The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-11-27
OPPOSITION FISHING FOR A POLICY.

sqllorial matter in its last issue, in which /
she only sensible point appears to be
tlEat men of property and position in the |
country are interested in the election of
Respectable and independent Legisla- !
are. If it had made that point and |
etcpped it would have saved a great deal |
III space and enjoyed the satisfaction OF
bking in accord with the ADVERTISER,
which has striyen all along to that end,
and has the consolation of knowing that
1t has not labored in vain.
We are anxious above all things to
have thoroughly independent Legisla-
Z ture elected-one that will keep in mind
only the public good /; and we are strongly
~ opinion also that Ministers are en-
bued with similar sentiments, although
Of couse we cannot speak authoritatiyely
for the Administration on political issues
IS our contemporary does. 1t seems to
know the inner thoughts Of the Govern
ment, but studiously makes point of
imposing on the public regarding them.
For example, it insinuates that the Gov
Legislative body, but subservient tools OF
their own, as If the interests of Con-
stitutional Government of the country
were opposed to the interests of the tax
payers and property owners. This &C
cusation is 50 ridiculous as to need no
<reply. OF course the Gazette" does not
believe it, but simply puts it forward as
bit of political pleasantly to stimulate
the tagging spirits of its friends in the
coming election.
Similarly the Gazette holds the pres
emit Government responsible for the legis-
alton of 1874, which extended the fran
mise, and for the defeat in 1878 OF the pro-
gect of law Of 1876, which contemplated
restriction of the franchise. Indeed, it is
more than insinuated also that the Glib
son Administration was responsible for
the coup d'etat under Kamehameha ",
by which the Constitution was changed
to suit the King, as well as cherishing
similar design against the existing ma
tional Charter. The palpable absurdity of
these charges and the arguments built
upon them does not seem to strike our
contemporary. If the legislation referred
to were part and parcel of deep laid
scheme to abolish the Legislature and
establish a centralized despotism upon
lines which are being strictly adhered to
by the present Administration, as has
SeeD alleged, it follows that the Govern
ment of the day are simply carrying out
she policy of the friends and supporters
Of the tGazette," who are now in oppo-
sition, but who We're absolute in Hawai-
ian politics at the dates mentioned. Mr..
Gibson, the present Premier, is not re-
ponsibIe for the legislation of the years
ated, nor for the policy of those then in
1aice. He first entered the Legislature
ii 1873. He was not the power he subse-
quently became as leader of the Opposi-
ton to the policy and methods of the
dominant party of that day, the rump of
which now constitutes the "Independ-
ent'' Opposition, nor were any of his col
leagues heard of or known in Ha-
waiian politics, except Mr.. Kapena.
Whatever is wrong or dubious, there
fore, in the evolution of national pol
tics In Hawaii is directly chargeable
to the very party whose interests our
contemporary seeks to promote, by inn
putting their Machiavellian tactics to the
new and vigorous national party repre-
sented by the Administration now in
power.
To show the impotent malice of the
opposition to the present Government
on the points raised by the g Gazette, y
we have simply to state that the fran
chise legislation of 1874, which is the
foundation of the accusation against
them, was perfected under the Admins
fration which followed that of Mr..
Bishop, and was composed OF Mr..
Green, Foreign Affairs; Mr.. Wide
mann, Interior Mr.. Nahaolelua, FL
nance and Mr.. Hartwell, Attorney
General. Be it remembered also that it
was four years before Mr.. Gibson was
Iik elected to the Legislature, and when
certainly was unable to influence the
.cs,rse of public events. Yet he is held
-aaronsible for the broad Democratic
,solicv of Messrs, Green, Widemann
and Hartwell Similarly in 1876, two
years before Mr.. Gibson's election, a
motion was introduced to increase the
property qualification, the purpose
being to disfranchise the natives to a
large extent This project of law was
defeated in 1873, the year the present
Premier went into the Legislature, and
he is accused of that result. Perhaps
this was true, but the responsible
Ministry of that day was Mr.. Wilder,
Interior; Mr.. Kapena, Foreign Affairs
Mr.. Kaai, Finance; and Mr.. Preston,
Attorney-General. Seeing that Mr.. Glib
son did not take office until May Is,
1882. and that the Cabinet as now
constituted was subsequently formed,
we fail to see how it can be held respon-
sible for the receptions and conspiracies
II preceding Administrations, if such
there were. If the Government is to be
arraigned, let it be for some act OF their
own. and not for something done years
years ago by the political god-fathers OF
The Independent Opposition.