The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-09-16

before Legislative Assembly. with the ex
ception of the one at the last session. l
looked ike a part of the duty OF the Minis
tiers to spend money without authorization
OF the Legislature He would sooner Sc
the Privy Council appropriate $500, OOo
! than the Cabinet Council s.. This amend
ment would not be derogatory TO the dig
! nifty OF the Cabinet.
Mr.. Kalua said the amendment might b,
| good one, but the House did not have tn,
/ power TO appoint the Minister of Finance
! There was a law of Impeachment which
would be the proper remedy. If they in
/ serted the words hard labor it would
not matter whether the Minister OF Finance
had property or not He would be com
PEELED to vote against the amendment.
Mr.. Dole said he was in favor of the
amendment. He felt the Treasury Depart
ment was safe in the hands of the present
Minister. They had better pass this
amendment, as it did not hurt any Minis
try, and was for the public good
Mr.. Aholo said that Mr.. Thurston had
said that it did not apply to the present
Minister of Finance, because he was hon
est.
Mr.. kaulukou said he was not in favor
of the amendment 1t could not be carried
out if it was passed by the House. 1t was
introduced to make things drag and to
prolong the session.
Mr.. Dickey offered the following as a
substitute section
Section 1. Any Minister of Finance
who shall cause or allow any money to be
paid out contrary to the provisions of this
section shall be liable to fine of not less
than double the amount of the money so
paid out, upon conviction before any Dis
trict or Police Magistrate"
Mr.. Kaulukou reminded Mr.. Dickey that
the District and Police Magistrates had
only jurisdiction up to 5000. The sole OBJ
ject Mr. Thurston had in view was to find
fault with the Ministers. He noticed that
Mr.. Kulua had deserted Mr.. Thurston in
the matter, and it was because this amend
ment was only proposed out of spite and
personal feeling.
His Excellency Mr.. Gibson said the As
sembly in times past for several sessions
had passed an Indemnity bill. What was
the significance of that? 1t was that the
Legislature considered there was diScre-
ton to be exercised by the King in Cabinet
Council when any question of expenditure
for the public service arose in excess of the
appropriation. The Legislature had in
variably Unidentified Ministers, because
the expenditure had not been in any case
for the individual advantage of Ministers,
but was for the public service. 1t was true,
as Mr.. Dole had said, that they might go
to the Privy Council and obtain authorize
ton from that body. but under pressure
of circumstances requiring prompt action
it might be necessary to dispense with this
circuitous mode of procedure. This had
been the case in reference to the items of
the Indemnity bill, one of which had been
incurred at the request of the Chief JUS
tice. Reflections had been made upon His
Majesty in this matter which were wholly
The King was the larger
part of this Assembly and not its paid
servant, as had been stated on previous
occasion. No man could draw one dollar
of salary in the Legislature if His Majesty |
did not sign the bill. The act was not the |
personal act of the King, but the action of |
Lu6 hlIiS III OdUlICI' OOuICIl. ne IuOIeD
spent for the prisoners was for the good of !
the community at large. This amendment |
reflected upon His Majesty and upon His !
Ministers, and was offensive.
Mr.. Dole said that was the second time
hey had heard the King was the larger
part of the Legislature. 1t was ridiculous
and nOnsensical, and was not true. Not a |
a. % L.
until the Assembly had appropriated 1T. +
He could not stand there and hear such a
'emark without protesting for it was not
rue. The King would not thank anyone
o come in the Assembly and say he was
lot the servant of the people. His Majesty
lad claimed that position publicly. The
lncient hereditary motto of the Prince of
Wales was that he serves. The Ministers
we're deficient i'll backbone, or they would
lave told the King they were wrong in the
way they appropriated money.
His ExcelIency Mr. Gibson, referring to
he word backbone" said it was the
-oice of the Ministers to the Sovereign.
Action was ba sed upon their advice.
Mr. Dole said he accepted the explana-
'Oiit Jul IL Jill maui NOlSC' 4llC
7hole thing was illegal. If they were not
ding beyond their present condition, they
ad better throw the Legislature up, as it
ras only farce.
Hon. Mr.. Bishop SAID it would be con-
idered an improperly in the Parliament
f Great Britain to bring in the name of
he Sovereign for the purpose of influencing
egislators. 1t was the Ministers who were
esponsible They are the ones they had
D deal with. They were not arraigning
he King; they had not that right. IF the
constitution was violated, they would look
D the Ministers. His Excellency Mr..
iibson characterized it as an Offense to say
hat the King was the servant Of the peo-
le 1t was an offense to repeat over and
yer again that the King was the larger
art of the Legislature. 1t appeared as if
he Ministers were shielding themselves
ehind the King. He hoped this kind of
ffense would not be repeated.
The amendment offered by Mr.. Thurston
as then put and lost, only two voting in
: favor. ~
The section then passed as amended by /
Ir. Brown.
Mr.. Thurston said his amendment had
cen defeated, but he hoped to live to see
ne day when it would be part OF the law.