The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-08-10

1SUer nau OlnlUUeU 10 answer QueS-
tion as to the receipts of the Consu-
late.
Minister Creighton said that
would be hard to say, as it was a
running account. However, he
would endeavor to have the inform
alton submitted. (Later he made a
verbal statement, that the gross
receipts of the Hawaiian Consulate
in San Francisco were between
$4,000 and $1,000 u year.
Rep. Kaukau presented resolu-
tion for $4,000 to build bridge
over the stream at Kaunakahau,
Maui, which was laid on the table.
Rep. Palohau submitted resolu-
tion to amend the resolution intro
duced by Rep. Dole yesterday, by
adding, after Hon. j. l.. kaulukou's
name, the names of Hons. f. Pahia,
ID. ii. Nahinu, j. Amara, G.. b. Pa
lohau, l.. Aholo, $. w. Kaai, a.
Kaulia, j. w. Kalua, S. b. Dole, c.
Brown, w. r. Castle, c. II. Dickey,
j. Kaukau and A. Kauhi. 1t was
returned to him as being out of
order.
Noble Bush read first time an
act to provide permanent settle
ment for the widow of the late John
E. Barnard, for Is years chief clerk
of the Supreme Court. On motion
of Rep. Kaunamano, it was read a
second time by title and referred to
the select committee on pensions.
Rep. Kauhi presented resolu-
ton for $500 to improve roads in
the District of Eva, Oahu, which
was tabled.
ORDER OF THE DAY.
Rep. Keau moved the order of
the day, which carried, and the
house resolved into committee of
the whole, Rep. Richardson in the
chair, for the consideration of Rep.
Dole's resolution to declare the seat
of Hon. j. l.. Kaulukou vacant, on
account of his acceptance of the
office of Marshal of the Kingdom.
Rep. Keau, on the resolution
being read, moved its indefinite
postponement, and spoke at length
in Hawaiian without Interpretation.
Rep. Dole said this was not a
question of sentiment, but of the
meaning of the plain English or
plain Hawaiian of Article 20 of the
Constitution, which declared the
Supreme Power to be divided into
the Legislative, the Executive and
Judicial, and these branches were
to be kept distinct. The Legis-
lative made the laws, the EXecu-
tive executed them, and the Judi
cial interpreted them. This pro-
vision was not intended merely to
prevent the King sitting in the
Legislative Assembly. The King
was the fountain of executive
authority, and the Marshal was one
of His Maiesty's chief instruments
for the exercise of that authority.
When the Marshal took possession
of property under legal process, or
hanged an unfortunate criminal, he
did it in the name of the King.
The member for Honolulu had
quoted article 80, where the exc
cutive power was vested in the
King. But the Constitution said,
"The kingdom is his'' (the King !;
which was not true in the abstract,
for His Majesty could not touch the
property of man, woman OF child
in his dominions. Suppose the
King, the Marshal and Supreme
Court Judges all had seats in the
Assembly, would that be keeping
the three divisions of the Supreme
power distinct? If the hon. mem.
Der for Hilo was appointed Judge
of the Supreme Court, could he
hold his seat in this house? This
Assembly made the law of escheats
by which the executive took posses
sion of lands for the Government
involving the rights of property
and the Marshal was the executive
agent in such matters. If the same
man was to have part in making
executing and interpreting the laws
if that was keeping the thre'
branches distinct according to tn
; Constitution, then the hon. membe
for Hilo might be allowed to kee
, his seat.
: Rep. Palohau favored indefnit
l postponement, as the unseating c
4 the Marshal would make himself
and other Sheriffs and Deput
Sheriffs in the house, liable to los
t their seats on the same principle.
} Rep. Kaunamano opposed the n
solution in uninterpreted native.
Rep. Dickey argued in favor {
+ the resolution. The King and Nil
listers, being especially granted pa
+ ticipation in the Legislative branc
e in the Constitution, it was clear the
s were not included in the prohibitio
a of article 20. The Marshal was I'll
: next highest executive officer, an
. he was not given legislative priv
e leges by the Constitution. III
Marshal had more of executi'
4 power in his hands than judges
! courts of record, under the Supren
IS Court, had of judicial power in the
1t hands. Therefore, when judges
"a ,o,,,tc of ,onnpI ,ya,n ax,nI,lal e.