The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1891-03-03
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.


the Cabinet, as set forth by the
various correspondents who have,
in the pages of the ADVERTISER or
Bulletin attempted by abstract
reasoning, or by deduction from
supposed historical parallels, ex-
pressed their opinions on the mer-
its of the case.
The first to come forward in
print and over his own name was
Mr.. L. A. Thurston, in a powerful
letter published in these columns.
Though we agree on the whole
with Mr.. Thurston's conclusions,
we cannot hold altogether with his
line of arguments, nor do we think
his illustrations, as drawn from
the laws and customs of other coun-
tries, to be apt or suitable for the
purpose of his contention.
The construction, the functions
and the relative positions towards
one another of the President, Vice
President and Senators, or Cabinet
of the United States, or of either
or all to the Legislative Assemblies,
bear so very remote an analogy to
the scheme propounded in the Ha-
waiIan Constitution as to be prac-
cally worthless, not only as she'd
ding any light on the question, but
of assisting to form judgment as
to the proper course to be pursued
in Hawaii at this juncture. For the
same reasons, the appeal to German
practice or principle may be put
aside. The reference to Great
Britain as to a similar Constitu-
tional Monarchy is less practical
than appears at first sight, because
the Constitution Of Great Britain
is unwritten, and mainly ascertain
able only by appeal to judgments
and precedents, while that of Hawaii
is formally drawn document, and
supplies, as yet, no available pre-
cedent, though we are now in the
effort to provide one.
Moreover, the crown of Great
Britain is not the mere ornamental
appendage Mr.. Thurston seems to
think it to be. We agree, however,
with that gentleman in the opinion
that to state that any, or if any,
then, all royal commissions are in
validated by the demise of the
Crown, is simply absurd. Nothing
of the kind appears in the Consti-
tuition, and that which is not plain.
ly expressed in the text thereof,
may not be imported into it by any
self-constituted interpreter.
Another point in which the ana
logy with Great Britain fails is the
non-contlnuous sitting of the Ha,
waiian Legislature. Failing a spe-
cial session, this country is liable
TO be ruled for eighteen months al
stretch by either an unpopular
Ministry, or by an INSCRIPTIONS
Monarch, or by one of these by the
help of the other, as we have seer
not long ago.
Of E. N. N. it may be said that
his arguments are for the most
part, like a great deal of the work
OF the recent session, based more
upon personal dislike of his antag.
onist than on the real merits of the
case. The plea that it would be
only fair to Her Majesty to give
her the opportunity of showing
her policy and power by allowing
her the interval between now anG
the next session to rule by a Cab
met of her own choosing is simply
to revert to the slough from which
we escaped not without difficulty
and imminent danger in 1887.
The other correspondents are, in
the main, in accord with the sound.
est sense of the thinking public
though as we have shown, Great
Britain does not afford any really
suitable precedent, nor indeed does
the history of Hawaii itself, though
industriously and carefully set
forth by Donald, for the simple
reason that all guidance from
events which took place under the
Constitution of Kamehameha v.
becomes misleading in the presence