The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-06-20

UNDER the title "Unfair Ref1ec-
tlons'-a title which is very ac-
curate description of the article
which follows 1.-THE Bulletin re-
news it's aged attack on the use of
English precedents in settling con-
stitutional questions in this little
Kingdom. The Bulletin seems to
imagine that we have objected to
the complexion OF the new Minis
try because it IS not all drawn from
the ranks of the National Reform
party, an objection which certainly
has never crossed our mind. This
is. on the contrary, the very fea-
ture of the new Ministry which
commends it to our favor.
What we find particularly extra
ordinary in the Bulletin article is
the following statement, and the
reasoning by which it is supported:
''There is not a parallel between
the conditions here and those IN
England. It is all precedent there,
it is all written law here. In Eng
land the executive and the legisla.
tive are interviewer as the warp
and the wool. In Hawaii the ex-
ecutive and the legislative are by
the written law to be maintained
separate and distinct"
The Bulletin further asserts that
there is no obligation on the part of
the King to select his Ministers
from the dominant party in the
House.
parallel between English conditions
and ours merely because our law is
written, is one which has been so
often exposed in these columns that
further discussion of it can hardly
avoid repetition. AS a matter OF
fact our constitution was largely
borrowed from the English. 1t is,
with some important exceptions, a
conscious imitation of it. Where
did we get our Cabinet system
was it from America? Where did
we get the principle of ministerial
responsibility; was it from the
United States? Where did we get
the plan of giving the Ministry
seats in the House, with the right
to vote as members of it? Were
these things inventions of oursi
Every one knows that they were
borrowed from the English consti
tuition. They do not cease to sug'
gest their origin, merely because
they are written down in a definite
instrument. They must continue
to be interpreted in the light O
their original prototypes, if they
are to be understood at all. If thu
English constitution were to b.
written, would that effect its innel
/. character? Everyone knows thai
+. it's content would be absolutely tn
: same, not differing from it's forme
| self by hair. The only difference
/, would be an external, not sub
f. stantive one, viz: in the manner O
l changing it. The only Fundamental
distinction between a written an,
. an unwritten constitution, IS in tn
IS method of change. One is rigid
: the other flexible. One is abov
the legislative. The other is sub
# ordinated to it. The real underly
ing difference between our govern
ment and that of Great Britain
that in that country the legislator
is absolutely sovereign, the reposi
tory of all the powers Of the people
while here it possesses ONLY thos
h powers which the people in tn
constitution have granted to it. !
!. is perfectly possible that the power
a thus granted, should coincide in tn
minutest detail, with those exc,
cised by the legislature in accord
ance with the unwritten law.
Suppose the trainers of the Amer
Ne can Constitution had intended t
g reproduce the English Constitution
+ had simply meant their own funds
v mental law to be precise copy {
that of the mother country, woul
N not American statesmen, wheneve
- q question arose under the Const
y tuition, whenever that documer