The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1865-02-11
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
FEBRUARY IL.


opposing the understandable disposition of the
Constitution of 1852, and subsequent action in
dispOsing Of the delegates sent to u convention
By the Hawaiian people 10 It's capitol to meet
their King and MOBILES. This Ministry was, and
continues - b., unpopular with the masses, and
with the principal friends and supporters Of the
State, who have no voice III Council.
Oar course at and since that time has been
Considered sufficient reason Oh the part OF the
Ministry why the Government should have 4
newspaper Of It's own, supported in part by tax
payers, among whom We number, ana IN part by
subscriptions and job-work solicited iron the
public, IN which it comes into competition with
private enterprise.
Whatever delicacy VS. may have been consider
ed in want Of in attacking a Ministry who were
without means Of answering except through our
columns, we surely will not be considered as
wanting now that they acknowledge themselves
fully equipped and fairly started with the Ha-
1ralian Gazette.
"Our first Parliament. under the new Constitu-
ton, has assembled, transacted business, and been
proroyued; and the act Of the King, in abrogating the
Constitution Of 1852, has been ratified By the nation.
The lie" Constitution, granted by his Majesty, with
tie sie" u further guaranteeing the liberties of his
people, has been gratefully accepted by their Repre-
ssntauves, aud 4 new ere Of domestic Deace and
prosperity appears - have igHnei on these fortunsre
Islands"
The above is the opening paragraph Of 1 leader
IA the Gazette, that probes IA old gore and ia
heaping insult on injury. The whole article
sounds much like the reasoning or arguments of
q thief who, while Dragging Of his deeds, tries to
elevate his calling and carry the synpathies
Of the public with him. We very much regret
Its appearance, for proper delicacy would have
atstained from tearing open afresh the wound
that was gradually healing. Ministers should
have there are two sides 10 the ques-
ton. Not content with wrestling from a quiet,
inOfensiye and law-loving people the gift of a
good King, our liberal Constitution of 1852.
they force upon the people q document which,
while in power, they are pleased to term the
- Constitution of August 18th, 1861" and in
SYST upon publishing to the world q tissue of
falsehOods, Of which this extract is a fair sample.
The writer evidently seems determined 10 place
the responsibility of the act Of abolishing the
Constitution of 1852 upon the King but TO the
intelligent reader, this attempt must seem both
cOwardly and ridiculous. The responsibility of
this act of despotism rests with the MINISTRY, |
and they may be assured the future historian Of
NHAc' NHtH AAGN hH[ 'Ap'leF I
and infamy connected with the transaction.
Allow, for sake of rgument that the King
contemplated such an act yet upon communi-
eating it to his Ministry, composed as it should
have been of true friends of the people instead of
such opponents 70 their true interests as the
Foreign Secretary and the Attorney General. they
would have shown him the manifest wrong he
about TO commit; and falling TO convince
him, could have placed their pt2t-folios at his
disposal. But this could not lie expected Of
a Ministry the majority of whi-h depended en-
tirely upon Office and its em~olum~-ts for a liveli-
hood. Art. 81 of the Constitution of Aug. 18th,
reads: The person of the KIM is inviolabie
sacred. His Ministers are REsPoSSIBLE''-
meaning of course for all acts done by the Gov
ernment.
Were we to let the paragraph quoted from the
Gazette pass unanswered, our silence might be
by those abroad as asserting to its cor
rectness. Born on these islands, having a kuie-
or birthriglt in its soil and in the freedom
If Its people, we cannot sit silently by and allow
he utterance of what we KNOW TO be false, nor
approve of the act of a Ministry who at best are
foreigners seeking their own advance
nent. We honor the King and we love the
people. and therefore we must defend the TRUTH,
when asSailed.
The first falsehood stated in it is, that the act
If - abrogating the Constitution of 1852 has
ratified by the nation - the second, that
: the New Constitution granted 10y His Majesty,
the view of further guaranteeing the liber-
les of his people, has been gratefully accepted
y their Representatives"
We claim that the delegates sent to the Con-
ention in July last, were the free choice of the
-eople, and represented the sense and intelli-
encc of the nation and that the acts Of the
1ajOrity were fully endorsed by their constituents
pom their return 10 them after their summary
ismissal by the King.
Now let us see how the right of franchise was
sed by a people whose representatives ~ are t
lid to have ." gratefully accepted" the New
constitution. The representatives TO the Legis- I
lture which should have been called in May |
were elected for Honolulu by the following d
otes, polled in January, 1864:
e.
W = Rsgsdsle-- {
: n clio ;
The delegates 70 the constitutional Convention q,
: July, were elected by the following vote: :
J l -
G. p v
Pinehasa Il
l this election two causes led to q smaller vote, "
me voters seemed to have a dread of coming L
while others, looking upon it as an act of d
espass upon their rights, failed to cast the full "
und vote OF the January preceding. The regis a
red votes at the election for Representatives of I