The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-06-18

uraC--ce CI the Government mas Decl 70
nav salaries monthly. and with 5 few eS-
cepuons where the salaries are small,
such - CLERKS oi Circuit Courts and
some few Others. where fl- convenience
tine parties have drawn their drafts
quarterly. Il. salaries and allowances
have been - uali. and / must assume
that the legislature was aw&re a. this
u~ae-ea In uaSSluE the Appropriation
BIT. and iEE not consider il necessary 70
5uSer. arT special direction. and il seems
Is me % IS absurd 70 suppose THAI the
legislature should lureuG that persons 70
whom salaries a7e appropriated should
us-.cru chel- duties to- TWO years with
r-- suv uzvrleut. and IN the event %.
their Ga4-1 or resignation during such
0a-5ll h= deprived u al remuneration
t1- the PERIOD during which they per
formed their duties. which would be the
result should I hold thar the approprIa-
;5C- j. only QayaC.s at the end q the
r>ca. period, To e person who has per
formed Ills duties Tor the whole @. such
pe-icd.
Lnuw. come TO the grounds relied upon
IN the -1irl paragraph Of the return. the
-l-s- bang denial that the relator has
been legally appointed %, OF commits
stoned = the Chamberlain q His
Naies-v- This denial Is not IN my
opinion II itself : sufficient answer 10
tie allegation II The petition. that on the
frs Gav g. October, 1855, His Majesty
appointed the rel2tO- Is one OF ms
otzlcers q ms household, 70 wit, IS his
Chamberlain. The return does not DENY
the appoIntment nv His Majesty, and
according to all rules Of pleading sp-
-Tczble in these cases. Il must be taken
that the allegation IN the petition Is
admitted. Il the respondent intended
10 raISe : question IS 70 the validity Of
such appointment, he should have
alleged the grounds upon which he
relied.
The Acknowledgement, IN his brief,
submits that II the Court should feel
called upon 70 decide upon the validity
q the appointment made by His Majesty
without the approval OF 8 Minister. and
against the Cabinet as whole. then he
also submits that no such power Of ap-
poiurme1- Is vested in the King.
l. does not appear by the return. or IN
auy manner, that the appointment was
made without the approval OF
Minister and against the protest Of
the Cabinet = whole, and II
does NOT seem 70 me that Il i within
uv province 70 consider any such cues
non. except - lar - the point may be
gathered from -l9 proceedings.
L appears from the letter o. the res
pendent 10 the ra-a--r, referred 70 IL the
petition that the only ground then taken
E. "-
--l-- vl-r appointment 70 the office Of
Cham s'=--zi1 has never been approved
u recognized by the Government
Vow. IRON lle iacc Of the VIII being a.
lowed, The respondent should nave
kuCw- .ha- tine Court was al all events
ur.ma tlcle o. opinion that such excuse
was insufficient
However. IN order that my views may
ba known y The parties. l viii deal with
The case. though reluctantly, = Il the
reason stated in the letter had been ex-
ures>lv re<-a-ei IN the return.
Ii viii be necessary in the trS- place
70 consider what i the status Of the
Chamberlain. Il : not 3 statutory
o-zce the duties sppe-;alnlng 70 which
a-a defined tv law. The statutes Great
.r- the office and defining the duties
were repealed by the Civil Code n 1852
and until the session q the Legislature
q 1865 70 provision was made for the
uzvmeuc q such 81 officer, when an
differentiation o. 5000 was made Tor the
salary o. HIS NajeS.y'S Chamberlain
and Secretary and the appropriation
tlr chamberlain and Secretary con-
-irua6 until ISIS. when i appears g
Chamberlain only
The duties o. the Chamberlain have
been personal % His Majesty, and II :
uow for the first time. 50 taT g l an
aware. and have had many opporrun-
i--ss from my connection with former
governments. ui knowing, that the right
q the Government . approve Of the
zpu15ntmant haS ever been asserted, and
Il : No. suggested by the respondent
that II has been.
The Attorney-General IN his brief re-
fers 70 the practice II Great Britain
where such n official would retire with
the Ministry. and refers especially 10 the
question which ar0se early in Her pre-
sent MzieS.v's reign Is 70 the appoint
uanr q the Be6Chzmber women, and
claims that by analogy the same rule
should apply here.
do not think there i such analogy,
the rules regulating the holding OF Offices
IN Great Britain. and the responsibility
@: Ministers. have been the growth OF
centuries, and are not and cannot be
applicable here according 70 our Consti-
tuition. In fact II the practice obtaining
in Great Britain were applicable and Ii
force here. the Court would not have 10
consider this case, because i His
Majesty would moi act upon the advice
Of HIS responsible advisers, IN matters IN
which they consider themselves respon-
sible, they would have 10 give way or
resign.
I an O: opinion that the Office Of
Chamberlain ! personal to His Majesty,
and thai there : no legal necessity Tor
the appointment 70 be by commission OF
in writing. and that Il does not require
-h= su1rCvaI Of the Ministers
should person Be appointed 20 the
Office whom the Ministers consider OBJ
7ac-5lua1.e. they can exercise some con
ITO. IN the legislature BY declining 70
ask tu- . vote for the salary
I therefore hold that this portion O
the cause SHOWN i insufficient
I come now 70 the remaining ground
ALLEGED II paragraph three, wherein
the respondent denies that said Mac
fa-,a-s hzs during said months, or a. al, .
performed the duties q such Chamber .
lain 70 His Majesty.
This allegation / not rrayersedr replied /
to OF excused By the relator, and / must .
therefore take II 70 be admitted, f.
especially q the statement appears II .
The RESPONDENTS letter 70 the re-ator, +