The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-28

an interviewer IN San Francisco, prove
that the King had recognized even
under the old Constitunon-without
q provision like that of Article IS in
the new one-that it would be an un
wonted stretch Of prerogative for him
To give his assent 10 bills or with
hold 1t therefrom without svailing
himself Of the advice and consent OF
his constitutional advisers. Argu-
ment upon this strong ground Of pre-
cedent, during the late contest in
Court, has, il Is to be feared, been al
together neglected or not sufficiently
pressed. We consider that il should
have been one Of the strengholds Of
the anti-yetO case. This, however, Is
aside from the present connection
and ouly adverted to in passing,
Coming TO the results Of an irres
ponsible veto at the outset Of the new
regime, they are found TO be alto
gether subversive of the principles Of
responsible, representative govern
ment- From the standpoint Of a
desire for harmonious cooperation IN
the common interest OF the different
estates Of the realm. it must be con
Sidered that even with the power
recognized, its exercise upon ordi-
binary occasions Of honest differences
Of political sentiment Is to be de
precated. II the particular measure
N dispute between sections Of the
Legislature or Of the people was TO
be irrevocable in the features OBJ
jeeted TO, for period extending much
beyond the life OF one Legislature,
then there would be a plausibility Of
reason in the arbitrary act that multi
fed free and open legislation. But,
as was the case with every bill vetoed,
II the worst that can be said of the
measure does not involve imminent
mischief 10 the country as g whole, or
II proving TO be bad legislation IN
experience il can yet be repealed be
fore the country has suffered much
or long from It's operation, the extra
ordinary Intervention Of the veto Is
indefensIble either with or without
the Cabinets concurrence. There
Is such q thing as prostituting
one Of the most sacred and
delicate trusts to ignoble uses.
and this Is Just what has
been done when the veto power has
been employed TO effect the objects Of
an irresponsible, obstructive faction
nay, 3 mere Insignificant clique Of
politicians, the leaders Of whom. when
they had the opportunity OF display
ing manly and honest independence,
made shipwreck Of their regulations
by proving themselves the veriest
invertebrates among men.
There Is no fact more patent IN the
than that the King, while
claiming the right OF veto independ-
ent Of his constitutional advisers,
acted N some cases entirely on the
advice Of persons having neither
position nor responsibility in the
state, whom the electorate would
have none Of. either as representa-
tIyeS or men Of counsel in affairs.
Some Of the Kings veto messages
were burde1ed with fallaeious argu
ments that had bored men Of sense
on the curbstone, besides bearing in
ternal evidence that the reasons"
given, as called for by the Constitu-
ton. were not those Of His Majesty
at all. but had been whispered in his
ear and dictated to his hand by in
veterate political opponents of the
In the case Of the Military
Bill q puported reason" was about
that very time being acted upon In
the breach instead OF the observance
by the French Republicans in the in
terest Of peace with Germany. Thus
not the least OF the results Of the
= independent yetO-nOt "appre-
hended but actually visited upon
the counuy-is that the King Is adj
vised by. and acts with the consent
and desire Of all and sundTy who
have the backstairs entry TO his
presence, with whatever influences
they have learned TO conceive as po-
tent for prejudicing his mind against
the policy Of the responsible Minis
tiers Of the day and against the course
Of the majority Of the Legislature.
The more that results are considered
the greater does the misfortune APP
pear that the Supreme Court has felt
conscientiousIy bound to interpret
the Constitution 50 as to confer the
absolute prerogative Of veto upon the
sovereign Of this Constitutional
Monarchy.