The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1872-04-20

In the course Of the discussion, one Of the
Delegates il reported in tine papers Of the day to
have said
"To screen myself behind the opinion Of others,
to place ones conscience in the keeping Of any tri-
bunal, to shift ones opinions,-not convinced by
reasons, but because others think so,-is not the act
Of a free and conscientious man. After having
heard all the opinions for and against, | have made
up my mind on my own convictions of right and
wrong, and, loyal to the King and the people whom
| represent, | have come TO the conclusion that this
Convention has DO legal or constitutional power TO
make or amend law, and that | DO not recognize any
such crying calamity, any such great danger, as to
warrant a revolutionary act"
But this member even, whose reasoning was so
sound, consented TO remain and vote upon the
Articles proposed in a body that he had himself
declared to have no legal or constitutional power,
and he continued to remain as a member until
the King sent the Delegates home with the assur-
ance he would give them a Constitution.
Another member was DESTROYS of getting infor-
nation so as to - understand whether the Judges
have given their opinions as individuals or
Judges? He wished to understand this clearly,
50 as TO shift the responsibility q of voting on
this Resolution from himself on to them"
Several Of the members who had been most IN
yielding in opposition to the scheme, We're also
anxious to make use of the judicial ermine as q
shield or excuse for submission. Seemingly con-
WINGED in their own judgments that the Conyen-
ton was Illegally constituted, still they voted
against their own convictions, and endcavored to
fix the responsibility for doing so upon the
Judges, for when satisfied of their decision,
they voted against the Resolution.
Two Delegates were constrained to enter 4
coIannn yr.tact and lava tho Convention The
opening clause Of this notable document reads as
follows
"MAY IT PLEASE Your MAJESTY: AS this Con-
ventiOn has now decided to proceed to the revision of
the Constitution, or rather to the adoption of a new
Constitution, We feel compelled by our duty TO our
constituents, and 10 our Sovereign, to enter our pro-
test. In this solemn crisis, when the rights not only
Of our immediate constituents but also Of future
generations are at stake, We cannot shift our re-
sponsibility to others, or put our conscience in the
keeping even of a Supreme Court"
This whole document has the ring Of true pa
triotism, and to our minds is the noblest and
grandest utterunce to be found in the political
history of the country. 1t displays a clear con-
ception of right, calm foresight, and an undoubted
loyalty, with high conscieDtiousness. The Dele
gates who sent in this protest, Immediately
vacated their seats in the Convention, and thus
were saved the humiliation that subsequently,
overlook their fellow members who remained.
For the careful consideration of future Legisla-
tors, with a view to their possible instruction in
the matters under review, we will here republish
an episode in the history of the United States,
which refers to the duty Of those who swear to
support the Constitution:
"During the administration of President Jackson,
the question of rechartering the United States Bank
came up for decision by Congress, and the two
Houses having passed a bill for its recharter, the
President vetoed it, on the ground, among others,
that it was unconstitutional, Notwithstanding that
the question of its nationality had been decided in
the affirmative by the Supreme Court of the United
States. The veto-message, which was sent TO the
Senate, contains the following passage: The Con-
gress, the Executive, and the Court, must each for
itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitu
ton. Each public officer who takes an oath to sup
port the Constitution, swears that he will support it
as he understands it, and not as it is understood by
others. 1t is as much the duty of the House of Rep
resentatives, of the Senate, and of the President to
decide upon the Constitutionality of any bill or roeo-
luton which may be presented to them for passage or
approval, as ii is of the Supreme Judges, when it may
be brought Before them for judicial decision. The
opinion of the Judges has no more authority over
Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the
Judges and, on that point, the President is indie
pendent of both. The authority of the Supreme
Court must not therefore be permitted to control the
Congress or the Executive, when acting in their leg
islative capacities, but to have only such influence IS
the force of their reasoning may deserve"
Henry Clay took the ground that
"'NO one swears to support the Constitution as he
understands it, but to support 1t simply as it is in
truth"
Celebrated legal authority says of the issue
between the President and Mr.. Clay, that it is
one upon which there cannot be two opinions
from a legal stand point.
Suppose, then, the violation by the President,
or a member of Congress, of his official oath, is by a
statute made punishable as perjury and suppose a
member of Congress having voted for a measure
which he believed to be unconstitutional, which the
Supreme Court held to be constitutional, is indicted
before n judicial tribunal under the statute, and the
facts appear as thus stated. The Court, following
the decision of the Supreme Court, which it would
be bound to follow, would affirm the constitutionality
of the measure for which the defendant had voted.
1t would next direct the jury to find the defendant
guilty because, though his vote was constitutional,
he thought it was not, and for one to swear to what
is true in fact, while he believes it to be false, is per-
Jury"