The Hawaiian gazette., 1891-02-24

SOVEREIGN DOES NOT TERMINATE THE
TENURE OF OFFICE OF THE MINISTRY.
Under the old Constitution the APP
pointment OF the Cabinet was, by the
letter OF the law, a personal prerogative
OF the Sovereign.
But in a theory the Ministers held
office while able to control the Legisla-
ture. The late King cast theory to the
winds and claimed and exercised the
full powers accorded him by the letter
OF the Constitution, regardless of the
approval or disapproval OF the Legisla-
ture.
He also claimed and exercised the
right not only to dictate the Policy OF the
Government but TO direct the pettiest
details OF executive duty.
THESE CLAIMS on THE PART OF THE
KING HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY MET, AND
EXPLICITLY WIPED OUT BY THE Constr
TUITION, By THE LEGISLATURES AND BY
THE SUPREME COURT.
The demonstration of this requires q
brief reference TO recent Hawaiian his
tory
a. The Constitution expressly takes
away from the Sovereign the personal
right to remove the Cabinet, by adding
TO Article II these words, referring to
the Ministers,
"They shall be removed by him
ONLY UPON VOTE OF WANT OF
CONFIDENCE passed by majority OF all
the elective members OF the Legisla-
ture," or when convicted OF felony.
e. The Constitution expressly pro-
vides that the King shall not control the
Government and shall not direct its
policy, by the further provision in Arti-
Gle Il that
No ACT OF THE KING SHALL
HAVE ANY EFFECT UNLESS IT BE CoUN-
TERsIGNED BY a MEMBER OF THE CAB
NET, who by that signature makes him
self responsible
And by Article IS which provides that
whenever by this Constitution any act
is to be done or performed by the
Sovereign, it shall, unless otherwise ex-
pressed, mean. that such act shall be
done and performed by the Sovereign by
and with the advice and consent of the
Cabinet "
These constitutional provisions abso-
lutely transferred the power, authority
and responsibility OF Government from
the Sovereign to the Cabinet, and made
them solely responsible to the Legisla-
ture.
e. The Legislature by Chapter XIV.
Of the Laws of 1887 passed law proyid-
ing that
"Wheneyer by virtue Of any statute now
in force in this Kingdom, or which shall
hereafter be in force therein, any Act or
thing is commanded or permitted to be
done or performed by the Sovereign, it
shall, unless otherwise expressed, mean
that such act or thing shall be done and
performed by the Sovereign by and with
the advice and consent of the Cabinet"
This was signed by the King Deeem-
Der s, 1887.
a. Before signing the last above act
the King requested the opinion OF the
Supreme Court upon its Constitution
ality. The Supreme Court replied,
''We see no conflict OF this act with
Article 10 or IS of the Constitution.
This Act is consistent with Article
IS of the Constitution the principle Of
which is hereby applied in terms to sta
tutes also"
Haw'n Reports, page 7S+.
o. In August, 1889, the King hav-
ing refused to act upon the advice OF the
Cabinet, they submitted the following
statement OF principles to him, and re-
quested his assent thereto, viz. =
The Government in all its depart.
ments must be conducted by the Cabi-
net, who viii be solely and absolutely
responsible Tor Sucn conduct
Your Majesty shall in future sign all
documents and do all acts which under
the laws or the Constitution require the
signature or act Of the Sovereign, when
advised so to do by the Cabinet. the
Cabinet being solely and absolutely re-
sponsible for the signature OF any docu-
ment or act 50 done or performed by
their advice"
The King refused to assent thereto,
and the Cabinet asked the opinion OF
the Court IS TO the correctness OF their
claim.
The Supreme Court said in its reply =
% There can be no dual Government
There can be no authority without re-
spOnsibility. TEE CONSTITUTION COSFERs
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT
UPON TIE CABINET; THEY THEREFORE
HAVE THE AUTHORITY. With this end in
view, we are unanimously of opinion
L41L AaE EhANNAELES EOh4l LAAED
YoU AND PRESENTED TO HIS MAJESTY,
ABOVE SET FORTH, ARE N ACCORDANCE
WITH AND N PURSUANCE OF THE Con-
STITUTION
: HaE'n Reports, D. 7S4.
By these TWO decisions the Supreme
Court riveted the fact into our system of
government, which was already there,
that the Cabinet, and not the Sovereign,
direct the policy Of the government: that
they ARE the responsible government,
and exercise the authority, and the sole
authority, thereof.
Under the German system Of govern
ment the Sovereign directs the policy Of
the Cabinet.
Under the English system the Sever
eign in theory directs such policy; in
practice she does not, and the Cabinet
does.
Under the Hawaiian system the CaOi-
net do not execute the policy Of the
Sovereign; but the Sovereign executes
the policy Of the Cabinet. The Hawaii
an Sovereign has no independent power,
authority, responsibility or discretion.
The exceptions to this of any import
ance are the veto right, given by ma
iority opinion Of the Supreme Court. and
the power TO appoint Ministers when
there IS 8 vacancy lawfully created