The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1859-06-02
The Liquor LAW.

Mr.. EDITOR A the subject concerns the welfare
of these islands beyond any other at the present time,
and is certain of renewed agitation, it can do no
harm to look at it in the face, and ascertain the fea-
lures of a possible future visitor, destined perhaps,
to become robust and intimate among us.
During the late discussions, the unconstifutionaIity
of the existing restriction, as opposed to its erpedi-
ency, constituted the alleged ground of debate on the
abolition side; which, nevertheless admitted, (virtu-
ally at least J that peril might attend the proposed
measure; while the other side affirmed, that a grave
evil would ensue-that the treasury would reap little
or no gain in the experiment, but would eventually
suffer in the currency of the islands determining into
the Golfers Of spirit sellers-that cultivation and in
dustry would fail, and restitution and depopulation
follow.
The first impression any unprecedented observer
must receive in such a case, one would think, would
be, the necessity for an additional clause to the con-
stitution, as the only rational remedy for a possible
informal defect, to satisfy those who tremble for its
integrity, as it now stands; instead of opening the
gates to, at the best, a suspicious and, at the
worst, a destructive measure.
If any clause of a constitution any where exists,
which does not involve and recognize as much policy
and expediency in the application of it, as are equiv
aient to the public welfare or well-being, which is its
pcTNdutuS oDJeCt, inat ciduSe must De, certainly, Spu-
rious in its nature and import, and ought to be un-
hesitatingly remodelled; for, though such considera-
tons have no relevancy to the solution of a positive
Law, abstractly, they cannot possibly be discovered
from its only legitimate basis; and may justly claim
every.law to be, either construed by them, if those
laws are what they ought to he, or else, CONFIRMED to
them.
But the question may be asked, is the constitution
violated by the existing law of restriction ? 1t is evil
dent the Trainer of it did not think so; and the celeb
rity of w. L. Lee, for legal discrimination, and legal
knowledge, is everywhere admitted, without denying
the same TO others; and he certainly would have
guarded it differently, if he had not thought its pres
et form adequate-or, in other language-he would
not have constructed q constitution whose legitimate
operation would clash with existing statute laws, as
well assYithitself, and only serve to leave a monu-
ment Ct the humiliation of a race for whom it was
made-a consequence which must have been allied in
his reasoning mind, from the fact of his deliberate
recognition of the prohibitory law, as we'll as from
his known sentiments.
In addition to Mr.. Lees authority, it is clear that
the constitution as explicitly specifies the welfare, as
it does the equal rights and liberties of the people
which are only the means ofsecuring the former. Vel
fare is the end, the grand major; the other the serving
minor. To imagine the power of accommodating dollars,
the final object, is to invert this order, when the pur-
suit of those dollars by such means, would destroy that
welfare. However, the strict application of this rule
and construction would be inpracticable in the nicety
OF individual cases; it is, in the first instance, a self
evident necessity, whenever the whole is within the
plastic power of the State, to originate laws for the
public good, which shall embrace all, and, at the
same time, equitably provide for the exceptional parts.
The imaginary humiliation of a race, placed by
law in peculiar restrictive circumstances, who are
confessedly at the time incapable of the use of abso-
lutte liberty, without its design becoming neutraiized
by an antagonist evil, as a certain consequence. and
who apply for the restraint themselves, is a case which
involves no contradictions with the usages of other
civilized nations.
viii any one affirm that the constitution Of any
free. civilized country. does not guarantee as its pri-
1mordial object, equal rights and liberty, because
special circumstances require a law Of restraint to be
imposed upon those who would use its liberty to de-
stroy their own welfare, which is the end for which
its liberty was guaranteed, as in the case Of minors
and persons of feeble ~judgmentss And where is the
difference between the judgment Of q minor, or of
those who are ~determinedly addicted to waste their
property in lavish and objectless expenditure, where
waste IS the end proposed for grati6cation ; to 1he
ruin of themselves and 0miiies leases not fRbulous).
and the judgment Of those who act precisely the SAN
and to the same results, in the infatuuted aband<
ment Of themselves to liquory The first
HN