The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-02-08

|
NAV be able to trace the leading primo
iples of government
The proviso of article 70 is ''unless
otherwise expressed" In the case OF
exceptions above referred to, it is pro
vided that the act shall be done by the
King bv virtue of some other authority,
as for instance, it is provided in article
%, that Sin any great emergency he (the
KING may, with the advice of the Privy
! Coucil, convene the Legislature in eX-
| traordinary session" In article 48 the
provision in regard to the act OF veto is
as follows: eff he approve he shall
sign it and it shall thereby become a
! law, out if not he shall rG<urn it, with
| his objections, to the Legislature" L
| fail to see any language here which eX-
cepts the veto act from the rule of article
! rs, or which appears to do SO. Such eX-
ceptions must be unequivOcally expressed
in words 1t is not sufficient that a skill
full logician might base a respectable
argument on the above quoted words in
favor of the theory of the respondent If
the words taken i'll their common, plain,
everyday meaning do not express an
exception on their face, then none can
be inferred or forced from them by
subtle reasoning. There is no more diff
fculty in the proposition that the King
approves or disapproves by and with
the advice of the Cabinet than in the
other proposition that he signs or refuses
to sign by and with the consent of the
Cabinet. We may go further than this
and be strictly within the principles Of
Interpretation if the words are fairly
susceptible OF both interpretations
which [ do not admit-that one must be
adhered to which is in sympathy with
the spirit and purpose of the Constitu-
ton the object of the Constitution is
the securing OF civil rights and enlight-
ened constitutional Government 1t
seems to me that the grant of the power
OF veto to the King, independent OF all
advice or responsible authority, would
be an obstacle to the securing of civil
rights, a cause of division and conflict
between the Crown and Cabinet and a
menace to public tranquility, and there
fore inconsistent with the spirit and OBJ
jects of the Constitution, and unlikely to
have been intended by it's trainers. Is
the power of veto as Royal prerOga-
tive, and which can only be Overridden
by a twO-thirds vote OF all the elective
members OF the Legislature, consistent
with enlightened constitutional govern
ment? This is matter of opinion, but
the status OF the two greatest constitu-
tiOnal Governments on earth-thOse of
England and the United States of
America-give an unqualified negative
to this question. The development of
the principle OF government by the
House OF Commons has rendered obsO- |
lete the veto power of the English Sow |
ereign. tCOoiey's Constitutional Limi |
tations, Is, note - In America, the
President holding office for brief term |
and liable to impeachment, may at his |
own discretion veto bill from Congress,
but it may be passed over his veto by |
two-thirds of a quorum of each House of |
Congress.
The contention of the respondent, if
correct makes the veto act a rOYal pre-
rogative; but the Constitution in article
80 has defined the Royal prerogative as
follows: cit is the Kings prerogative
to receive and acknowledge public Min
listers to inform the Legislature by
IL
state of the Kingdom, and to recommend
to its consideration such measures as he
shall Judge necessary and expedient."
This being an affirmative grant of pre-
negatives to the King, implies an exclu-
sion OF all others, and is especially de-
cisiVe against the admission by means
OF the Interpretation of doubtful express
slOnS OF another pTerOgative of serious
consequence and not in sympathy with
the general tenor of the Constitution.
The word prerOgative, as used in refer
ence to the powers of a Sovereign, has a
definite meaning gained through the
great conflict between the Grown and
Parllaments of England; it may be said
to have no other meaning than given by
Webster's Dictionary in the following
definitions: can exclusive or peculiar
privilege; prior and indefeasibIe right;
and essential possession;
used generally of an official and heredi-
AIRY right which may be asserted with
out question, and for the exercise of
which there is no responsibility or ac-
as to the fact and the man
Ter Of its exercise" If the respondent is
light in his theory of the case, the Sow
9relgn Is entitled to prerogative in adj
htIon TO those enumerated in article 80,
n nf salt i {
ng consequences. | am unable to ar
i've at this Interpretation. The question
whether the act Of veto is executive or
legislative IN its nature might be of i'm
lortance in this case if the 18th article
lid not exist, and the 41st and 21st arti=