The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1874-05-09

The history Of the past shovel that Representatives
been decidedly influenced IN this one House by
Ministers 1t was notorious that members were 50
Influenced in the Session Of 1872; the mau who voted
with Ministers ca the Hotel question for instance, got
in ofice-these nen who was independent got none.
Bot for ministerial isauence the hotel WoHld have not
been built with the PEOPLES money. This measure
the division OF the legislature into two Houses-the
PEOPLE regarded as a restoration Of 4 great right a
which they had been deprived for some years past,
and they we're joyful IN the prospect Of having il
back. he earnestly urged the passage OF the amend
H1ent
Hon. Mr.. Kaukaha spoke with energy Of the sd
vantazes Of one House, where the Representatives
had the opportunity OF speaking face to face with
Ministers and Nohles il was much better than when
in separate Houses they had no opportunity to have
a word with members Of the upper House in explana-
ton Of measures. He did not believe the people
wanted this separation Of the Houses; there had been
no petitions TO that effect
Hon. Mr.. Bishop said that the question was, what
was the disadvantage Of remaining as We are. one
House, and what would be the advantage Of twoT 1t
IS plain that the expense with two Houses would be
considerably increased, and the time occupied in the
session would be Increased But Notwithstanding
these objections, If be could be convinced that there
would be any corresponding advantages game 4, he
would favor q division. He had originally been op-
posed TO having one house, but the experience of
numerous sessions had caused him 10 alter his mind
on this subject. As one Of His late Majesty's Minis
tiers he had brought forward these amendments.
That was done principally because the Kings honor
was involved. His late Majesty had promised, before
his election, to restore the features of the Constitu-
ton Of 1852, and that was something he had not the
mower to do. Buthe did what he could do in honor,
TO keep his pledge, by placing the amendments before
the Legislature. He (Mr. Bishop as the Kings
Minister, had assisted in bringing forward those
amendments, but lie was now at liberty 10 express his
views upon them. Under the circumstances of this
country, the best thing for the country was one
House. The busiiess viii be done better and with
greater dispatch.
Hon. Mr.. Wilder, had he spoken before the last
speaker, would have said just what that gentleman
did. He concurrei in all that had fallen from him.
In the Session Of 1868, he (Nr. Wilderl had intro
dued a Resolution br a division Of the Houses, but he
had since changed his mind.
His Ex. the Attorney General, said-this measure
was net brought upby this Administration, and there
fore the Cabinet are free to give their separate views
upon it. When l came here, not quite six years ago,
l saw q new sight, in Ministers, Mobiles and Repre-
sentatiyes sitting in one Legislative Assembly. |
knew what that meant IN other countries, but in the
office that l held, it was not for me to express my
views until now, my mouth has been shut upon that
subject. know, that we ought not to apply to Ha-
wall the views which are held IN foreign countries,
unless circumstances aresimilar. But my experience
is, that there is human nature in all men. In look
ing in mems eyes, lean always see in them that which
is common to all men. Therefore l think we must
hesitate long before we discard from Hawaii the prin-
ciples Of political wisdom in which the best minds
abroad have placed their faith. These amendments
were promised by Lunalilo, and many of the people
expect them to be adopted. No representative should
return TO his constituents without showing that he
has we'll considered both sides of this question. The
old Constitution of 1852 provided for two Houses, ac-
cording to the English and American systems, and |
think on the whole it should be so now. The objec-
ton of the expense of two House, is nothing COM
pared with its advantages. If 1t takes more time
with two Houses than one, the time is well spent.
The reasons in favor of the division are these, viz:
[. The legislationwill be more deliberate, with less
danger of hasty and rash action. The responsibility
will be divided, and a crowd cannot bring a pressure
TO bear on two Houses for passing a measure, which
/ thew might hiring UDOn one House. L have seen here
and elsewhere, that it is easy to carry q measure
hastily through one House, which is afterwards re-
GREETED when too late, and when such action would
not be taken by two Houses.
ii. A lower House has power by itself, which it has
not when sitting with the upper House. With twenty
Mobiles and four Ministers, the twenty-eight Repre-
sentatives have not much chance. L know that there
is weakness in all of US. For myself L don't wish
Representatives to come here with hope Of Office and
rewards for their votes. | don't wish to see how Rep
resentatives vote, if [ can be assured that they try to
vote wisely, for the interests of the country, and not
for their own pockets. In years back, 1 have seen
Representatives watching, afraid to cast their votes,
until they see how those in power, from whom they
expect favors, are going to vote.
III. a /. Lower I, H2 2g SeJEEtttthAfRfEEffn1 nTF965w Power e f IS tSee m tsff
dangerous curse if not accompanied by intelligence
and honesty. If we have a lower House, we must
depend on the people to send their wisest and best
men as Representatives. And also, we must do as in
England, when great measures brought forward by
the Ministers are rejected by the lower House. The
Legislature must be dissolved in such cases, and the
Ministers must be ready to go before the country to
explain and advocate their measures, and if they can
not get the confidence of the country, must give place
to those who can.
In voting as l shall for this amendment, I know
there is reason to doubt the result. 1t all depends on
whether the intelligence of the people and their hon-
esty can be relied upon. If this amendment be adopt
ed. Iwarn you, Mr.. Chairman, that the safety of Ha-
waii will depend more than ever before, upon the in
crease of intelligence among the people. l shall vote
for the amendment, not without hesitation, but be-
A,,,-o II l~A- shat thfg nfTnn mill nNn hnR3n ~
worse, whatever shall be done, and because l hope it
will grow better. l shall vote for it in a spirit of
hopefulness for the future.
His Elk. the Minister of the Interior well remem-
bered the occasion in 1868 when his friend the Hon.
Mr.. Wilder brought forward the Resolution. He
told him at that time that the people were better rep
resented and had more real influence in one House
than they could have If the Legislature were divided
into two Houses.
His Elk. the Minister of Foreign Relations said
that as the Attorney General had said, this was not a
government measure, and that members of the Cab
met would give their individual views. lie himself
had not been very decided in his views on this sub
iect, but recently his duty had impelled him to listen
to all the arguments on both sides. Without partic-
ular reference to other countries, we must take into
account all the circumstances OF this country. The
lords and gentry of England in times past were q
powerful class and were inclined to Cypress the peo-
pie. so it was also in former times here, but that class,
the chiefs, are no longer in existence. What this
country needs now is the introduction Of measures,
and their passage by the Legislature in perfect unan-
unity, which will increase the wealth of the whole
people. Will it be supposed that the 18 or 20 Mobiles
in this House will always vote against the Represent
atives! And if they do, the % Representatives can
Outvote them. The division into two Houses. is a
measure of questionable benefits let us remain as We
are, and try to advance the material interests Of the
country. 1t is not this or that Constitution that will
stop the decrease of the people, the greatest question
of moment before us. He should vote against the
separation.
Hon. Mr.. Aholo was in favor of the amendment.
1t was a measure in his opinion in the best interests
of the people. He had frequently observed in pre-
vious sessions that when questions came up that af-
fected the rights of the people, there was always
enough of the Representatives who voted with the
Mobiles to defeat the peoples side. Another thing,
the Mobiles nowadays were mostly foreigners, the ma
tive Mobiles had died of. There could be no real in
lnrnnlnnrnrf Rnnrnrnntntirnr rrtil thnr Enr In n sar-