The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-06-02
Continued from page 2.

thob NibO thO IhtulDti AOl
Molokai had said be not received but
indefinitely postponed.
The President said that would not
be proper motion. II he put it
that the house cannot receive what
had been said by the hon. member
for Molokai, it would be in order.
Rep. Dole said the motion not to
receive was not an amendment, but
simply the negative Of the motion.
Rep. Kaulukou said his was an in
dependent motion.
Rep. Dole said, if so it was out of
order and the only motion before
the house was to accept the apology.
The President ruled that there
was only one motion, as above
stated.
Minister Neumann moved to
amend the motion, that ''the state
ment of the hon. member for Molo-
kai is an apology which the house
accepts" He would vote against
it, as he did not want the statement
recognized as an apology.
Rep. Dole said it seemed rather
late, after they had been all day
discussing question, to have an
amendment. The Attorney General
appeared to be adopting the tactics
of yesterday. 1t looked ridiculous.
That statement contained the APP
ology required to the house, and to
Ministers which was not required,
and great deal of explanation.
They had been talking about that
matter all day, and whether that
statement contained an apology or
not. He did not think he yemem-
bered session when the house so
easily. stultified itself as this one.
To say that statement contained ex-
traneous matter would be all right,
but to say that it did not contain an
apology was ridiculous. He did not
say that if he were called on to
apologize he should use the same
words as the member for Molokai.
He had used decided words and it
was for the house to say whether it
should take any notice of them. All
that talk to-day looked as if the
house wanted the member to do
something that they dared not ask
him to do. IT the statement was
improper let the Attorney-General
be man enough to say so, but do not
let him say that there had been no
apology. If anyone there thought
the hon. member for Molokai should
apologize to the Minister of Finance,
let them say so-show their colors.
But do not let the house get like the
ostrich that hides it's head in the
sand when pursued. Let them not
say one thing and do another. He
did not intend to say anything on
that motion. The motion to accept
the apology was regular motion,
and the house had right to vote it
down, but to say the. statement was
not an apology was something that
he did not think the house would
pass.
Minister Neumann apologized to
the house for taking up more time,
but the remarks of the hon. member
for Lihue called for it. Let him say
first that he did not consider himself
insulted by the member for Molokai
at all. He considered that the floor
of that house was not the place
where any member had the right to
indulge in gross personalities, and
if such thing as trying to avoid
more of it was stultifying he had no
more to- say. The gist of the thing
was that the member for Molokai's
amendment was grossly insulting
to the house. He simply mentions
now that he did not mean three of
the Ministers, and that if the coat
fitted any others he was very sorry.
There was family who invited once
a stranger to dine with them, and
the stranger was distinguished by O
tremendous nose. The mother told
her little boy, "When Mr.. Smith
comes to dinner, do not say anything
about his nose." So when he came
the little boy wanted to be polite
and said, "Why, Mr.. Smith, you
haven't got any nose at ALL" Now
that was the apology of the hon
member for Molokai. The reason
he wished to amend the motion Of
the hon. member for Honolulu was
that the house seemed to think thai
was an apology, while he considered
it was not. He freely conceded the
right of the hon. member to attack
him or the Minister of Finance, bu
on the floor of the house he had nj
right to do so. The question was
not whether the Minister of Finance
was intoxicated or not. The ques
ton was whether the member had 6
right to use such language as he did
The question before the house was
whether the member had apologizec
to the house properly, or had in
dulged in such side remarks as HI
did.
Rep. Aholo did not think the hon
member had apologized. He mad
great many remarks explanator,
of his action, and must have sal,
something sharp, for Ministers wer
L 4