The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-03-25


to such statement of principles as
uncalled for and insulting, and de-
clined to assent thereto.
"The Cabinet therefore respect
fully request the opinion of the
Supreme Court upon the following
question, viz:
" Is the authority and responsible
lily of the Cabinet as set forth in
the above statement of principles in
accordance with and in pursuance
of the Constitution or not ?"
The Justices of the Supreme
Court in their reply unanimously
and without qualification sustained
the principles of responsible govern
ment in the following language:
"There can be no dual government.
There can be no authority without
responsibility. The King is with
out responsibility. The Constitu-
ton confers the responsibility of
government upon the Cabinet
they therefore have the authority.
With this in view we are unani-
mously of opinion that the princi-
pies formulated by you and present
ed to His Majesty, above set forth
are in accordance with and in pursu-
ance of the Constitution.
This somewhat sweeping applica-
ton of the principle under consi-
Iteration, allows no exception which
is not allowed by the Constitution
and laws. 1t tacitly repudiates the
method of application of the 18th
Article of the Constitution, which
was adopted by the Court in the
case of Everett Us. Baker, popularity
known as the veto case. The Court
in that case say: "Since the 18th
Article (of the Constitution con-
tains the words sunless otherwise
expressed; therefore any act of the
King which does not, by force of
the article which defines the act,
require the consent of the Cabinet,
is excepted from the operation Of
the general rule laid down in Arti-
Gle 1917. If it is conceded that the
reasoning of this part of that deci-
sion is untenable, an important step
is gained toward clear and consis-
tent Interpretation and application
of the law upon this subject, and
the meaning of the 18th Article of
the Constitution may be confidently
stated to be that there is no excep-
ton to the rule that every sovereign
act must be "by and with the
advice and consent of the Cabinet"
unless the law defining such act
shall make it an exception.
This brings us down to the consi-
Iteration of the question embraced
in the second ground of defense to
this application for writ of man.
damus. Is the appointment of the
Chamberlain an act of the Sow
ereign which is required by our
Constitution and laws as interpre-
ted by the Justices of the Supreme
Court in their opinion of August
Ord 1889, to be done by and with
the consent of the Cabinet +? To
answer this question it is necessary
that the nature of the Office of
Chamberlain should be clearly I'M
derstood. Is it public or private
Office? Does the Chamberlain in
our government hold the same re-
lation to His Majesty and to the
public as does the Kings coachman
or his cook, as was urged in the
argument in this case ?
think there can be no question
that the position is public one and
that the appointment is an official
act, or, to bring it within the words
of the opinion of the Supreme Court
of August 3rd 1889, is an executive
act, for the following reasons: The
office of Chamberlain has been a
feature of this government almost
from the time it became constitu-
tional monarchy. From 1916 to
1850 the duties and powers of the
Chamberlain were prescribed by
law. Since 1850 to the present
time the office has been continued
and from the year 1864 has been
recognized by every Legislature by
an appropriation for the salary of
the incumbent. The Office has
during this period been closely pat
termed after the similar office of
Lord Chamberlain of England. The
description of a "royal chamber
lain" in the Encyclopedia Britain
Mica correctly defines the Office in
both countries, as follows: "a
royal chamberlain is an officer
whose function is in general to at
tend on the person of the sovereign
and regulate the etiquette of the
Palace. The Lord Chamberlain
in England has some duties which
are not imposed upon the Chamber
lain of the Hawaiian Court, such as
attending to the histrionic matters