ;" and to article Al, the first part of |
which has the following: ''The Cabinet |
shall consist of the Minister of Foreign |
Affairs, the Minister of the Interior, the |
Minister of Finance and the Attorney |
General, and they shall be His Majesty's |
special advisers in the executive af- |
fairs of the Kingdom. The respond
ent offers the further proposition that
the expression of article 4S, in reference
to the application of the Royal signature
to legislative bills and the refusal thereof, |
withdraws such Acts from the rule laid |
down in article IS; that is, that the APP
proval and veto of bills by the King are
not required to be by the advice and
consent of the Cabinet, because it is
otherwise expressed or provided, in
article 4S.
The conflict of opinion as to the mean
ing OF the Constitution, brought to the