The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1860-07-12
A Public SANDER Refuied.

In the report of the doings of the Mobiles for
June 25th, published in the official organ of the
Hawaiian Government, the following remarks oil
the Minister of Finance appear. which, as they
are probably reported for publication by himself,
may be presumed not to be a 'tgarbled report
The arrival OF the Grseian yesterday, he said, just as the
new tariff was about to take effect, made It, important to settle
M once, the policy OF the government in regard to tTanshipment
and re-exportation duties The provisions Of the law to go into
had alluded to the subject in his report to the Legislature, and
was satisfied that the suggestions made by him were founded in
could see no difficulty in bringing the matter forward in the
e nOuse r y Mop ese res 81 4 g Of the Constitution an' on that n '1 poi |.
The 10Th Article did not have any bearing on the subject He
ance with the sound rule Of meeting emergencies in the public
service as promptly as possible. brought forward the bill in the
The present rule OF the Code, which, if not superseded. must
revision of the laws. from the former ChiefJustice and his asso-
ciates, not from any one at present IN authority. The Minister
acted upon to- certain extent, by part Of the public press, that
hood, maHgnity, and detraction,-that lying, hatred, and I'M
charitabeness find in him a proper mark,-thatp personal male
it always bears, may sn de sn1iI to ins's ge GPea fr1n i si. enpenG%.
sources, and fed by the suggestions Of a mean, low, and detes-
table envy:
mote the interests OF commerce, to make the Hawaiian Islands
= nTp 10 u Ias u ~ :, cansid.rable length in snpnort Of his hi
views, advocating the interests az the whaling trade and the ne
the permanent Importance in 4 national sense, Of developing
domestic industry, favoring home enterprise, and promoting the
tNhNA@s "NHa' ~ S~ fSfF-
We publish the above entire, not to exhibit
the refined language of our Minister of Finance,
but for the purpose of refuting what is believed
to be a groundless charge, and which the
public can only view as a gross and uncalled for
SANDER on one whose memory this people cherish
only with respect-the late Chief Justice"
WV. l.. LEE. We undertake, without hesitation.
to deny that he ever favored or sought to incor-
porate into the Civil Code such a restriction on
our commerce., rs was embodied in the sections
relating to the transit duties. His views in
regard to making the port of Honolulu as free
as possible to the transit m of the world
are we'll remembered by all who knew him.
Although fully satisfied that the " late Chief
Justice did not propose any such change, we
have taken the trouble to refer back to the ORR
ginal draft of the Civil Code, which came before
the legislature of 1858, and which embodied
most of the amendments made by him. That
draft of the Girl Code does NOT contain the sec
tions i1hich are not1 considered so Odious, but
left the duty remaining as it was in the old law,
viz a. one per cent. Gd ralOrcm." We offer this
to the public as incontrovertible evidence that
Chief Justice Lee did not advocate any such
change, and that it was not in the Code when it
came before the House of Representatives.
The Legislature of 1853 referred the Code to