The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-01-04

scribes that the Cabinet shall be
appointed and commissioned by the
King and shall be, removed by him
only upon a vote of want Of conf
dence passed by a majority of all the
elective members of the Legislature"
etc.
We held in Reg. vs.. FL. Z.
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, 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
vote of want of confidence in Cab
met is passed by the Legislature it
is incumbent upon the sovereign to
rake 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. Hav
ing found this to be her duty,
formal resignation by the Cabinet is
unessential. She was free to ap-
point a new Cabinet as soon as mott
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. 1t is
undoubtedly good law that an &C
ceptance of resignation may be
manifested by acts of those author
lied to receive it, as by appointing a
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 person elected to a
municipal. Office was obliged to ac-
cept it and perform its duties and
he subjected himself to a penalty
by refusal. Edwards VS.. United
States 103 U. S. 473. In the above
case the Supreme Court of the United
States per Mr.. Justice Bradley say:
''As civil officers are appointed for the
purpose of exercising the functions
and carrying on the operations of
government, and maintaining public
order, political organization would
seem to be imperfect which should
allow the depositaiies of its power to
throw off their responsibilities at
their own pleasure" can 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 incon-
venience 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: /" In ahis country, where
Offices of honor and emolument are
commonly more eagerly sought after
than summed, 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., 107, that an accept
ance is essential to the completion of
a resignation.
| We do not go to the extent Of hold
ing that in this kingdom resigna-
ton of public officer may not be
finally effectual, though it be not
accepted by the appointing power.
Such an event would rarely happen.
But in the case before us we have
held it to be the sovereign's duty to
make new appointments. This
should be done reasonably soon.
There should be no hiatus in the
four most important executive offices
of the Government. Public business,
the interests of the entire commun.
ity require that the routine of gov
eminent be carried on. There are
stated terms of court prescribed by
law at which accused persons must
be presented for trial or the interests
of justice would suffer. The wheels
of government should not stop or
anarchy would result
1t is most reasonable to hold that
the Cabinet must continue to hold
Office after a vote of want of conf.
dence until their successors are ap.
pointed. The good of the people re-
quire it, and we find it necessary and
the wisdom of such q rule sustained
by principle and authority. The
question how long Cabinet, in such
a position, may continue to conduct
the business of their Offices, the SOY.
ereign not making new appoint.
ments, we do not find it necessary to
discuss further than to state our
opinion that they are obliged to re.
main a reasonable time. The ap.
pointment of the new Cabinet on the
oth November, they having resigned,
can be considered as an acceptance
of the designations of the former
| Gohinnt lie tho rocicrra n,.c,