The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-03-25
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CHIEF JUS
TICE JUDD.

| ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CHIEF JUS
TICE JUDD.
In addition to the above opinion
of the Court l wish to add the fol-
lowing:
Article 70 of the Constitution
that prescribes that /" whenever by
the constitution any act is to be
done or performed by the King or
the Sovereign, it shall, unless other
wise expressed, mean that such act
shall be done and performed by the
Sovereign by and with the advice
and consent of the Cabinet" has no
application to the question whether
the appointment of Chamberlain TO
His Majesty requires to its validity
the advice and consent of the
Cabinet, for the Constitution makes
no mention of the Office of Cham
berlain. So, also, the Statute of
1887, which places similar con-
Struction upon "any act or thing
commanded or permitted to be
done by the King by virtue of any
statute of this Kingdom" has no
application, for the Office of Cham
berlain is not created by Statute.
In the absence of any constitutional
requirement or Statute law, what
ought to control in the decision of
this matter I? The obvious answer
is, the nature of the office, its
duties and responsibilities, as es-
tablished by Hawaiian precedents.
These all go to show that the Cham
berlain has been the business agent
of the King. He draws the Kings
allowance from the State Treasury,
disburses it at His Majesty's pleas
ure, officiates at public receptions
and Palace festivities and receives
the guests, regulates public cere-
monies, attends His Majesty on pub
lie occasions, and does similar
duties, all however, Of the nature
of personal service to the King.
Until the last appropriation bill,
the item for salary of Chamberlain
has been for, I" His Majesty's
Chamberlain and Private Secre-
tary," and with but one exception
the two offices have been held by
the same person. And although
the title =" Private Secretary" is
now dropped from the appropria-
tien for Chamberlain, there is no
doubt that the Chamberlain will
also discharge the duties of Private
Secretary to the King.
The Chamberlain has no politi-
cal function whatever to perform.
He is, unlike all other officials, in
no Department or bureau of the
Government. The course has been
heretofore, to appoint him by vir-
tue of commission from the King.
1t is not clear whether this COM
mission has been usually counter
signed by Minister, but it is GER
tain that the Kings appointment
of a Chamberlain has, uniformly,
with the exception only of the case
now before us, been accepted by
the Cabinet without question.
Much might be said on both sides
of the question whether the APP
pointment of the Chamberlain
should be the personal act of His
Majesty, or be Cabinet appoint
ment. But the question as to
which method would be the wisest,
is one of policy, matter of legis-
Iative action, and does not come
into the present discussion. What
we are to consider is the present
status of the appointment as found
from the presidents of the past
history of the country. 1t has al
ways been a personal appointment
by the King. II the law making
body should deem it proper to
make it a Cabinet appointment, a
statute would accomplish this.
Unless there be some statute pre-
scribing the method of appoint
ment, the officers of the Govern
ment are appointed by the head OF
Department whom the official is to
serve. An illustration of this is
found in the appointment of
Shorthand Reporter to the Supreme
Court, for whose salary an appro-
priation was made. There is no
statute creating the Office or des-
ignating by whom the appointment
should be made. The natural in
ference would be that the Supreme
Court, whom the Stenographer is
to serve, should select and appoint
this official. The analogy holds
good as regards the appointment
of the Chamberlain. He is to
serve the King personally, more
SO than in the sense that all public
officers serve him-the King there
fore appoints him.