The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-03-25

Office in order that his acts therein
may be legalized, and whether his
appointment requires to be approved
by the Cabinet.
We adopt here the language of
our lamented associate Preston in
the case referred to in the respond
ent's return, of this petitioner Us.
VIM. L. Green, the preceding Min
lister of Finance. He says:
alt will be necessary in the first
place to consider what is the status
of the Chamberlain. 1t is not
statutory office, the duties apper-
tanning to which are defined by law.
The statutes creating the Office and
defining the duties were repealed
by the Civil Code in 1859, and until
the session of the Legislature of
1S64-5 no provision was made for
the payment of such an officer,
when an appropriation of $4,000 was
made for the ssalary of His Ma
jesty's Chamberlain and Secretary
and the appropriation for Cham
berlain and Secretary continued
until 1888, when it appears as
chamberlain only.
"The duties of the Chamberlain
have been personal to His Majesty,
and it is now for the first time, so
far as 1 an. aware, and 1 have had
many opportunities from my con-
nection with former governments OF
knowing, that the right of the gov
eminent to approve of the appoint
ment has ever been asserted, and it
is not suggested by the respondent
that it has been.
"The Attorney General in his
brief refers to the practice in Great
Britain, where such an official would
retire with the ministry, and refers
especially to the question which
arose early in Her present Majesty's
reign as to the appointment of the
Bedchamber Woman, and claims
that by analogy the same rule
should apply here.
81 do not think there is such
analogy, the rules regulating the
holding of Offices in Great Britain,
and the responsibility of ministers,
have been the, growth of centuries,
and are not and cannot be applicable
here according to our constitution.
In fact if the practice obtaining in
Great Britain were applicable and
in force here, the Court would not
have to consider this case, because
if His Majesty would not act upon
the advice of his responsible adj
visers, in matters in which they
consider themselves responsible,
they would have to give way or
resign.
al am of opinion that the Office
of Chamberlain is personal to His
Majesty, and that there is no legal
necessity for the appointment to be
by commission or in writing, and
that it does not require the approval
of the ministers. ...
"Should person be appointed
to the Office whom the ministers
consider Objectionable, they can ex-
ercise some control in the Legis-
lature by declining to ask for vote
for the salary"
We may regard it as crucial test
of the requirement of commission
to consider whether the acts of the
officer are legal or illegal, valid or
invalid, as he may be commissioned
or not. The statute of 1850 pre-
scribing in amendment certain
duties to the Chamberlain was
repealed in 1859, likewise the
statute of 1S4S providing for his
appointment. By this earlier stat
ute it was made obligatory on His
Majesty with the appreciation of the
Privy Council to appoint Cham
berlain of the Royal household who
shall be solely entitled to draw upon
the Minister of Finance for all the
expenses of the Royal household,
and it shall not be lawful for any
person in this Kingdom to debit
His Majesty or any other person on
his behalf, except the Chamberlain,
such debts not to be recoverable at
law. No check or draft of the King
on the treasury could be paid unless
it was countersigned by the Cham
berlain, and the Chamberlain might
be held personally liable to creditors
for expenditures in excess of the
stated allowance.
The legal inference from the
repeal of the statutes which re-
quired Chamberlain to be ap-
pointed, with the approval of the
Privy Council, and which gave him
powers and duties, there being no
other statutes enacted concerning
him, is that the Chamberlain is not
now an officer of the law. His
Office not being established by law,
and no duties being prescribed by
law ha ranuirnS no commission as