The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-12-20
THE DAILY BULLETIN,
Pledged to neither Sect nor Party,
Bat Established for the Benefit of Al.
TUESDAY, DEC. 20, 1892.
THE VETO.

| w I've tNeIClStO III rare ttSeS vi Sltdl
moment. The tone of these oracles
is indeed that matter for the eXer-
else of the royal veto must be either
as high as the moon or as deep as
the bed of the Pacific. There is
nothing in the Constitution where
the veto is authorized, however, for
any such transcendental notions of
the prerogative. The veto article is
copied word for word, excepting
where the difference of institutions
requires a change, from the Consti-
tuition of the United States. In the
United States the exercise of the
veto by the President, whenever he
regards any legislation as injudicious
or uncalled-for, is accepted as part
of the duties for which he has been
elected. Indeed, President-elect
Cleveland owes thousands of the
votes that have given him the vic
tory to his fearless and frequent ex-
ercise of the veto, when he was Pre-
sident before, in the interest of the
whole people. England and her
traditions are not in the question at
all. 1t was not on the English plan
that the veto was inserted in our
Constitution, but as stated it is
strictly the American veto that we
| hn,-n Tha.n =, @l,n ,,.l
against imposition on the part of
the Executive Head-namely, a two
thirds vote of the Legislature over
the veto-here as in the United
r States. Our veto like the American
is simple and direct-acting, with
simple and irect-acting machin-
cry for preventing it's being an in
jury to the public interests. There is
no occasion for any rhetoric over a
u vetoed bill. If fthe Sovereign with or
without ministerial advice declines to
sign bill, that is the Sovereign's es-
tablished constitutional right; and,
on the other hand, it is the Legisla-
ture's privilege to override this
q action of the Sovereign by two
; thirds vote. Opponents of vetoed
measure should not support the
IS veto, however, simply because it is
the Sovereign's prerogative to exer-
. else it. They should use their judg.
n ment to decide whether the reasons
:, given by the Sovereign are sufficient
|, Tor thwarting the will of majority
Of the Legislature. For instance, i
a point urged by majority opposed
i. 20 bill has been that the people
J. have never asked for such measure
or, in their honest belief, that the
- people are decidedly opposed to it
then they should take full advantag,
: of the veto and strive to gain for i
e the support of the requisite excess
of one-third of the Legislature. Or
the other hand, if a minority has op
posed a measure that has been dis
cussed at the polls, and a majorit,
of whose advocates have been elected
on that as one of the issues, then i
would be clear violation of tn,
Sc rights of the people for one-thirc
ID and one of the Legislature to sustain
y a veto of such measure. The action
A. latterly described would simply b,
l., an instance of minority rule which
e. would not be frequently tolerated
The veto is really the only checl
in our Constitution against hast,
legislation. In the United State
before bill reaches the President i
has to pass two Houses of Congress
= elected by different constituencie
and for different terms. In Grea
Britain the House of Lords acts as
~ check on the House of Commons
rejecting or modifying its legisla
u ton. Besides, the important publ
IL measures in Great Britain are init
in in ated by the Ministry. and if the
n cannot get the support of majorit
or the Ministry must either abando
them or resign. The absence c
vetoes in England for centuries
mainly due to the fact that it
almost impossible for the Britis
Parliament either to run ahead {
g the popular will or to traverse j
" In other words, the Sovereign's vet
is has become practically obsolete j
be Great Britain because there al
o. abundant checks against rash legii
a. lation without that of royal prerC
gative. The Hawaiian Legislator
at has to-day shown that it values tn
existence of the Sovereign's veto.
has accepted the reasons given fc
If the exercise of the veto in a specif
= case. By giving large majorit
against measure that it had jul
=. passed, it has also shown that til
re veto is valuable instrument in il
of affording of an opportunity for r'
ss, consideration of snap judgment