The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-06-16
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
seventeenth Day.

Following is the continuation OF the /
afternoon session, omitted in Saturdays |
issue for want OF space
Rep. Brown-What is the ruling, then ?
The President-That your amendment
is out OF order. There are other ways of
OF Minister. He can De i'm
peached.
Rep Brown Thus, on your ruling,
you can't inpeach one without impeach-
ing the whole of them. Mr. President,
suppose Minister who should be bribed
could not the House dispose OF that Min
lister without moving vote OF want Of
confidence in the rest? l say yes. The
Attorney-General has quoted resolu-
ton from the Legislature of 's7, moved
by myself asked the question with
regard to Noble Hitchcock. Don't re-
member anything about Noble Castle.
At that time / would have been glad to
have the whole Cabinet voted out OF
Office. Don't remember any vote OF want
OF confidence being attempted. (Attor-
ney-General: 1t was vote OF censure
merely.) l think, Mr.. President, that
the Chair has made mistake. 1t can
not be your ruling thai the House can
not express its want of confidence in any
single member except by impeaching
him. hate to differ from the Chair in
its ruling, but in matter OF this kind
ruling disposing OF the power OF this
House to deal with one member of His
Majesty's Cabinet, it is necessary.
Minister Thurston-I support the ap-
peal not from personal feeling, but be-
cause the ruling strikes at the power and
prerogatives OF this House. They have
the right to act absolutely unless some
law denies it. l say to you, gentlemen
OF the Opposition, you may think you
may get partizan advantage to-day, but
beware, you are making laws for the
country, you are sworn to do your duty
regardless of party advantage for the
time being. Now, what does the ruling
propose to take out of the hands OF the
may think of use to the country. 1t is
the power to inquire into the acts OF in
dividual ministers, as we'll as the general
policy of the Government. This power
you propose, Mr.. President, to take away
from this House, and you can't find any
thing in the laws or the constitution to
support your ruling. 1t has been fav-
orite subject of quotation of Noble Wide
mann to take care of the purse. Stand
ing above that is the power of the Legs
lature to do anything and everything
which it thinks for the good of the coun-
try, not merely to guard the purse, but
everything which concerns the fortunes
and liberty of this country. Now gentle
men without regard to party, l warn you
to guard the rights of this House Not
for to-day nor to- morrow but for the
future. You don't know where nor
when danger may strike. The Attor-
ney-General has stated that Article IL
takes away from this House the power
to inquire into the conduct OF individual
Ministers. How can you torture the
article into any such meaning? Now Mr..
President, it is an elementary rule OF
construction that the greater includes
the less. If it has been limited to one,
or had been excluded from one all right,
but it does not say SO, land the greater in
cludes the less. Another rule is that
where a clause is held to restrict powers
it must be specific. Legislation has all
the rights which are not specifically
taken away from it by the constitution
and it certainly is not by the language Of
this article. The Attorney-General cites
a resolution as he claims confirming his
view. Now | say that the resolution has
nothing to do with the matter. He is
right in supposing that the action of the
Acknowledgement in the other resolution
to which he has referred to, was proper
occasion to condemn the entire Cabinet
and | will show you why. Nobody here
wants to establish the theory of the
unity of the Cabinet more than l. For
four months We have struggle with the
Attorney-General to establish the prin-
ciple of unity Of the Cabinet. He would
not hear Of it. Now he wants to estab-
lish that principle. He is afraid to face
the consequences of his conduct, is play
ing the baby act, and wants to drag the
whole Cabinet down as q consequence of
his own illegal and revolutionary acts
Now Mr.. President and gentlemen while
unity of Cabinet action is established
here and in England the other principle
is equally clear. If one officer does an
act and the others support him, they are
responsible. IF the Acknowledgement
paid the money to Hitchcock and Castle
and the Cabinet supported him, then the
Cabinet is responsibility. But if any Min
lister does an illegal and unconstitutional
- "ra the other Ministers do no. an
prove it but ask the House to condemn
it then they are responsible. Now this
is comparatively new question here
but in England they have been over il
over and over again with Cabinets of all
sorts, and it is clearly settled. l have
before me Todd's Parliamentary Govern
ment in England, vol. Up. 456, stating
that every Minister can be held account
able for personal misdeeds. In another
! passage it says every Minister is directl,
responsible for the advice he tenders hi
sovereign. Mr.. President, you coult
not get quotation more applicable t.
this question. 1t is the individual ad
vice given by the Attorney-General con
trary to the advice of the Cabinet which
We complain of. How can the Hous,
get at this question? 1t is sealed box t.
them and why? Simply because the
President of the Legislature rules tina
they cannot investigate it. In this bool
there is section after section, page ate
page, chapter after chapter giving in
stances. In one case it says notwith
standing the rule that the Cabinet ar
responsible as whole, the ancient ruiz
is still in force making individual Min
listers responsible for personal miscon
duct for which the Cabinet declines t
assume any responsibility. l Nigh
multiplY the quotations but will onl