The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-21

right of the King consists in the fact
that the Article providing for the
veto is copied from the United States
Constitution. This is indeed conclu-
sive 50 far as it goes, but it does not
go far enough for the purpose in
tended. The argument fails when
the United States Constitution is
searched in vain for any provision
corresponding to that of Article Is in
the Hawaiian Constitution. There
are authorities and reasons for dis
senting from the Courts opinion that
the Presidents veto is a Legislative
function. 1t could be shown with
great force by the positive text of the
United States Constitution and by
cogent reasoning from the nature of
the Presidents relations to the
people, that the power in question
belongs to the executive functions of
the President. As the independent
repository of the popular will he de-
clines, when he deems it for the Ma
tional welfare, to put in effect certain
Legislation made by Congress, in
which body the Legislative power is
exclusively vested by the Constitu-
ton It is true, as the Court sets
forth, that our Constitution vests the
Legislative power in the King and the
Legislature. That does not show,
however, that the signing or refusing
to sign bill belongs to the legisla
tive power On the contrary, the
Constitution seems to define that
function as an executive one. The
same article 81 that specifies the
executive power prescribes His Ma
jesty's signature to bills as necessary
to their validity, and, besides, makes
his Ministers responsible. Again, the
article az defining the power of the
Legislature seems very pointedly
to suggest that any veto is I'M
constitutional except it is exercised
against legislation deemed to be con
trary to the Constitution itself
1.-The Legislature has full power and
authority & = from time to time
to make all manner of wholesome
laws, not repugnant to the Constitu-
ton" This view is in accord with
the veto power as elsewhere exer-
cised. For instance, the Imperial
Act confederating the British North
American Provinces confers the priv
iIege on the Federal Government of
disallowing acts of the Provincial
Legislatures. Yet the disallowance
must be upon constitutional grounds,
or it is liable to be overruled by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council of the Empire, as has been
done in a recent case.
If we consider the parallels existing
with the system of Great Britain,
the argument by analogy will be
borne out much further against the
irresponsible veto than in its favor
The British form of Government,
based upon an unwritten Constitu-
tion, is always described as that of a
constitutional or Limited mon
archy." Likewise the Hawaiian Con-
stitution declares that "the Govern
ment of this Kingdom is that of a
Constitutional Monarchy" A stand
ard authority, in a definition of the
royal prerogatives of the British
Crown, mentions, among a host of
executive and judicial functions,
that of the signing and refusing sig
nature to parliamentary enactments
But it is added that this prerogative
is always understood in these days
to be exercised only upon the advice
of the Ministers of the Crown. The
same authority defines the sovereign
as the reservoir and not the fountain
of power The Supreme Courts opin-
ion quotes from the historian Mac
cauley to the effect that the exercise
of the veto by the sovereign contrary
to the advice of Ministers would in
volve a critical state that must if pro
longed end in revolution. From the
implied admission of the historian
that the sovereign has the power of
bringing about such crisis in that
way, the Court reasons that the SOW
ereign of Great Britain is invested
with the naked right of veto, though
it would be dangerous to exercise it.
But, as their Honors remark later,
they were obliged to construe the Ha
waiian Constitution by Its intrinsic
features. Now, if there is one fea-
ture more than any other running
like thread clear through the Ha-
waiian fundamental law, it is that of
responsible government and the IL
responsibility of the sovereign for
any exercise of power affecting his
subjects. For every single inference
of the Kings independent action in
matters of government, which can be
drawn from the document, there may
be adduced several distinct proyis