The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-02-26
SUPREME COURT.
Decision on the Cabinet Question
One Dissenting Justice.

Honolulu, 18th Feb, 1891.
To Their ExceIlencies Godfrey
Brown, Charles N. Spencer
and Arthur p. Peterson, Mem
bers of His late Majesty's Cab
met:
GENTLEMEN-The Justices of the
Supreme Court have had the honor
to receive your communication of |
the 10th inst, IN which you say
that " in accordance with the pro-
visions of Article 20 of the Constr
tuition, we. His late Majesty's Cab
met, having been requested to re-
sign by Her Majesty the Queen, beg
to request the opinion of Your Hon
orable Court as to whether the
commissions held by US from His
late Majesty Kalakaua are valid
and legal, and whether under Arti-
Gle Al of the Constitution there is
any power existing than that men,
toned in said Article, to wit, the
Legislature, which can recall said
commissions or render them inoper-
alive"
Having delayed replying to this
communication at your request un-
til to-day, we now reply as follows,
fully impressed with the import
ance and difficulty of the matter
submitted:
The question of the effect of the
death of the Sovereign upon the
status of the Ministry, receives
little light from the Constitution
and the laws.
The tenure of Office of Hawaii
an Ministry closely follows the
English rule In that it may be ter
minated by the Legislature. Here,
as in England, the Sovereign ap-
points the Cabinet, though in that
country the royal prerogative is
satisfied with the formal appoint
ment of the leader of the party in
power as Premier, and the ultimate
approval of his nomination OF the
other members of the Cabinet.
The British Ministry is sometimes
described as a standing committee
of Parliament, because they are
selected from the Peers, and the
elected members of the House of
Commons, and are responsible to
Parliament and may be dismissed
by its vote. Yet in England, the
Ministry hold such relations with
the Crown as its appointees and
responsible representatives in the
administration of executive busl-
ness that they are dissolved by the
death of the Sovereign, leaving the
new incumbent free to create new
Cabinet or to reinstate the old one
We know of no exception to this
rule; the holding over of the Lord
Melbourne Ministry of William "
upon his death and the accession OF
Queen Victoria is sometimes cited
as an exception, but as a matter Of
fact they surrendered to her the
seals of their respective offices, and
received them again at her hands
a Martineau's History of England
So, 89). 1t may be added that al
though precedent obliges the Min
istry to resign at the death of the
Sovereign in England, the unwrit
ten law requires the new ruler tt
select the leader of the prevailing
party as Premier, which means
that he is expected to reinstate th'
old Ministry or, at least, its head
This practice is in accordance will
our own political system and will
, in time doubtless be regarded a
essential.
Here the Ministry are not mem
bers of the Legislature except b.
virtue of their positions in the Cab
met, and are not necessarily select
, ed from the Legislature, and the.
, hold about the same relations t.
the Crown as is the case with tn
British Cabinet, so that although
' they might perhaps with som
show of reason be termed a stand
ing committee of the Legislature
such a view is less obvious than
the case in England. Strict.
e speaking, however, the Cabinet i
q not standing committee OF the Law
making body in either country.
Under this similarity of circum
D stances, the practice in EngIan'
!. upon the occasion of the death @
e Sovereign must have great weigh
I with us IN like emergency, wit
our want of constitutional provision
! therefor. The precedents of other
e perhaps all other ,monarchial coun
q tries emphasize the force of thi
: rule.
n There is no question and Their
can be none that when once Ha
waiian Sovereign has appointe'
0 and commissioned the Ministry
t neither such Ministry nor it's indi
; vidual members can be dismlsse
i by him without a vote of want @
confidence in the Legislature or
conviction of felony. The judg
r ment of a successful Impeachment
e would be deprivation of Office.
;. The Constitution has deinitel.
diminished the former powers 0
y, the Crown, but we do not find il
d it any words taking away the ad
y mitted previous right of Sovereig
s to begin new reign with tn
n selection of a Ministry. We ar