Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1911-04-28
Embarrassed"
SAID FREAR IN
MESSAGE

Governor Frear's message to the
| Legislature .On House Joint ResOlu-
| ton No. 4, providing for The return
of a chest Of King Kalakaua's silver.
ware to Prince Kuhio Is an interest
ing--and to some Of the Legislators
an extremely puzzling document IN
addition TO explaining the Governors
attitude on the legal difficulties in
the way Of returning the silverwa"e
| to KuhiO Governor Frcar calls atton-
tion to the fact that he is practically
without power to veto joint rosolu-
ton.
His comments on this point are eX-
pected to result in a more careful
segregation of subjects and decid-
ed line of division being drawn be-
tween bills and resolutions by fu-
ture Legislatures.
The full text Of the silyerwarc mes
sage is as follows:
ITO the Legislature:-I have this
day received House Joint Resolution
No. s, the object OF which Is to pre-
sent. by way of gift. to Honorable
Jonah X. KalanianaOle. not In his
capacity as Delegate to Congress. but
as one of the representatives IN fam
lily and estate of King Kalakaua a
chest of silverware. which apparent
ly was presented to King Kamehameha
" and used by him and his success
sors, Kings Kamehamcha V, Lunalilo
and Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani
In turn.
Upon looking into this matter u
find myself IN somewhat embarrass-
ing position.
My first impulse naturally would
be to sign the Resolution as a grace
ful act toward the intended recipient
although | realize tina. there are
grave objections TO such action mI
point of policy. under the facts in
this case. am confronted, however.
with the legal objections that such a
gift might be contrary to the provi-
siOns of Section 81 Of the Organic
Act, as amended by the Acts of May
49,. 1906. and May o. 1910. relating
10 public property cedcd to the Unit
ed States at The time of annexation.
and also to the constitutional inhibi-
ton against dispIsing of public pro-
perry to private individuals by wu9
Of gift. except under certain circuun-
stances, which may not exist In tina
case. ......
! might therefore he expected 10
refrain. from action on this, the last
day OF the session and so permit
result analogous To that which would
follow so-called pocket veto in tho
case of a bill. Rather than veto the
resolution in this way, however.
would prefer III this instance to veto
IL, for legal objections. In the usual
way, as If 1t were bill, so as TO
AFFORD an opportunity to the l.egis-
laturc tn pass it over the veto. If II
desired to do so. in which case its
validity could be tested In friendly
submission TO an appropriate court.
| And yet here again | am confronted
with the fact that cannot veto Z
joint resolution; for by the prOvI-
sions of the Organic Act. bills alone
may be vetoed and. al hough ! might
treat a joint resolution, as distinguish
| Ell from concurrent resolution, as
In the nature of n bill. so far as its
passing three readings In each house
Is concerned. | cannOt do 20 for other
reasons, first, because bill Is re-
Iuired by the Organic Act to have
an enactinG clause Of particular
form, which the joint resolution in
question does not have, GnG secondly.
because bill must have title ex-
pressing its subject which also the
joint resolution in question does not
| have.
have concluded, therefore, out of
Difference to the views of the Legis-
| lature on the question of policy and
| against my own views on the ques-
| ton OF law. to sign the resolution
and allow its validity to be determ-
ined In friendly submission to an
appropriate court or otherwise. upon
the following and perhaps other
| questions: first whether the property
cedcd TO the United States by the
Joint Resolution of annexation may
be thus disposed of by way of gift
under the Act Of Congress OF May PC
1906; secondly, whether It may be