The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-04-16
The Supreme Court Opinion.

The Supreme Court Opinion.
MIR. EDITOR. The decision or
opinion of the Supreme Court, pub
lished last week, upon the question
of difference in the Cabinet, to-
gether with the statements in the
and Mr.. Ashford's
letter in the Bulletin, indicate a
serious crisis in our constitutional
questions. Many of US have been
striving for years to secure real
constitutional government in Ha
waii. Our model should be Eng
land, for we have hereditary
monarchy and the popular voice
cannot be expressed from time to
time as in the United States in fire.
quent changes in the head OF the
executive. The Cabinet ought to
be responsible to the Legislature,
and should represent the majority.
This is the distinct intent of the
Constitution, while there is no pro-
vision by law for premier, yet
the selection of a Cabinet by a
premier is the logical sequence Of
such a constitution. The present
Cabinet was called for instance by
Mr.. Green, and when he went out
it has been pretty generally under
stood that Mr.. Thurston filled his
place. OF course with such a sys-
tenn, when one member of the Cab
met cannot agree with the premier
and majority upon questions OF
public policy he must withdraw.
This was the course pursued by
| Mr.. Brown, Minister of Foreign
Affairs in 1887, and it is we'll
known that Mr.. Ashford at that
time expressed himself very strong
ly as holding the opinion that in
such cases the dissenting member
must withdraw. The difficulty in
the way of reconciling his views
then with his position now, is
wholly dispelled by reading his
letter in the Bulletin. This docu.
ment, while rather spirited and
witty, is wholly devoid of any at.
tempt to Justify his change Of
views, If indeed he has done so. On
the contrary there is no attempt to
justify his wholly uncoDstitutlonal
and illegal course in advising the
King to act contrary to the opin'
ion of the Court which was rend.
cred upon the request of the Cab.
met (not of one member thereof
upon an important point. The con
stitution provides that the opinion
of the Court shall be rendered to
the King, Cabinet and Legislature
upon important matters, if request
ed, and the intention is that such
opinion shall be final and binding,
or else seeking such opinion would
be mere foolishness. Mr.. Ashford,
both in his letter and in the Bulle-
tin leader, seeks to blind the real
point in issue by sundry references
to the proposed treaty revision, to
his brother the Colonel, and to
questions of the independence of the
country. The only question raised
was regarding the appointment OF
Colonel, and perhaps his suggestion
that there was no need Of any cleo
| ton because his brothers time had
not expired, is fully answered by
the fact, that although year only
had elapsed since his commission
was signed, yet it is two years since
his appointment, and he has drawn
his salary for the whole time. This
is however, of very small impor.
lance when compared with the real
question at issue. This is whether
we shall have constitutional gov
eminent in this country, by the
Cabinet as decided by the Supreme
Court, or that by illegal and uncon.
stitutional methods the government
shall be banked and defeated. The
occasion is serious and demands q
careful and dispassionate consider
alton of all points involved. 1t is
a great misfortune that the King
should be willing to disregard the
opinion of the Court, for in most all
things we must look to the Court
for final decision upon matters OF
constitutional Interpretation.
There can be no doubt that under
our system Mr.. Ashford ought to
resign. It looks as if he proposed
to defy the law and public opinion,
and hold on to the position which
he has forfeited. Such being the
case, the Government may have to
submit to the disagreeable necessity
of waiting for the meeting of the
Legislature to let that body settle
the matter. Mr.. Ashford's course
is, to say the least, revolutionary,
and if so: he should be impeached.
w. r. CASTLE.