The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-21
TEDTToRIAL.7

opinion Of the Supreme Court on the
veto. as follows: 1.-The four Judges
say: If the power of veto is vested
u the Cabinet the practical result
would be that no measure which they
oppose and vote against could be
come a law unless two-thirds of the
elective members favored it. That
argument Is ridiculous, for the Con
stitution plainly says that majority
OF the Legislature may at any
time during a session pass a
vote of want of confidence in
Ministers, IN which case the
King must appoint a new Cabinet.
SO a majority can dismiss the Cab
met. but 1t takes two-thirds TO pass a
bill over the Kings veto, therefore
the shoe is on the other FOOT Our
correspondent is right. The deci-
sion shows distrUst of responsible
Ministers and a confidence in an
irresponsible sovereign, both of
which manifestations are out of har-
mony with the spirit of the move
Rent that gave the Constitution to
ne country. That we are not mis-
Judging the Court in this respect
may be seen IN quotations from It's
opinion. Reasons. held to be salts
factory to the majority, at least COM
paratively so, why Ministers are de-
barred from voting on a vetoed bill,
are that they might not place them
selves IN position Of open antag-
onlsm to the King, and that meas
ure which the King disapproved of
should, IN order to become law. have
sufficient merits to secure the ap-
proval Of two thirds of the House
who represent the people not includ-
ing the special advisers of the King"
From the first reason it would appear
that there IS something dreadful in the
thought Of Ministers not being al
ways docile Instruments of the royal
pleasure, no matter how they NAV
stand IN the confidence of the chosen
representatives Of the people. But is
there nothing repugnant to ideas of
constitutional harmony in the action
Of the King when placing himself in
position of open antagonism to his |
advisers who have the confidence of
the Legislature? Take the case of |
more than one measure the disallow |
ance of which brought the veto cues
ton to head The Court laid en-
phasis on the distinction between ex-
ecutiye and Legislative acts of the |
King, holding that the veto was
purely Legislative act, and that the
acts of the King which require the
advice and consent of the Cabinet do
not include Legislative functions.
But it happens that the acts referred
to as being vetoed were devised to
facilitate the executive policy to
which the Cabinet had been especi-
ally committed by the people at
the polls. Is it not therefore
clear that the King in those cases
by his veto violated the constitu-
tional requirement that the Cabinet
shall be his special advisers in the
executive affairs Of the Kingdom
No Cabinet can administer the ex-
ecutive affairs of the country, in ac-
cordance with the will Of the people
as represented in the Legislature, if
the King and any faction mastering
one-third of the elective members of
the House have the power to thwart
every measure introduced by the
Ministry The second reason for
giving the Ministers no vote on
vetoed bill, that the measure should
have sufficient merits to secure two
thirds support, will not accord with
the principles of parliamentary gov
where such are most fully
exemplified in other countries. Re
garding the resemblances to the sys-
TENS of great Britain and the United
States, respectively, visible in the
Constitution, the Court
SAYS, ''where the parallelism fails the
by analogy fails with it."
Now, the two-thirds vote prevailing
over a veto Of the President of the
United States is paralleled by the
same provision in the hands of the
Hawaiian Legislature respecting a
veto Of the King. The parallelism
ends there in the light of our SUI
oreme Courts decision, bnt is con
inued in the view of the King only
using the veto by and with the advice
md consent of the Cabinet In the
irst place the President is elected for
! limited tenure of Office by the
people, upon distinct lines of execu
i've policy laid down in the cam
oaign of the political party support
ng him. During his term of Office,
therefore,, the President is as truly
he exponent of the popular will, with
'espect to all powers given him by
he Constitution, as are the two
houses of Congress within the scope
If their constitutional functions. 1t
S therefore no arbitrary power that
he President is supposed to WELD,
,ut rather the exercise of trust re- /
posed in him by the people, when he {
lets as upon the conviction that any
particular measure is not for the L
benefit of the whole nation and ac- t