The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-02-25
Look at the Fine Line of
Dress Goods,
The Arcade-EGAN & co.
Iafeat kfytea.

of last resort on legal points. On
the point of law and phraseology,
the Supreme Court has decided in
favor of the royal veto power.
But now comes new aspect of
the veto case. 1t is question of
acts and practices, as right or
wrong. 1t concerns the moral
quality of peoples actions. 1t is
not question of political responsi-
bility, as the phrase seems to be
understood in this country, the con-
troll of one PERSONS actions by an
other. In these days of sugar trusts
and watered securities, of success
full chicanery and moral irresponsi-
bility, this moral aspect of the veto
case presents far more momentous
question, than any of the irrelevant
side issues, which may be raised in.
definitely as long as the wit and
patience of men hold out. 1t is the
question of fact, which since the
decision of the Supreme Court, has
put the veto question, in this new
aspect, before people who are out of
politics but it concerns every one,
who wants to see even-handed JUS
tice the regnant power,in the land.
Justice may be blind-folded god
dess; but she is not blind. She
must show no Partially to one per-
son to the prejudice of another.
But her hands are free; or truth
and righteousness could not hold
the even balance in which every ac-
ton must be weighed, and conduct
and character tested as right or
wrong.
1t is this aspect of the case which
puts us in a most disagreeable
dilemma. 1t is the facts before us,
so far as known to us, and not any
opinions of our own, one way or the
other, which make it difficult to de-
eide. Who has the right of it?
That is the question; not, Who is
responsible? There was no Consti-
tutional Convention, and there has
been no report of the discussion that
led to the adoption of the provisions
finally embodied in the Constitution.
But the Cabinet must know, and the
Supreme Court must know, the
actual facts in the case, not accessi-
BILE to the outside public. In ignor-
ance of the facts, we are put in a
strange dilemma. We must pre-
sumo, however, in view of known
circumstances that both Cabinet and
Supreme Court know the facts: we
outsiders are in dilemma.
Here is one possibility. The veto
power was given to the King, solely
and absolutely, fairly and squarely.
But if so, why was the claim of the
Cabinet to supervision and APP
proval of all vetoes put forward al
all? 1t will be noticed by those who
recall the history of these proceed.
ings, that this claim of the Cabinet
was first set up by the Attorney
General, not as an actual fact, but
as grave doubt on his part whether
veto message from the King had
any validity unless it was first APP
proved by the Cabinet. If the At
torney-General knew, as matter OF
fact, that no such veto power was
given to the King why did his know.
ledge take the form of doubt ?
And why have not his colleagues
been pronounced and insistent, in
supporting this claim, if it was right
in fact?
Does our constitutional and "res.
ponsible" government depend upon
stretching point; turning to good
account a general phrase which has
the appearance, but only the APP
pearance, of legitimate applica-
bility; making words mean so and
so, just what we would have them
mean?
Here is another possibility. When
the Constitution was adopted, the
veto power was given to the Cabinet
and not personally to the King. II
that was the fact, and the Judges
knew it 10 be the fact, why did the
Supreme Court decide that the veto
power was given personally to the
King? Would these honorable
gentlemen, on the ground of Q
peculiarly worded phrase, inadver-
tently admitted into this public
document of such vital Importance
to all good government, give to the
present sovereign, such dangerous
power, as every intelligent citizen
not Hawaiian, must know and see
is dangerous power in the hands
of any Hawaiian? What splendid
opportunity these judges had to take
broad and liberal view of this
question, and with supreme regar(
to the public interests put in peril
decide against entrusting the Kin(
with any absolute veto power
What possessed them that they
should make such decision rs they
, did?
This Is a plain statement of facts
and their meaning, as they now APP
pear to men, who think they hav,
r average intelligence and some sens
r of moral responsibility. We, whit
: have gone in for Reform, find our
selves put in strange, if not falls
position, by no action of our own
| On this statement of facts, wha
a answer shall we give to the question