The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1868-04-22

the electors might oe prevented from Knowing
the right. He would not say the Hon. member
had used unfair means to procure his eloctiou.
As for the remarhs about the rights of the PEG
pie, theS needed no reply. The House wa.
composed of Mobiles and Representative s
whose legislative duties are the same. He
had waited until ali the petitions were present
ed and then be felt it his duty to bring the
resolution forward.
Hon. Mr.. Lyons said the question was not
on the legality of the election in South Kona
but the manner of bringing it before the As
senbly. with and the point was who had a right
to dispute the election. He admitted that the
second estate had a right TO consider the au-
thority by which those who claim to represent
I the third estate appear here. Seventy days
had elapsed since the election, and if the elect
ors proposed to do anything, their petition
should have been here before now. He should
oppose the resolution.
Mr.. Hitchcock agreed in some things with
/ the member from Kohala, but not entirely.
Hon. Mr.. Jones wished to state that at the
| election, or since, no unfair measures had been
used by him, There was nothing he admired
SO much as full carrying out of the laws Of
/ the land. People from South Kona said that
no effort had been made to get up petition.
/ If he thought that many of the electors in
South kona objected to his sitting, he would
resign ut once. BY reference to his journal
it appears that early in February, 1865, he
had set out to come to these Island. He was
delayed by sickness and other implements
| from reaching here until the following year.
As far as the law Of domicile is concerned, he
had fulfilled all its requirements. By the law,
a man has domicile in some place, and when
he leaves place his domicie is in the place to
which he intends going.
His intention to reside here was never
changed, and thus be had fulfilled the spirit
of the law. He asked if the rSssrd of his
journal is not evidence enough to satisfy the
Assembly. To avoid waste of time he had
moved to indefinitely postpone. Again the
Convention of 1864 would not act on the
election of Kamaio from North Kona, because
that no petition was presented. And that
this action was in accordance with the wishes
of His Majesty He wished that the mem
bers would vote aye to uphold the laws of the
land.
Hon. Mr.. Koakanu said that he was in
favor of the resolution of Hon. Mr.. Bishop.
He does not think a mans intention makes
any difference. He must be in the country
three years before the election.
Hon. ID. Kalakaua favored the resolution.
The Mobiles have as much right to examine
the credentials of members as the Represen-
tatives.
His Elk. Mr. Phillips said that it was i'm
portant to understand just what motion was
before the House. He had reason to think
that there was a doubt concerning the right
of the member from South Kona be thought
it should be referred to Committee for inquiry.
Others here would not shrink from having
their right to sit contested, then why should
the member from South Kona object he res
pectfully submitted that it was right to ex-
anime the eligibility of the member. The
only way is to refer it to n committee, for by
this means only can we arrive at the truth.
The Judiciary Committee is appointed for this
very purpose, then why not refer it to them
instead of taking up the time of the Assembly?
If the gentleman can satisfy the Committee of
his right, he holds his seat by the strongest
tenure. The honorable member admits that
when a petition is presented, it will be the
duty of the Assembly to examine it. The law
does not say that that is the only way to ar
rive at the rights concerning membership. The
Assembly, to get at the facts, must make an
inquiry, and committee is the only way to
do this. Suppose that the member brides the
whole district, and 80 honest men are not left
to make petition, then are we shut off from
the right to examine the facts and rights of a
member? 1t is conceded by all that the As
:embly is its own judge of who shall be men,
bers. IT, then, we have the right, why shall
we not investigate
The motion before the House was to indie
initely postpone. He hoped that the members |
would vote against it, and then take up Hon. |
Mr.. Bishops motion.
Hon. John Ii thought that if the proceed |
ngs were courteously carried on that all would |
,e well. The other petitions had been referred
o the Committee, and he thought this one
llso should be. lie had personal interest in
hese things. He was member from Kobala
n 1855. A committee of the house were en-
,aged three days discussing eligibility, as he
vas magistrate, and it was argued that he
lad no right to sit. 1t was decided that he
vas not ineligible. He thought that it was for
he Assembly to decide.
Hon. Mr.. jones said, in answer to the At
orney General, that he did not shrink from
Investigation. He was ready to meet the ques-
ion in a constitutional way. The law pre-
cribes method in all things, and will the
.ttorney General go beyond the law ? The
.ssembly should be their own judge of the
Nv and the method of executing it. He said
1rther, that it was an impossibiity that
II the electors of district should be brbeG.
he use Of such argument show that the Attor
ey General is driven to cite extreme eases.
lie did not wish to use his valuable time or
nat of the Assembly in discussing an illegal
uestiOn.
The indefinites postponement having been
,st, the resolution was put and passed.
Hon. Mr.. Hitchcock moved that the Com ,
ittee of Accounts be instructed to place on
lie desk of each member copies each of the
azette and Adrertiser and of the native
ipers, passed.
Hon. Mr.. Keawehunahala moved to adjourn
IL NJ, Wednesday. Lost. ]
His Elk. Dr. Hutchinson amended to IL A. !
:, passed. :