The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-07-13

barred from claiming now by the
statute of limitations.
Rep. Dole objected to tho course
of having a claim of this kind
brought into the Legislature before
being established by the courts. He
disagreed with Rep. Rrown on the
question of limitation, as the law did
not run against women in certain
cases nor against people out of the
country.
Rep. Castle referred to prece-
dent, which would be better OBJ
served in the breach than in the OBJ
servance. The house had better
confine itself to the manufacture,
rather than the Interpretation of
laws. He had advised the claimant
to have her case tested. in the
courts before it was too late. If she
had lost her rights by neglect, it
would be simply making her a gift
outright to enact this grant.
Rep. Kaulukou regarded the
statements of the hon. members for
Lihue aud Wailuku as good reasons
why the house should pass the item.
The woman had not contested her
claim in the courts because she had
not the means. 1t was competent
for the Legislature to settle such a
matter as this. Judge Preston had
declared its competence in that re-
gard when he was member q few
years ago. If it was claim be-
tween one private party and another
the case would be different.
Rep. Dole said they were not
there to carry out their aloha to any,
body, neither was this a charitable
institution to help the unfortunate.
This claimant had deliberately
thrown away her opportunity for
obtaining justice, choosing the Leg
islature rather than the law by
which to gain her point. Her claim
was doubtful at the best, and it
would be very improper for the
house to grant it without investiga-
ton.
Rep. Paehasle considered the
house had no authority whatever to
pass this grant. If the hon. men,
ber for Hilo wanted to exercise his
charity, let him do it out of his own
pocket.
The item passed, Is to IL.
On motion of Rep. Aholo, the
committee rose and reported pro-
gress.
Rep. Castle moved the report of
the committee be laid on the table.
He claimed that the house had a
right to know how the Ministers of
the Crown stood with regard to the
grant of money recommended by
the committee. They could not
charge him with being scold, but
he believed they should not have
evaded the vote on that item, as all
but one of them (the Minister of
Finance) had done.
Rep. Dole seconded the motion.
The members who voted for the
item had done wrong, but they were
not so much at fault as the three
Ministers who shirked the vote.
Those Ministers knew the appro-
priation was an improper one, but
had not the moral courage to vote
against it. This was not in accord
ance with all the speeches the house
had heard about retrenchment.
Rep. Kaulukou raised the point of
order that the hon. member could
not scold the Ministers under the
motion.
Rep. Dole believed he was in
order, and thought the Ministers
could not object to criticism. Ger
tainly he should expect to be criti-
cised if he was a member of the
Ministry.
Minister Gibson regretted that
after the hon. member for Lihue had
been away for week in the refresh
ing air of the islands and the sea
he had come back among them the
same parliamentary scold as before
This question had been sprung upon
him this afternoon as surprise. He
was not consulted regarding it be-
fore, although he knew that bill
had been introduced on the subject
Some time ago the woman hac
spoken to him, and he thought that,
at least, her claim was entitled t.
consideration. 1t was not right tc
charge him with shirking the vote
simply because he abstained on &C
count of being doubtful in his owl
mind. Neither could charge O,
being unfaithful to his profession.
OF retrenchment be brought agains
him for having been silent when thi
matter came up. The members o
the Opposition had joined with tn
other members in raising the Appro
priation Bill $4,000, while he ha,
sat looking silently on, knowing
was no use to interfere with the log
rolling process, in which the Palac
party, the Independent party, tn
National party and the party O
moral ideas all united.
Minister Creighton said he did nc
vote because he did not understan
the question. He never heard of
before. Two of the gentlemen VIII
had discussed it had been consulte
professionally on the case, bu
neither of them agreed as to tn
merits Of the claim, Rep. Brow
saying it was barred by the statut