The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1864-07-30

TO the seventeen Delegates, who voted for keep
ing the press unmuzzled and unsuppressed.
On Friday this article was again taken up,
amended. and passed. as follows:
ARTICLES All men may freely speak, write and publish
their sentiments N all subjects. being responsible Tor ne ao GSe
liberty Of speech o. Of the press. eresPt such as "py o5
FANNY.
The passage of such u clause as the above
amendment after : except" betrays a feeling OF
mistrust and want of confidence in the people, to
protect the honor and good name of the Sove-
reign, and to frown down and repel any at
tempt to malign him. A King who trusts his
honor solely 10 the guardianship of his people,
will never be betrayed, and will always lind
them ready to defend him. The error of the
press here, if any has been committed in this
respect, has always been on the other side, in
praising the king and royal family, SO highly, as
to appear abroad like ~sycophancy.
The fourth article of the Constitution. declar-
ing the right of the people to assemble in a
peaceable manner, provoked warm debate, on
the motion to restore the expunged right to as
sembIe to give Instructions to their respresen-
tatives, " which was lost, and the section adopted
without that great privilege in it. What on
earth the Mobiles and Delegates mean in thus
curtailing the peoples rights, others perhaps
can divine.
Articles five and six (same as S and : of the
Constitution of 1852 passed with but little
debate.
Article seven-defning and curtailing the
right of trial by jury, called up considerable
discussion, which was checked by an amendment
from the Mobiles to extend the right to certain
cical suits-those over fifty dollars. But the
Q invention appears to forget itself. 1t is dis
cussing a Bill of Rights. And Is not the
right of the man who has Il debt of five dollars,
and wishes to bring it before twelve countrymen,
as sacred as one claiming five thousand? Is the
poor mans privilege to he set aside on the
ground of expediency and only the rich protect
ed? Is such to become the foundation of our
Constitution and liberties? This seems to be the
argument that must reasonably be deduced
from it? The reading Of the article as adopted,
will be found in our report of proceedings for
Thursday.
Before we close our review, we must express
our regret that the presiding officers should
appear to take advantage of their position to
suppress the free utterance of the sentiments of
tue members of the Convention. as has occurred
on several occasions, and in particular on Thurs
day. Mr.. Ii Ga Noble) may have spoken
forcibly and warmly and because his views were
not cunsonant with those of the Government,
was no reason why he should be suppressed in
the expression of them. The people have had
certain rights granted to them, and it is a dan
gerous step to undertake to deprive them of any
privileges, without a full and free ventilation of
the questions, and allowing them the largest
liberty of speech in their defense. The King
called the Convention together to consult and
debate, and it was reasonable to expect that it
would elicit the expression of many homely
truths told IN plain and forcible language. The
presiding officers must expect this. and must ex-
eroise that patience and forbearance which the
occasion calls for. If they fail in this, what
can be eXpected of others?