The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-09-30

| do not think that is any argument.
Everybody knows that he was member
of the first Cabinet under this Constitu-
ton. He resigned probably with the
idea OF getting back and getting share
OF the loaves and fishes he has spoken OF
The hon. member from kona says he
was sent here to make amendments to
The Constitution il necessary, and not do
away with il. He says we must take the
way prescribed in the Constitution. The
people who say that did not follow that
method in '87. That would be very we'll
ii We wished TO make few amendments,
but We can't make a new Constitution in
that way. If we should have an election
Tomorrow, there would be an over
whelming majority in favor OF a new
Constitution. | hold in nv hands q
copy of the platform of the National Re-
form Party. There is plank in it about
new Constitution or amending an old
one. After the Cabinet were placed in
Office they called us into the Minister of
the Interiors room and said they were
on the side OF the people, or our side. |
made a speech and said one of the
things we wanted was a new Constitu-
ton, and the Acknowledgement got up
and said they would assist us So now
l have no confidence in the Cabinet nor
in their statements. In 'S7 people did
not proceed as they advise us to do.
They held secret meetings and armed
themselves and frightened the King. Ac-
cording to the present Constitution, the
rich man has two votes to the poor mans
one. Another defect in it is that it al
lows the ignorant Portuguese to vote.
There was nothing in the Constitution
forbidding the passage of law of this
kind. II there should be any trouble, it
would be begun by foreigners, not by
natives.
Noble Kauhane said good deal had
been said on this subject, and it had
been claimed that the demand for a new
constitution was the voice Of the Hawaii
an people. The ground alleged was that
the new Constitution was oppressive. He
had not found it oppressive. His obser-
walton was that the people were much
better off under this Constitution than
before. The people petitioned for roads
and bridges-and they got them in the
Appropriation Bill, but they never got
any further. There was too much power
in the hands OF the King, and too little
in the people. Our credit was getting
steadily worse, and do not hesitate to
say that if things had gone on there
would have been no independent Ha-
waii left when the Legislature came to
sit in 1888. do not approve of the way
it was done, but the object was good aud
we have our country's independence
saved as result of it. have no SYM
patty with the outcry against the new
Constitution. Do they want the old
Constitution again with all its abuses?
The right to vote for Mobiles is pure
gift to Hawaiians; it is privilege which
has fallen to them as piece of good for
tune without any effort on their part. 1t
ought to incite every Hawaiian to make
a man of himself and go to work and
earn, SO that he can exercise the right.
Even admitting that the property quail
fication needs changing don't think it
does, but suppose so-it is very easy for
us to amend it. This Constitutional
Convention will cost another 10000 or
SAC, 900, and to what end? To make
few little changes which we can make
now. If we pass this bill, supposing that
to be legal, it will establish very dam
gerous precedent which will lead us l
don't know where.
Noble Baldwin The Constitution of
the country, which is the foundation OF
all our law, should not be lightly treated
or lightly changed. This view has pre-
vailed in other countries. The Ameri-
can Constitution has only fifteen amend
ments. The uprising of 'S7, resulting in
our present Constitution, was the result
of bad Government which caused the
people to rise in a mass. 1t seemed
necessary at that time, and the only way
to secure. This is justifiable only in ex-
treme cases, where there are grievances
which cannot be borne and cannot other
wise ne remedied, and that was the case
at that time. One thing is certain. The
King took an oath TO the Constitution,
and so have we here, and SO have the
people. The people, it should be
noticed, never took the oath to support
the Constitution of 1864. In taking this
oath we have sworn that all changes
shall be made in the way prescribed by
the Constitution. The reasoning of Rep.
Bush is illogical and untenable, as the
only legal way to get Constitutional
change is in the manner laid down in the
instrument itself. This is the opinion of
Judge Cooley. The two instances cited
by the committee are sufficient to show
the view of the American judges. 1t is
significant fact that in one OF these cases
the word "may" is used in the same way
as in ours The particular method laid
down is permitted and all others are ex-
cluded by implication. If that view is
correct, to alter the Constitution in any
other way is revolution. What neces-
sity is there of anything of the sort2 We
admit that amendments should be made,
but fail to see that the people is suffer
ing or that there is anything in the stu
alton to call for such extreme measures.
AS has been we'll said on the floor OF this
House, the country was never more pros
porous, and this prosperity extends
throughout the islands. Unquestionably
their is q strong feeling among certain
class of Hawaiians that they have been
wronged, and this feeling has been
played upon by agitators. l have ascer-
tanned that great many OF those who
call for Constitutional Convention do
not know what the provisions of this
Constitution really are, but have been
led to believe that it gives foreigners
privileges which are refused to Hawaii
ans, which we know to be false. AS to
these petitions, the headings were got
up here in Honolulu and sent out into
the country, and except in few cases
they did not represent the people of
weight and intelligence outside of Homo
lulu. How many of the Representatives
and Mobiles have received instructions
from their constituents to favor con-
vention, and how many in cases where
instructions have been received, know
that it comes from the majority and from
the most intelligent? NY constituents
have sent me no such word, and yet q
great many native Hawaiians voted for
me. One of the native members who
signed the majority report, said not one
word had come to him from his island.
The main difference between the two