The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-03-25


so important an officer? And if
there is authority, there is respon-
sibility. "There can be no author
ity without responsibility. The
King is without responsibility.
The Constitution confers the re-
sponsibiIity of government upon the
Cabinet; they therefore have the
authority" Opinion Of the Su-
pren'e Court, August Sd, 1889
This national importance of the
Office of Chamberlain as above set
forth brings the appointment within
the law above quoted, passed by the
Legislature on the 9Th day of De-
cember, A. D. 1887, which provides
that &c whereas it is consistent with
the spirit of the constitutional gov
eminent of the Hawaiian Kingdom
that the Sovereign shall act in mat
tiers of State only by the advice and
with consent of his constitutional
advisers" the King shall perform
those acts which ne is authorized
or permitted to do by virtue of the
laws, "by and with the advice and
consent of the Cabinet" unless the
law provides otherwise. 1t can
hardly be argued that the appoint
ment of the Chamberlain is not a
" matter of state"
An executive act is an act that
carries out or executes the law.
The law in providing for the salary
of the Chamberlain, public officer,
provides by necessary implication
for his appointment. 1t thus be-
comes strictly an executive act, like
the Appointment to any other stat
utory Office.
The manner of appointment
to the Office of Chamberlain pre-
vious to the revolution of 1887 has
no bearing upon this issue, and no
force by way of precedent, for the
status of the Sovereign was radi-
cally changed by that revolution, as
is shown above, and modified upon
this very point of his authority in
making appointments to office,
which authority-or what there
was of twas entirely swept away,
except as to the appointment of the
Cabinet. AS matter of fact, how
ever, for a period of fourteen years
or more the Chamberlain has been
appointed by royal commission un-
der the great seal of the Kingdom,
which would prinaa facie character
ize such appointment as an exc
cutive act. It has also been the
practice, to some extent, under the
old regime to have such commits
sions countersigned by Minister.
/ think it may be accepted as an
irresistible conclusion arising from
the circumstances and enactments
of the late revolutionary movement
that the King has no powers except
those granted him by the Constitu-
ton. The executive power is there
placed in the hands of the King and
the Cabinet, and there is no re-
mainder or surplus of executive
power that is given to him to use
independently, unless the appoint
ment of the Cabinet might be SO
regarded.
These conclusions of law are
strongly supported by the conclu-
sions of public policy. For instance,
if the position should be filed by
person who paid no attention to his
official duties, or absented himself
entirely from the country, or who
attended to his duties in an in
capable or scandalOus manner, there
would be no remedy unless the
responsible Cabinet had the control
of the office, except to wait for the
succeeding session of the Legis-
lature, which might be more than
year away.
1t is a significant fact with a
direct bearing upon this question,
that in England the Lord Cham
berlain is appointed by the Cabinet
and changes with the administra-
ton. This is because it has been
found by experience that it is bet
ter for the harmonious admins
tration of affairs that an officer
holding position so intimate, and
SO full of opportunity of acquiring
influence, with the Crown, should
be in political accord with the
ministry. If this reason for minis
terial control of the Office is good in
England, it is matter for serious
consideration whether it is not also
good here. But this is an argu-
ment from policy which I do not
rely upon, but call attention to the
harmony that exists, as it appears
to me between the conclusions of
law and of policy arising from this
question.
AS to the third ground of defense,
i.e., that the petitioner has not per-
formed the duties of the Office, and