The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-02-20
THE QUEEN AND the CABINET

argument, it is, in all civilized coun-
tries of the world, monarchal as
well rs republican, the invai liable
fact that ministries do not resign on
the death of the head of the nation,
it will not be a matter for surprise
that similar misstatements are to be
found all through his line of reason
ing.
Let us quote his own language:
"2D. The APPOINTMENT OF A MINIS
FER Is NOT A PERSONAL PREROGATIVE
or THE SOVEREIGN; AND THE DEATH
or THE SOVEREIGN DOES NOT TERMIN-
ATE THE TENURE OF OFFICE OF TUE
MINISTRY.
Under the old Constitution the
appointment of the Cabinet was by
the letter of the law, a personal pre-
rogative of the Sovereign"
About three-fourlhs of column
further down the same column, and
still! under the same heading, he says:
"The Hawaiian Sovereign has no
Independent power, authority, re-
5ponsibility or discretion. (The ex-
ceptions TO this of any Importance
are the veto right, given by a majo-
rity opinion of the Supreme Court,
and the power to appoint Ministers
when there is a vacancy lawfully
created)."
Without for the moment staying to
examine into the truth of either or
any of his statements, | submit, that
the last section is an absolute contra
dictl0n of the statement made in the
first half of the argument which he
numbers as second.
Now, let us see what the present
and former constitutions actually say
on the matter of appointment of the
Cabinet.
CONSTITUTION OF 1865.
ARTICLE 42-The Kings Cabinet
shall consist of the Minister of For
eign Affairs, Minister Of the Interior,
the Minister of Finance and the At
torney-General of the Kingdom and
these shall be His Majesty's special
advisers in the executive affairs of
the Kingdom: and they shall be e.c
Gffci0 members of His Majesty'a
Privy Council OF State. They shall
be appointed and commissioned by
the King and hold office during His
Majesty's pleasure subject to i'm
parchment. No act of the King
Shall have any effect unless it be
countersigned by Minister, who by
that signature makes himself re-
sponslble.
CONSTITUTION OF 1887.
ARTICLE 41-The Cabinet shall
consist of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the Minister Of the Interior.
the Minister Of Finance, and the At
torney-General, and they shall be
His Majcsty's special advisers in the
executive affairs OF the Kingdom;
and they shall be &C oticio members
of His Majesty's Privy Council of
State. They shall be appointed and
commissioned by the King and shall
be removed by him, only upon
want of confidence passed by a ma
jority of all the elective members of
the Legislature, or upon the convic-
tion of felony and shall be subject to
No act of the King
shall have any effect unless it be
countersigned by member of the
Cabinet, who by that signature
makes himself responsible. "
According to Mr.. Thurston, (see
above), under the old Constitution
the appointment of the Cabinet was
a personal prerogative of Sovereign.
Now, any person having an ability
TO read English will observe that the
new Constitution is, as far as the
power conferred by it,
IDENTICAL, word for word, with the
Did. The only portion having been
being the tenure of office
and the occasion of removal by the
ippointer. If, therefore, the old
Constitution conferred the appoint
nent of Cabinet as personal pre-
'ogative of the Sovereign, the new
Constitution certainly conveys ex-
lctly the same right. His further
'emarks on the late Kings claims
lnder the old Constitution are en-
irely irrelevant to the subject under
discussion and are, apparently, only
Introduced by him to draw a red
herring, as 1t were, across the trail of
us argument and thus confuse the
cent and obscure the sense. 1t may
,e noted, however, that the clause,
efelring to the invalidity of the
'overeign's acts unless couutersigned |
~ Minister, on which, by his caus-
NC it to be printed in capital letters,
le lays special emphasis is not a
section inserted for the first time in
he new Constitution, but is to be
ound word for word in the old one,
md has simply been re-promulgated. |
The reference to the Supreme
court on the constitutionality Of GER
ain laws and courses of action, and |
he decisions thereon, of which he
'nly extracts such portions as seem
o him to support his line of argu-
nent, are beside the purpose. The
question is, not whether the members
# the Cabinet have a right to control |
he executive acts OF the Sovereign,
'ut, whether the Cabinet itself has a
egal and constitutional right of ex-
otence on the strength of its com
MISSIONS from a deceased Sovereign.
,,fl