The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1859-04-07
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
THURSDAY, APRH :

through its senseless political twaddle with hal
the effort that we do, they certainly have oui
sympathy. 1t requires the patience OF JOB &c
unravel the illogical reasoning which 1T puts
forth. The clique that hangs around it, utter SO
many discordant notes that lis impossible TO
find their meaning. Like a professional street
organ-grinder, that press emits its squeaking
music not s;ar the sake of harmony but only for
pay. No less than tvn and a half columns are
devoted to DE Advertiser on a variety OF subjects,
but after ali, the whole of it amounts to-nothing.
We cannot be expected to devote much space to
such reasoning, nor can we undertake to repeat
all we have before said on the subjects referred to
simply because the government Journal harps
nonsense in return. That there is truth in what
we have said, that the position of the Ministers is
untenable. that the government organ was guilty
of one of the most dastardly attacks on two
worthy Mobiles and on the freedom of speech and
voting, the public need no further proof.
In respect to the existing law prohibiting the
sale of liquors to and by natives, we have proven
all that we wish to, viz that it is clearly IN ac-
cordance with the constitution, inasmuch as the
latter expressly provides that in making laws re-
gard shall be had to the protection, interest and
welfare of all the people alike. If this position
is proven, and there are but few men outside OF
the Ministerial clique who question 1t, then by the
same reasoning and the same proof, the law which
it is now proposed to force on to the country, sas
clearly an unconstitutional one.
In one paragraph the defenders of the Ministry
say that the constitutionality of their position as
too plain to be kicked against with any hope of
success, and in another paragraph, /" that the
.u.:~ r. -ot:or MO- o,I cbon1J not oriso
until the question Of constifutionahty has been set
Aed, - showing that even in their own minds they
have become convinced that they are standing on
slippery ground.
The theory that it is unconstitutional to legis-
late FOR the interests of one class in distinction
from another, when the object is to protect the
the interests of that class, is a novel one. There
is a law on our statute books prohibiting the
traffic in opium except by regularly licensed ply
sicians, and prohibiting them from dealing In 1T
except for medicinal purposes. The object OF the
law is stated in the preamble to be:
"Whereas, suicides and serious riots are of fire.
quent occurrence from the use and abuse OF opium,
and other poisonous drugs; and whereas, there is
danger of the pernicious habit of using opium being
acquired by His Majesty's native-born subjects from
the example of the Chinese therefore, be it enacted"
&c.
Now does any one question the p~ropriety of
This lao, prohibiting the vending Of opium as a
narcotic, passed for the sole object of protecting
the native-born subjects, however oppressive it
may be on another class? And yet, is it not
quite as Z" unconstitutional to forbid Cinnamon
to vend opium, as to forbid a native to vend Ii
quors? If the one is to be repealed on unconsti-
tutional grounds, why not the other? Should
not Cinnamon and natives have the blessed right
here as freely as in other countries, to "acquire
and possess property through opium selling. as
well as a few privileged physicians?
Talk of the unconstitutionality or injustice of
special legislation. Why, in free Massachusetts,, a
man is prohibited from smoking a cigar in the
street! Laugh at it as you may, older and more
conservative nations do the same thing. The
same law exists and is enforced, too, in Sweden
and Norway, according to Bayard Taylor. 1t
was only in July last that Ole Bull (the popular
violinist) was arrested and lodged in the station
house in the streets of good old Stockholm, for
what-why, smoking a cigar. We don't wish to
see any such law introduced here, but we point
to these instances to show what Older and wiser
countries do.
Suppose that a native should stand up and
maintain that it is unconstitutional for the King
to employ a Minister who does not owe allegiance
to the country, arguing that he has not the moral
courage to take the oath to the sovereign under
whom he serves, because he does not do it; and
should base his theory, not on what the c%onstitu-
ton says, but on what it don'tsay. The reason
ing in this case, though groundless, is as plausi-
BILE as that in favor of removing the liquor tabus
for constitutional reasons. If the constitution
r Il - F:-..xo - ox-o oIaD
ance to her sovereign, that does not make it uncon-
stitutional that a Minister should hold Office here
without such allegiance.
A good deal is said in the POlynesian about
Prince Lot, all of which goes to prove the sound
ness of our remarks, that the Prince has simply
moved or seconded motions. while Mr.. Gregg has
been the prime advocate of the Ubiquitous measure.
The records of the Joint Committee will show
this. 1t will also show that the original draft OF
the sections, making a change in the present law,
were in the Minister of Finances own hand
writing. That the Prince may have assented to
all, no one questions, as harmony is expected in
the cabinet but he has had the good sense to
preserve in this, as in other debates, a wise and
n-on-committal course.
We oppose this Ubiquitous measure, not from
any personal antipathy to Mr.. Gregg, as the
government organ assumes, but because we be-
lieve it will result only in "a curse to our country
and our people. We believe that the measure is
brought forward and aimed to be passed 4 as a law,
to show that the last relic of missionary influence
in the government is ended, and to gain the favor
of a few at the expense Of the good of the people.
As an intelligent member of the Lower House
said, we would not bear the responsibility of
being the author and advocate of this measure for
all the honor or gold this world could furnish.
On our fifth page (supplement.) will be found
Mr.. Gregg's remarks on the new tariff bill. In
the main, his views are no doubt correct. 1t is