The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-02-07

/ history would nave cOSenCy II addressed
TO a body that were framing Constitu-
ton for Hawaii, but they are of little
weight in ascertaining the true intent
and meaning of the instrument now
/ formed and in force as the fundamental
law of the land This Court sits not as
| a Legislature to make or amend the
! Constitution, but to discharge the jul
! diciaI duty cast upon it by the law of in
! terpreting the Constitution.
! The preamble of the Constitution
reads:
WHEREAS, The Constitution of this
! Kingdom heretofore in force contains
many provisions subveIsive of civil
rights and Incompatible with enlght
| ened Constitutional Government;
And whereas it has become imperative,
in order to restore order and tranquility
and the confidence necessary to d further
maintenance OF the present Government
that a new Constitution should be at
once promulgated;
Now therefore, I, Kalakaua, King of
the Hawaiian Islands, in my capacity as
Sovereign of this Kingdom, and as the
representative of the people hereuntO by
them duly authorized and empowered,
do annul and abrOgate the Constitution
promulgated by Kamehameha the Fifth,
on the 10th day of August, a. d. 1864,
and do proclaim and promulgate this
Constitution.
1t is urged as a strong reason why we
should interpret the Constitution to
mean that the veto is an act of the
King which must have the consent of
the Cabinet.
1t is evident from the whole scope of
the Constitution of 1887 that it was the
intention of its trainers to curtail the
Kings power in the Government For
example, article 81 Of the Constitution
of 1864 reads: 'To the King belongs
the executive power" This article in
the Constitution of 1887 reads: ''To the
King and the Cabinet belongs the exec
utive power" By article 40 of the old
Constitution the Kings power of veto
was absolute and final. By returning
bill to the Legislature unsigned and I'M
accompanied by any objections, it failed
to become law, and could not be brought
forward thereafter during the same SEES
sion. By article As of the present Con-
stitution this veto is limited, and can be
overthrow by two-thirds vote of the
Legislature, thus accomplishing a sub
stantial abridgement of the Royal power.
1t is urged by the Attorney General
that this limitation is ineffective and
that at least thirty-two out of a House
OF fOrty-eight members must vote in
favor of z vetoed bill to make it law, so
that as some sixteen of the members
may absent themselves from the House,
practically a vetoed bill can only be-
come law by unanimous consent OF the !
elective members But the House has
the power to compel the attendance of |
members, and the same difficulties
would stand in the way of the passage
OF bill if vetoed by the Cabinet.
II the power of veto is vested in the !
Cabinet the practical result would be |
that no measure which they should OPP
pose and vote against could become |
law unless two-thirds of the elective
members favored it. This would give to |
Ministers a power unknown in any other
country, and completely obliterate the |
legislative power of the King.
The 4Sth article requires OF the King
that, if he disapproye of bill, he send
to the House his objections to it, which
are to be entered upon the journal, pre-
sumably III order that they may be the
subject of discussion when the bill is re-
considered.
Now, if these objections are the Cabi-
nets objections and not the Kings, it
woHld be an idle ceremony for the Cabi-
net to reiterate, in the form of a Royal
objections which they have al
ready urged during the discussion in tn
Legislature against the passage of the
bill.
1t is urged that as the 4Sth article al
lows only the elective members of the
Legislature to vote upon bill that has
been vetoed by the King, and thus the
Cabinet are excluded from the privilege,
this was so framed in order that the
Cabinet should not back up measure
vetoed by themselves, through the King.
by their own votes. Other reasons more
to us are that the Cabinet
we're not allowed to vote on a vetoed
dill in order that they might not place
themselves in position of open antago-
lism to the King, and that measure
which the King disapproved of should,
n order to become a law, have sufficient
merits to secure the approval of two
birds OF the House who represent the
people, not including the special adj
Users OF the King.
1t was said at the argument that a de-
lslon contrary to the views OF the Gov
rnment would lead To results most dis