The Hawaiian gazette., 1891-02-24

and the private personal opinions OF the
Sovereign are no more binding on the
Cabinet than are those OF any other in
telligent citizen.
Another form OF stating the situation
is, that the Hawaiian, like the English,
system of Government, is one bv the
people through the Cabinet, and the
Sovereign has been retained solely as an
emblem or representative of sovereignty.
As has we'll been said by the Supreme
Court "there can be no dual govern
ment." The Cabinet are the Govern
ment, that portion OF it which has re-
sponsibility and power, while the Sow
ereign, except as above stated, represents
only the ornamental and sentimental
features OF Government.
Whether this is the wisest system l
am not now discussing.
II, then, this is the situation, all the
reasons urged why there should be a
change Of Cabinet fall to the ground.
Sd. THE CLArI THAT THE DEATH OF THE
SOVEREIGN THEREBY TERMINATES THE
TERN OF OFFICE OF THE MINISTERS Is IN
SOUND on ITS OWN MERITS, IRRESPECTIVE
OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS QUOTED.
Ii this claim is correct, the instant the
breath left the body of the King, the
authority OF the Ministers ceased. From
that time on they were interlopers, tres
passers. They had no more authority to
act than any other citizen. All their
subsequent acts are void. All drafts
drawn; all commissions signed; all con-
tracts made; all pay rolls approved; all
indictments, every act of whatsoever ma
ture done by any Minister since the death
of the King IS absolutely null, void and
illegal. In other words, there is and has
been no Government in this country
since the Goth day of January last.
II the claim is correct, that the COM
missions of the Ministers, signed by
the late King, are good only so long as
he lives, then logically, all other COM
missions signed by him expire with him,
and are void.
There is no Minister Resident at
Washington; no Marshal; no PoStmas
ter-General; no Collector of Customs;
no Board OF Health; no Board OF Educa-
ton; no Board of immigration, and no
Judges of the Supreme or Circuit Courts,
and every act performed by any OF these
officials or bodies is illegal, null and void.
This ruinous state of affairs is claimed
to exist without the claimants being able
to point TO a single precedent, ccnstitu-
tional provision or statute in support
thereof, and without showing any bene-
fit 10 be derived if their view is adopted.
They simply depend upon influences,
while any view causing such disastrous
results should be supported by the most
direct and unequivocal law. The Minis
tiers are in possession, and the burden OF
proof is upon those who claim that they
are illegally there, to prove their propo-
sitiOn.
POINTS AGAINST THE CLAIM.
Against the claim are the following
points:
a. The Constitution plainly points
out how the Cabinet can be removed.
This excludes every other method OF
removing them. The death OF the King
is not by the Constitution made cause
for their removal; therefore, it is not a
cause OF removal.
This case is analogous in principle to
the Constitutional Amendment question
before the Legislature last year, in
which abundant authority, including de-
cisious OF the United States Courts, was
cited, that, where the Constitution pro-
yides method for It's amendment, this
excludes every other legal method OF
amendment.
o. 1t is q maxim OF AIonarchical
Government that The King never
dies" This is another form OF state
ment that the Sovereignty Of the State
is continuous, and the change OF the per-
sonnet OF the Sovereign does not change
the Sovereignty. The meaning and OBJ
ject OF the maxim and OF the principle,
are to cover the exact situation now
under discussion.
1t means that there shall be no hiatus
no season OF chaos TO be produced by the
inevitable death OF the Sovereign; but
that everything else shall remain the
same, although the person OF the Sover-
eign changes.
The present cause affords less ground
than does the ordinary one OF q change
of the person OF the Sovereign, because
the same section in the Constitution
which named kalakaua as King, named
Liliuokalani as his successor, SO that in
a double sense the Sovereignty is IN
changed. In addition to the continuity
of the theoretical, ideal, Sovereignty,
the actual persons to carry out the Sow
ereignty then created were thereby fixed
viz: Kalakaua and Liliuokalani, the
one for lie, and upon his death the con-
tinuation OF the same Sovereignty in the
latter.
In other words they both derive their
authority from the same source, at the
same time, for the same purpose, and
are parts OF one whole.
The legal acts of either OF the persons
constituting that whole are not his or
her individual acts, but the acts of the
indivisible, Interchangeable Sovereignty OF
which they are but the visible represen-
tatives
Another illustration OF the same prin-
ciple is that the Government is in the
nature OF a corporation. The Constitu-
ton and laws OF the Government are
by the charter and bylaws
OF the corporation.
Where Z corporation manager or presi- /
dent dies or Tetires from Office, that fact
does not cancel the authority OF any
other officer, nor does It avoid anv act I
Heretofore legally performed by him.
The corporation exists, and all its obi
cations and the legal acts OF its officers
continue to exist, even though all it's
officers and all its stockholders should