The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-11-12

upon vote of want of confidence
passed by majority of the elective
members of the legislature, etc,
etc." and this, sir, is positively the
only way to remove "the Cabinet"
except by their consent, or by dyna-
mite. Much less can the "majority
of the legislature" reconstruct. The
King appoints the Cabinet. If the
Legislature is not pleased with the
selection, they can vote want of con-
lidcncc to their hearts content, and
His Majesty may, if he feels dis
posed, sit on the throne, continue to
draw his salary, and literally tire
out Legislators ny repeating the opcr-
alton of appointing" Objectionable
Cabinets, or Ministers, as the case
might be. Again it is certainly i'm
practicable under our system TO carry
on government agreeably to the
majority, if the following suggestion
were applicable: cit looks like an
unnecessary action to drag the Min
istry into platform for the election
of legislature, before any opposi.
ton leader comes TO the front with
n platform having an acceptable
Cabinet ready when this one is over
thrown" Also this: "Perhaps an
opposition Ministry may be nomin-
atcd TO the people long enough be-
fore election day to enable choice
to be made on the Ministerial is
sue"
Right here, then, is where we take
issue with the BULLETIN. The "NIin-
isterial issue is and should be the
issue for or against (1) the political
principles professed by them and
(2) the ability and integrity or
otherwise, with which they may have
practised those professions and the
BULLETIN's idea of the necessity of
an opposition leader with plat
form of any kind, in advance of
dragging the Ministry into plat
form" is certainly an innovation
upon all English and American
theories of political government.
The government are supposed TO
have q policy-a platform. Other
wise, the elections would simply
mean the turning of four popular
favorites into the treasury TO play
duck and brakes for two years with
the nations resources without any
thing to restrain them but their own
inclinations and the laws against lar
ccny. Their real policy-their plat
form, if you please-may be most
difficult for any one not in "accord''
to fathom. Their theoretical policy
is always the "platform" of the
party which elected them, unless
new conditions and developments
change it, and then the change is
supposed to be duly given to the
political world. Taking our own
case: if, as many allege, widespread
dissatisfaction exists, something must
be radically wrong with either c.
the "platform," or (2) those chosen
to execute it, or (3) with both. L
the former, only, then its advocate:
should not receive the support Of
the electorate at the polls. If either
or both Of the two latter, then the
obligation to replace the Cabinet by
electing Legislators pledged to vote
) want of confidence in them is 81
much the stronger. And, if this b'
so, the general principles suggested
in your above article-or, rather
those particular ones herein Ques
| tioned-although they may be fai
conclusions from the basis of Englisl
) political ethics, do not fit our hybrit
5 constitution, which in its application
so largely shuflles around the mos
} approved modern theories of respon
| sible and representative and govern
f ment, and in turn makes possible al
e absolute, irresponsible, unrepre
sentative government for thos
periods of time intervening betwee
: the biennial sessions of the legisla
e ture. BYsTANDER.