The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-02-14
DISSENTING OPINION.

! by governors of the different islands,"
was presented to the King; before
the lapse of ten days he returned it
to the Legislature, unsigned, accom-
panied with a communication set
ting forth his objections to the bill.
This communication was not coun-
| tersigned by member of the Cab
met, and it is in evidence that such
return of the bill with the statement
OF the Kings objections thereto, was, ,
without the advice or consent of -
Cabinet.
The issue raised by TIE pleadings
in the case before the Court is,
whether this bill became law upon
the lapse of ten days from the time
it was presented to the King, accord
ing to the provisions of Article IS of
the Constitution.
Article 4S reads as follows:
"Every bill which shall have passed
the Legislature, shall, before it be-
comes a law, be presented to the
King. If he approve he shall sign it
and it shall thereby become alaw, but
if not, he shall return it with his oh
jections, to the Legislature, which
shall enter the objections at large ON
their journal and proceed to recon-
slider it. If after such reconsidera-
ton ii shall be approved by Il two
thirds vote of all the elective mem
bers of the Legislature it shall be-
come law. In all such cases the
vote shall be determined by ayes
and nays, and the names of the
persons voting for and against the
bill shall be entered on the journal
of the Legislature. If any bill shall
not be returned by the King within
ten days Sundays excepted) after it
shall have been presented to him,
the same shall he law i'm like man.
ner as if ne had signed it, unless the
Legislature by their adjournmenS;7 z
prevent its return, in which case it
shall not be law"
The defendant claims that the bill
in question, having been returned
unsigned " Ills Majesty Witl his
objections, to the Legislature, and
there having been no recOnsidera-
ton thereof by the Legislature, it
has failed to become law by virtue
of Article 48.
The plaintiff, on the other hand,
contends that Article 48 is qualified
and controlled by the latter clause of
Article Al, which reads, Ono act of
the King shall have any effect iun-
less it be countersigned by
member of the Cabinet, who by
that signature makes himself
responsible" and by Article rs,
which reads as follows: "Where-
ever by this Constitution any act is
to be done or performed by the
King or the Sovereign, it shall, un-
less otherwise expressed, mean that
such act shall be done or performed
by the Sovereign by and with the,
advice and consent of the Cabinet;'1
and therefore, that the Kings act in
returning the bill in question to the
Legislature with his objections there
to, without the advice and consent
of the Cabinet, and without the sig
nature of a member of the Cabinet
upon the statement of the Kings
objections to the bill, was invalid,
and not an objection to the bill re-
quiring a reconsideration, as con-
templated by the Constitution.
This position is met by the de-
fendant with the argument that the
act of returning a bill to the Let~S
lature by the King, with his objee-
tiOns-popularly termed veto, is
legislative act and not an executive
one, and that the above quotation ,
from Article II, refers only to ex-
ecutive acts in support of this
view he refers to Article 81, which
says: "The person of the King is
inviOlable and sacred. His Minis
ters are responsible. To the King
and the Cabinet belongs the execu-
tive power. All laws that haYe
passed the Legislature, shall require
His Majesty's signature in order to
their validity, except as provided
in Article 49," and to Article Al,
the first part of which has the fol-
lowing: "The Cabinet shall consist
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
the Minister of the Interior, the.
Minister of Finance and the AttOrN
ney-General, and they shall be His
Majesty's special advisers in the ex-
ecutive affairs of the Kingdom"
The defendant offers the further
proposition, that the expression of
Article 4S, in reference to the appli-
cation of the royal signature to
legislative bills, and the refusal
thereof, withdraws such acts from
the rule laid down in Article 78-
that is, that the approval and veto
of bills by the King are not required
to be by the advice and consent OF