The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1856-08-14

Royal Hotel" The trustees also erected theirs at an
expense of $4,000 and called it the "Sailor's
Home Both parties were fully assured what the
future action of the Government was to be upon the
question which each doubtless considered a matter OF
vital Importance to their success. 1t was in a great
measure with reliance on the faith OF the Government
to keep its pledge, that from the time when the house
was expected to be in operation, and forever after
wards, no LIQUOR or beer licenses should be granted on
that square, that the Board of Trustees decided to
continue the erection of the Home along side OF the
Royal Hotel.
During the last week, the license OF this Hotel has
been renewed, contrary to the word of the Minister,
and in violation of the pledges and good faith OF the
Government. The trustees have demonstrated with
the Government, but the only reply they get is to the
effect that the license has been granted for another
year g on the grounds that it was on the assurance
g Mr.. Maxey received from this Office that the. lot
sc where the Hotel now stands was within the limits
Sc prescribed by law for the sale of spirituous liquors,
g that he purchased that lot, &C."
If then the Minister knew those limits, he knew al
so that within those limits he was authorized to Ii
cense, not compelled" and having bound himself
by a solemn promise to a respectable body of fifteen
men including the Minister of Finance, the Chancel-
lor of the Kingdom, one of the Associate Justices and
others, Merchants of Honolulu, not to license, after
July /, 1856, we ask why under the sun has he bro
ken his promise !? IF the King and Privy Council did
in May, 1856, pass a solemn resolution not to grant
another license ON the Bethel square, as the Sailors
Home was to be erected there by the trustees, after
being officially informed Of that resolution, we ask
why did the Privy Council violate their engagement
and abuse the faith of the Government on the 9th day
of August, 1856.
No one surely can find fault with Mr.. Maxey for
asking from the Government what he deemed his
right and privilege. We should probably have done
the same thing if placed in his circumstances. But
the Ministry should have borne in mind that the
faith of the Government is too sacred to pawn away
for the paltry sum of one thousand dollars. Some of
the members of the Sailors Home Society have ex-
pressed themselves warmly against continuing the
building for the purposes for which it was erected
and maintain that as the Government has shown a
disposition to head-off the concern, it may at any time,
without one word of premonition 20 repeal its char
ter, or {. repeaI' the resolution granting the
land on which it stands. They go further and say.
let the building be sold for a hotel, let the Minister Of
the Interior continue the laudable plan of filing the
treasury at the expense of the public credit let bar
TOOllS u q ODCuSu Ccl1etT u OIL liz lei JACK TQl
once have a .sglorious time,'' and let a broad
black flag of ill-faith float from its ridge, inscribed
with letters of emerald green "Hotel de Fol efol6.''
We sincerely regret that this affair has occurred
lust al this time when the Government are in want
OF funds to carry on the public works now IN progress
They want a credit of $4,000 at home, and of as
much more abroad upon the promise topay off the
Minister of Finance and the Privy Ccdncil. But a dis
corning public will not be able to perceive why a
promise to pay may not as readily be violated as those
promises and pledges which we have male the sub
ject of these remarks. The faith Of the public in the
credit Of the Government, VIC are s-rry to say, is sha-
ken.
The facts which have come to our knowledge In
connection with this affair, warrant us in the belief
that Prince Lot, acting Minister of the Interior, is the
firm friend of the Sailors Home, and that the step
which has been taken by him, was not taken without
much reluctance, and only at the urging of Mr..
Wylie, whose name has not appeared in public in this
connection. The public have the right therefore to
demand from the Prime Minister and adviser of the
King some explanation of this transaction which may
work a lasting detriment to the credit of the King
dom. They have the right to ask why the future
hopes and credit of the country have been placed in
such peril. They have the right to demand why the
measure was carried at an informal meeting of the
Privy Council, if such was the case, and why the bu-
siness at that session was transacted in English, when
only two foreigners were present. They have the
right to demand why and how the circumstances OF
one or two noble chiefs at that session were sileneed.
They have the right also to demand whether the
Privy Council have the power to make and annul at
its pleasure ordinances affecting the rights of a large
portion ofthe community and the credit of the nation
without any publicity of their acts. They therefore
demand of Mr.. WylEe some explanation of this mat
ter, or in default thereof they have a right to in
quire why the affairs of the Kingdom are placed in
irresponsible hands.
NOTES OF THE WEEK.