Mr. Merrill to
Mr. Blaine.
No. 257.]
Legation of the United States,
Honolulu, August 6, 1889.
Sir: Realizing that the Department is
desirous of being in posession of the latest information regarding
affairs here, and availing myself of an opportunity offered by the
departure of a sailing vessel for San Francisco, I have the honor to
inform you that on Saturday, the 3d instant, in compliance with a
request from the minister of foreign affairs, received on the
preceding day, I attended a meeting of His Majesty’s ministers at
which meeting were also present the British, French, Portuguese, and
Japanese commissioners.
On assembling, the ministers stated that in a few hours a cabinet
council would be held, and that they desired to fully inform us of
the propositions they intended submitting and insisting upon to His
Majesty the King.
[Page 285]
This information they desired to communicate in order that we might
not be misled by false rumors in the event His Majesty declined
acceding to their proposed demands.
They stated that they were convinced the time had arrived when, in
the interest of peace and good government, the powers and
responsibility of the ministers and His Majesty should be clearly
understood and precisely defined. As the “Advertiser” daily,
published here, in its issue of the 5th and 6th instants,
authoritatively and correctly states, the demands of the cabinet and
the termination of the controversy, I inclose clippings from that
paper for the information of the Department. After being informed of
the demands, the foreign representatives withdrew.
The cabinet met the King at noon of the 3d instant, and soon after
the adjournment of the council I was informed that no settlement had
been effected.
About 5 o’clock p.m. of the same day I was informed His Majesty
wished to meet the British commissioner and myself, and at once we
held an interview with him, in which he stated as his opinion that
until the supreme court decided otherwise he had a constitutional
right to exercise his discretion and withhold his approval of any of
the acts embraced in the demands presented by his ministers; but, in
reply to my question, he distinctly stated he would be governed by
whatever decision the judges of the supreme court might make.
This gave confidence that a final and favorable termination could be
reached.
On Monday, the 5th instant, it became known that His Majesty was to
meet his ministers at noon when the opinion of the judges would be
presented.
I, having previously learned the tenor of the opinion, did not have
doubts about the amicable settlement of the matter, but as the news
of the difference between His Majesty and the cabinet spread, a
feeling of unrest, aggravated by many false rumors, pervaded the
community, and, at the request? of a prominent American resident
here, I, in company with the British commissioner who chanced to be
at the legation, after first stating our purpose to and obtaining
the consent and cordial approval of the ministers, proceeded to the
palace for the purpose of interviewing the King before he met the
ministers in council.
His Majesty received us with much cordiality, and, upon his reference
to the disagreement between himself and cabinet, I embraced the
opportunity to assure him that the people felt great interest and
much anxiety regarding the settlement of the matter, and it was
hoped an amicable and honorable settlement of the controversy would
be effected, which was certain to restore permanent confidence among
the people.
Similar views were expressed by the British commissioner. His Majesty
at once assured us he had decided to yield the points and consent to
the requests of his ministers.
At the present time appearances indicate a cessation of
disquietude.
Since my No. 255 of the 1st instant, a report has gained credence
that the object of the leaders of the insurrection was not so much
for the purpose of dethroning the King as to obtain from him the
promulgation of a new constitution and the dismissal of the present
ministry.
However, the purpose of the insurgents and all the parties, directly
and indirectly, connected with the insurrection are not yet known,
but the whole affair is being investigated, and probably 1 may be
able to inform the Department more fully by the next regular
mail.
I have, etc.,
[Page 286]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 257.
Advertiser, August 5, 1880.]
the king and the cabinet.
Numbers of exaggerated reports have been circulating through the
city concerning the relations existing between the king and the
cabinet. We are authorized to state that the following are the
main points at issue: The King claims the right of exercising
his personal discretion in executive matters coming before him
and requiring his signature or act, while the cabinet claim that
he has no such right, but is constitutionally bound to take the
advice of the cabinet. The King has acted upon his claim in a
number of cases, the particular one which has brought the
question to issue being his refusal to sign the commission of
Col. V. V. Ashford as colonel of the Hawaiian Volunteers. Mr.
Ashford was elected to this office some months ago, but the King
has continuously refused and still refuses to sign the
commission, although advised then and now by the cabinet that it
was his duty so to do.
The King also claims that he has the control of the military and
munitions of war belonging to the Government, and refuses to
recognize the authority of the minister of foreign affairs
relative to the disposition of certain munitions of war stored
at the barracks, although the statute gives such minister the
express control of the same. Under these circumstances the
cabinet felt the necessity of settling this question before
going further, and accordingly submitted the following
proposition to His Majesty on Saturday last:
“Before going further, the cabinet desire a thorough
understanding with Your Majesty upon the following point, viz:
The Government in all its departments must be conducted by the
cabinet, who will be solely and absolutely responsible for such
conduct. Your Majesty shall in future sign all documents and do
all acts which, under the laws or the constitution, require the
signature or act of the Sovereign, when advised so to do by the
cabinet, the cabinet being solely and absolutely responsible for
any signature of any document or act so done or performed by
their advice.”
The King declined to assent to this proposition, unless advised
by the supreme court that it was in accordance with the
constitution, he claiming that it was unconstitutional.
The cabinet have submitted the question to the supreme court for
an opinion, and an answer will probably be received and made
public to-day.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 257. Advertiser, August 6, 1889.]
The King conforms. He concedes all the points
asked for by the Government upon learning that the supreme
court had decided against the stand he had taken.
As was stated in the Advertiser yesterday, the King had refused
to sign the commission of Col. V. V. Ashford, as commander of
the Hawaiian Volunteers, although advised by the cabinet so to
do. He also disputed the authority of the minister of foreign
affairs to dispose of arms and ammunition then in charge of the
corps known as the “King’s Guard.”
His Majesty has now receded from the position above stated, and
the following documents explain how the change came about:
Honolula, H. I., August 3, 1889.
Hon. A. Francis
Judd,
Chief Justice Supreme
Court:
Sir: The cabinet desire to submit for
your consideration the following statement of facts, and
respectfully request the opinion of the supreme court upon the
question hereinbelow stated:
statement of facts.
His Majesty the King claims the right to exercise his personal
discretion in and concerning the performance of official
executive duties of the Sovereign, such as making appointments
requiring the royal signature; appointment and removal of
diplomatic and consular officers accredited by the Hawaiian
Government abroad; the acknowledgment of foreign diplomatic and
consular representatives from abroad to the Hawaiian Kingdom;
the authority over and control of the military forces and
munitions of war belonging to the Hawaiian Government, etc.
[Page 287]
His assertion of and action in pursuance with this claim has now
come to such a point that the orderly progress of the business
of the Government is seriously interfered with and the
presrvation of the public peace menaced.
Under these circumstances the cabinet this day formulated and
presented to His Majesty the following statement of principles,
viz:
“Before going further, the cabinet desire a thorough
understanding with Your Majesty upon the following point, viz:
The Government in all its departments must be conducted by the
cabinet, who will be solely and absolutely responsible for such
conduct. Your Majesty shall in future sign all documents and do
all acts which under the laws or the constitution require the
signature or act of the Sovereign, when advised so to do by the
cabinet, the cabinet being solely and absolutely responsible for
any signature of any document or act so done or performed by
their advice.”
The cabinet advised His Majesty that such statement of principles
is in accordance with the constitution and that it was his duty
to assent thereto.
In reply to such advice by the cabinet His Majesty replied that
he considered the request to consent to such statement of
principles as uncalled for and insulting, and declined to assent
thereto.
The cabinet, therefore, respectfully request the opinion of the
supreme court upon the following question, viz:
Is the authority and responsibility of the cabinet, as set forth
in the above statement of principles, in accordance with and in
pursuance of the constitution or not?
- L. A. Thurston,
Minister Interior.
- Jona. Austin,
Minister Foreign
Affairs.,
- S. M. Damon,
Minister of Finance.
- C. W. Ashford,
Attorney General.
Department of the Judiciary,
Honolulu, August 3, 1889.
To His Majesty’s
Cabinet:
Gentlemen: The justices of the supreme
court have received your letter of today’s date, in which you
state certain circumstances under which you to-day formulated
and presented to His Majesty the following statement of
principles:
“Before going further the cabinet desire a thorough understanding
with Your Majesty upon the following point, viz:
“The Government, in all its departments, must be conducted by the
cabinet, who will be solely and absolutely responsible for such
conduct.
“Your Majesty shall in future sign all documents and do all acts
which, under the laws or the constitution, require the signature
or act of the Sovereign, when advised so to do by the cabinet,
the cabinet being solely and absolutely responsible for any
signature of any document or act so done or performed by their
advice.”
You further state that you advised His Majesty that such
statement of principles is in accordance with the constitution,
and that it was his duty to assent thereto.
You request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court upon
the following question, viz:
“Is the authority and responsibility of the cabinet, as set forth
in the above statement of principles, in accordance with and in
pursuance of the constitution or not?”
We respectfully submit the following reply:
By article 21 of the constitution “the Government of this Kingdom
is that of a constitutional monarchy,” and although the
constitution devolves upon the King, as the head of the
Government, certain powers and directs that certain acts shall
be done by him, so far certainly as these are executive powers
and acts, the exercise of them is controlled by article 78 of
the constitution, which reads that “wherever by this
constitution any act is to be done or performed by the King or
Sovereign, it shall, unless otherwise expressed, mean that such
act shall be done and performed by and with the advice and
consent of the cabinet.”
Article 31 of the constitution declares that the King’s person is
sacred and inviolable and that his ministers are responsible,
and article 41 prescribes that “no act of the King shall have
any effect unless it be countersigned by a member of the cabinet
who, by that signature, makes himself responsible.”
There can be no dual government. There can be no authority
without responsibility. The King is without responsibility. The
constitution confirms the responsibility
[Page 288]
of government upon the cabinet; they,
therefore, have the authority. With this in view, we are
unanimously of opinion that the principles formulated by you and
presented to His Majesty, above set forth, are in accordance
with and in pursuance of the constitution.
We wish to say, further, that on the occasion of His Majesty’s
considering the propriety of his approval of an act of the
legislature of 1887 (which is now chap. 25 of the acts of 1887)
the justices of the supreme court, at his request, sent him an
opinion upon the proposed act. Its title is “An act to provide
for and declare the construction to be placed upon the words
‘the king’ or ‘the sovereign’ in certain cases.”
The opinion was as follows:
“We see no conflict of this act with article 16 or 48 of the
constitution. This act is consistent with article 78 of the
constitution, the principle of which is hereby applied in terms
to statutes also.
“And we understand that it has always been the true intent of
statutes that the acts of the King are done upon the
responsibility of his cabinet unless it appears from express
words or by the very nature of the case that the act is of a
personal character.”
We remain yours, respectfully,
- A. F. Judd,
- Laurence McCully,
- Edward Preston,
- Richd. F.
Blckerton,
- Sanford B. Dole.
At 12 o’clock Monday, August 5, the cabinet met His Majesty
at the palace and submitted to him the opinion of the
supreme court, and again requested his assent to the
principle involved. His Majesty replied that he accepted the
decision of the court, and assented to the proposition
submitted by the cabinet, and requested that his assent be
entered on the minutes of the council.
Upon presentation of the commission of Col. Ashford for
signature, His Majesty stated that since last Saturday he
had reread the military law and was convinced that the
position taken by him was incorrect.
He therefore signed the commission.
In pursuance of the power given to the minister of foreign
affairs he has, with the consent of the cabinet, removed
Capt. Kahalewai, commander of the King’s Guards, for
complicity in the late insurrection, the command thereby
devolving upon Lieut. Robert Parker.
Orders were issued for the immediate transfer of all arms,
ammunition, and munitions of war, except those arms and
ammunition individually in use by the King’s Guards, from
the palace and barracks to the station house. These orders
were carried out by the marshal yesterday afternoon, with
the assistance of the police and special officers; and among
other material transferred were three beautiful brass
fieldpieces of 3-inch bore, ordered by the King from
Austria.
His Majesty has now conformed to the provisions of the
constitution in the matters above related; and the anxiety
manifested before he did so is now allayed and confidence in
future peace restored.