The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1868-04-18


MR EDITOR by some remarks in u recent num-
Der Of your paper l infer that the doctrine may be
held that, If the constitutional requirement of a three
years residence is requisite to render u subject eligi-
bic to be 4 Representative in the legislative Assem-
bly,, the application Of the 5Sth Article Of the Con-
stitutiOn would exclude any member Of the Ministry
from sitting who has not resided in the country five
years
This / apprehend is an error. 1t is true a man
cannot be Gppointed "a noble until he has resided FIVE
years in the country but the Minister may not be a
noble 1T all-he only sits as u noble sr oGfcio. yhe
Is a minister II rs a part Of has duty 10 sat IN and
deliberate with the House as much as to perform any
act in his appropriate department. If he does not
sit us a noble, he neglects n part Of the duty confded
to him by the Constitution. If he is not a noble by
appointment or inheritance, he has no right TO sit as
such the moment he ceases TO be minister. He is
not u noble. Not so with the noble. The Hon. Mr..
Bishop has the right to sit rs q noble, whether he
holds a ministerial appointment or not. He is a
noble by appointment, and his rights as such are not
impaired or affected by his not being q minister.
Hon. Mr.. Phillips IS mol a noble. lie only sits rs a
noble by virtue Of his Office and a part OF his official
duty. When he ceases to hold an Office with this
duty attached, his right and duty to sit as u noble
ceases. This seems perfectly clear.
The qualification Of residence seems equally clear
in regard to a representative. Three years is the
period designated but tho temporary absence from
the Kingdom Of Messrs. Rhodes and Knudsen-an |
absence of less than u year upon n rinii, their usual
pursuits going on in the meantime-cannot, in any
reasonable or fair construction Of the residence quail
fcatOn, affect their eligibility US Legislators.
So whilst il seems to me that the two latter gen.
tlemen are constitutiOnally qualified in the matter of
residence for Legislators, and that it is both the right
aud duty Of Mr.. Phillips to sit and act in the House
also, | cannot see how any one with a residence of
less than three years can take the oath required to
qualify him to sit-for the oath requires his support
of the Constitution, which itself cuts him of by its
non-proyisions. If any election has not been fairly /
and justly conductel-if fraud or violence have been
usei-let everything possible be done to correct the
wrong. This is the wish Of every fair and good man,
whether IL be for or against his own personal views
and preferences. Success 10 the right is the motto
Of every r~ight-minded man, aud / hope this Legisla-
ture will look ut measures and not men in their a-
tiOn. - |
p. ST. would add, That this Legislature being
created by the Constitution Of 1864, il must be this
Constitution to which the members make oath, and
cannot by any possibility be interpreted to be the
Constitution of 1852, and therefore the qualifications
Of members must be those set forth in this Constitu-
ton. They can only be altered by amendment in the
way provided, and no amendment on the qualifications
of members can affect this Legislature.
The discussion of a subject like the above is of
very little practical utility. Tie validity of cleo
tons and the qualifications of members, are
questions which belong exclusively to the Legisla- .
tive Assembly. The Civil Code. in section 1864
page 100, points out the mode fully and defnite-I
ly, and to the exclusion of all other regulations.
This section of the code was amended in 1862
See. Acts of 1862, page 6;-but the provisions
remain the same. The amendment only extended
to the costs of a contested election. No tribunal
outside of the Legislature can determine the quail
~ifcltions of a member, and the discussion of such
matters before the public can avail but little; for
the questions arc abstract ones, and can never come
before the Legislature except in the proper way.
But we arc not wholly convinced by the rcasonings
of the above communication.
There are nine-tenths Of the thinking people of
these islands who believe that the Constitution OF
1852 is the Constitution de Jure of the Hawaiiah
Kingdom. That Constitution requires but one
years residence as n precedent qualification for a.
member. They regard the Constitution of 1861
merely as n Constitution de faeto, existing only by
the s~ufcrancc and forbcarancc of the people.
That Constitution requires three years domicil,
the last year Immediately preceding the election.
Let us examine the de faeto Constitution of
1864, and inquire if the very nature of its provi-
sions does not contemplate that the Minister'S
shall be Mobiles, and NO6ies appointed by the King,
with all the necessary qualifications, and that no
man can be Il Minister without the necessary res
idencc to constitute him n Noble.
by the 57th Article Of the Constitution Of
1864, The King is empowered to appoint the No
bles. BY the 5Sth Article, the qualifications are
speeifed-''No person shall be appointed a Noble,
who has not attained the age Of u years, and re-
sided in the Kingdom five years." And by the
I3d Article it is declared, that the Ministry hold
seats, ~eI-otfeo, rs Mobiles in the Legislative As
s~embly.'' The i5th Article declares that the
Legislative power of the three Estates of the
Kingdom, is vested in the King and the Legisla-
tive Assembly; which Assembly shall consist of
the MOBILES appointed by The Ring, and the Repre-
s~entatives of the people, sitting together"
Now, if n residence of five years is a precedent
qualification for n Noble, how can the Attorney
General take his seat rs n Noble in the Legislative
Assembly? How could he be legally appointed
a a Minister when that very appointment consti-
tuted him er-o6feio n Noble? He took his seat
last session, after n residence of a few months
only. No objections were made. 1t may be said
it was q concession to the Crown-to the First
Estate. If such be the case, why not make con-
cessions to the 1Iird Estate-to the people-also?
As it regards the eligibility of Messrs. Rhodes
and Knudsen, the only question is in the c~onstruc-
ton of the word =. domicil'' and the law of domi- \
ell.
In regard to dOmioiK, We understand that Mr..
Jones left the borders of Mexico more than three
years ago, with the intention of cmigrating to
these islands. In pursuance of that intention he
came here, and has resided here ever since. Ac-
cording to legal decisions in the highest tribunals,
his domicil dates from the time of his departure
with the intention of coming to these islands, and