The Hawaiian gazette., 1893-01-03
BY THE COURT.

The Constitution (Article Al pre-
scribes that the Cabinet "shall be
appointed and commissioned by the
King and shall be removed by him
only upon avote of want of conf
dence passed by majority of all the
elective members of the Legislature"
etc.
We held in Reg. VS.. Il. F.
Poor that as the tenure of
Office of Cabinet Minister was no
longer at the pleasure of the sover-
eign but was subject to the vote of
the Legislature, the Queen could not
legally appoint Ministers ad interim,
for such an appointment would infer
that the tenure was at the sover-
eign's pleasure. This case,b there
fore, has no bearing upon the present
issue. We consider that the sound
and sensible view of this Article of
the Constitution is that whenever a
vote of want of confidence in Cab
met is passed by the Legislature it
is incumbent upon the sovereign to
make new appointments of Minis
tiers. Now if the sovereign can only
in the event of a resolution of want
of confidence or conviction of felony,
remove the Cabinet, the plain in
tendment is that when such contin-
gencies arise she must remove them
and appoint their successors. Rav-
ing found this to be her duty,
formal resignation by the Cabinet is
unessential. She. was free to APP
point new Cabinet as soon as noti-
fed of the passage of the resolution,
whether her Ministers had rendered
their designations or not. In the
case before US the Cabinets resigna-
tions were promptly rendered on
the LIST November and new appoint
ments were made on the 9Th. It is
undoubtedly good law that an &C.
ceptance of a resignation may be
manifested by acts of those author
lied to receive it, as by appointing
successor.
Van Orsdall VS.. Hagard 3 Hill 243.
We have no Article in the Consti-
tuition nor statute that provides that
a Cabinet officer shall continue to
hold Office until his successor is ap
pointed. According to the common
law in England a person elected to a
municipal office was obliged to &C
cept it and perform its duties and
he subjected himself to a penalty
by refusal. Edwards vs.. United
States 103 q. S. 473. In the above
case the Supreme Court of the United
States per Mr.. Justice Bradley say:
GAS civil officers are appointed for the
purpose of exercising the functions
and carrying on the operations of
government, and maintaining public
order, a political organization would |
seem to be imperfect which should |
allow the depositaries of its power to |
throw off their responsibilities at |
their own pleasure" "An Office was
regarded as burden which the ap-
pointee was bound, in the interest |
of the community and of good gov
eminent, to bear. And from this it |
followed of course that, after an |
Office was conferred and assumed, it |
could not be laid down without the
consent of the appointing power.
This was required in order that the |
public interest might suffer no neon
yenience for the want of public SER
wants to execute the laws" The
authorities cited are numerous. See
i'd, p. 474. This learned Court goes
on to say: I'm this country, where
offices of honor and emolument are
commonly more eagerly sought after
than Stunned, a contrary doctrine
with regard to such offices, and in
some States, with regard to Offices in
general, may have obtained, but we
must assume that the common law
rule prevails, unless the contrary be
shown"
The common law doctrine is held
in Hoke vs.. Henderson, 4 Dew. IN.
C.), L. l.; in Van Orsdall vs.. Hagard,
3 Hill, 243; and in State vs.. Fergu-
son, 81 N. j. L., LOT, that an accept
ance is essential to the completion of
! resignation.
We do not go to the extent of hold
ng that in this kingdom a resigna-
ion of a public officer may not be
inslly effectual, though it be not
accepted by the appointing power.
Such an event would rarely happen.
But in the case before us we have
leld it to be the sovereign's duty to
make new appointments This {
hould be done reasonably soon. {
There should be no hiatus in the !
our most important executive offices :
# the Government. Public business,
he interests of the entire commun-
ty require that the routine of gov
be carried on. There are
tated terms of court prescribed by
aw at which accused persons must
'e presented for trial or the interests
f Justice would suffer. The wheels
f government should not stop or
narchy would result.
It is most reasonable to hold that
he Cabinet must continue to hold
flee after vote of want of conf