Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 140, 2 March 1891 — CHEAP INDIGNATION. [ARTICLE]

CHEAP INDIGNATION.

In last Friday's "Advertisor," an "indignani citizen., n [it would have been more manly for him to sign his respejctable (?) name], warms up against the decision of ■ the Supreme Court in the D3atter ai thfc miaisterial conflict, and he wonders how the Judges could arrive at their conclusion, sup-| portirig his assumption by a eom-1 parison between the texts of old ar- j ticle4l and new article 4'2ofourcon- j stitutions. But ll indignant citizen" very conveniently ignores the only irue point of the discussion, and a very materia! fact to boot. viz:,. that i hose tWo articles have no bearing n*hatever on the knot " ©f the situalien. It is plainly admitted by aīl here, Supreme Court included. that'according to ©ur latest fc eonKtitution, when onee our Bovereign has appointe<l his Cabinet, the Ministers ean afterwards only be ret»oved through the Legislature. But neither the new nor the old »*onstitutions say anything abr>ut the right, or otherwise, of'a new Sovereign to select his advisers and appoint his first Cabinet at the start of a new reign; and toany pcrson, nota sore-head as "Indignant Cit ?1 evidently is.-the opinion of the Supreme Court must appear the o»ly impartial one, until a article of amemlment be introduced in our constitution. i stating that the new Sovereign 3nust keep andTe-comiiiission 1 h<v rninisters of his predecessor. Su< h aii amendment would be an injustice. but it woula be law aeeonlmg to t; lndignant■Citizen's heart. As it' īp, in ©ur iron-clad ('ouKlitution, our Sovereign .«till h?īs Ihe right of choosing his new iuiniftry, when a change is re<iiiire<l bv the Legislature; yet a< - oording to our "indignant" <liscontents, that right ought to berefused to a new sovereigri, . .Well; now. while yov r>iay freely approve of the law that obliges our kings to keep their ministers after theyonce appointedthem, yet,Mr. "Indignant C.", y©u cannot justly thrust the ehoiee of * dead nionarch on his successor! Be logical then, before you give vent to foolish %iindignation" and recklesslv attack theon]y legal authority that v;e have here. above partizan spite, and whose decisions in the two critica 1 questions, of th« "veto" and of the new sovereign's rights, will g<i down to posteritv as models df ealm and sane argumeiitation.