The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-10-01

and conscientiously and impartially
discharge my duties as Represent
alive of the people. The law now
under consideration (BiiI 1850 to
call convention To frame new
constitution, clearly intends TO and
does ahro2ate the present cOnsiitu-
lion. Whatever my personal predi
lections may be | cannot vote to
nbrogate the constitution under the
oath taken to support it. y
Rep. Paehaolc was one of the ma
tive Hawaiian members who signed
The majority report. \ the request
for a constitutional convention came
from Hawaiians, ii was natural to
expect from the llawaiians members
of the majority good reasons
for the stand they took. The
petitioners for convention repre-
scented that the Constitution de.
prived the King of some of his
former powers. Whatever wrongs
the natives were under, he felt il
his duty to consider, as a repre-.
sentative, the means of redressing
those wrongs. Should they adopt
the means provided in the Consttu-
ton, or authorize a convention and
at one stroke wipe out the Constitu-
ton, landing tue country nobody
could say where! The committee
took the ground that the method
proposed in this bill was unconstltu-
tiOnal. He was not going abroad
for legal authorities, but would test
the bill by our own Constitution.
Section of the bill provides for the
election of as delegates. Where is
such an election provided for in the
Constitution? A delegate to be
elected was not mentioned in the
Constitution at all. Sec. therefore
was clearly contrary to the Consti-
tuition. The bill provided for the
Australian secret ballot system,
something unknown TO our laws or
to but few people in the country.
The speaker reviewed other sections
of the bill to show its Inconsistency
with the Constitution and laws of
the land. The silence of the Con-
stltution as to whether certain things
could be done was not, as had been
argued, to be taken as authorizing
those things but the contrary. This
was the true judicial principle. The
passage of this bill would be q very
bad precedent. 1t had been said
that the means adopted for getting
the Constitution of 1887 were nm
lawful, and it was argued that this
fact would justify departure from
constitutional methods now. EIe
did not approve of the manner Of
inaugurating the present Constitu'
tion, but that was matter of the
past and no reason why revolu
tionary mode should be adopted
now. The committee had found
several foreign instances in which
this Guection had been long settled
where it was established that mea
sures similar to the one before tht
House were unconstitutional. Rhod,
Island was under constitution o
many years. standing. There wa,
property qualification for voters
and men having money without rea
estate could not vote. 1t was desired
to have the constitution revised t.
correct this and other Objectionable
features. Parties formed on tn
question, one of which, withou
authority of the constitution, car
ried a constitutional convention bill
The convention promulgated ney
constitution, under which officers o
the State were appointed. Thes
were resisted in the attempt to oc
cupy the offices by the officers hold
ing them under the old constitution
There was clash, riots occurred
arrests were made for trespass. Th
matter went up to the Suprem
Court of the United States, wher
nine judges decided that the ne,
constitution was illegal, because tn
manner in which it was obtaine,
was not authorized in the origina
constitution. Similar results wer
liable to follow similar measur
here. IT might cause disturbance
perhaps ending in the loss of ma
tional independence. The Hous
had been admonished to heed th
voice of the people, which was SAT-
to be the voice of God. But sup
posing that the convention was he'll
and that a new constitution wa
, made, how would it be if our Su
, preme Court declared the Who'll
, thing illegal? The bill ought to b
, indefinitely postponed.
, Rep. r. w. Wilcox moved for re
! cess, which was taken at 80.