The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-06-14

YOU mean to rule that this House has no
power to remove an obnoxious minister
without removing all? That is the effect
of your ruling.
The President have not made any
such ruling.
THE remainder of the afternoon ses-
sion will appear in Mondays issue.)
Evening Session.
The House re-assembled at Z 80 P. NJ.
Rep. Nawahi continuing said-What
the people want is good government, a
Cabinet which commands the respect of
the people, and when they cease to do
80 they ought to 60 out. have nothing
against the Ministers personally, nothing
except their official acts. l have nothing
against the Minister of Finance, person
ally. But in this matter mentioned by
Attorney-General, of the appointment of
@. L. Carter to the tax appeal board,
think he did wrong. So have nothing
against the Minister of Foreign Affairs
except that the Finance committee have
charged him with concealing documents.
So with the Minister of the Interior.
have nothing against him except that
the Auditor-General charges him with
acts which he thinks the House ought to
investigate. don't know why we should
single out single Minister and pass a
vote of want of confidence against him.
If what we have been told is true, they
have all been guilty OF misconduct, for
which they merit the censure of this
Assembly. We have heard of conspira-
cies to put Mrs. Dominis on the throne,
and the Attorney-General has told us
that the Minister of the Interior was at
the bottom of that. So in regard to the
treaty the Attorney General says it was q
treaty to sell out the independence OF
the country think if these things are
true, all the Cabinet ought to 60. If the
Ministers have acted so before they will
do it again. think we had better lei
them 60 tonight. l don't care what
side of the House the new Ministry
comes from, as long as we have new
Ministry. l say let us settle this to-
night.
Noble Baldwin This is an exceed.
ingly important question. The amend.
ment involves principles which trans.
cend and overtop everything else. The
question is not primarily whether G. w
Ashford shall go and the other Ministers
stay, but whether one man shall rule OF
not. The country expects US on oul
oaths to decide this question according
to the right, to strip it of all personal
feeling and decide according to what il
right. Neither resolution brings any
charge against the Ministers. Both are
based on their dissension only. The
amendment Il do not remember it's pre-
else terms) took hold of that principle
These are the facts in the case. The
Acknowledgement advised His Majesty
not to sign the authorization to negotiate
| the treaty and not to sign H. F. Heb
bard's commission. His Majesty took
| the ground that when the Cabinet is q
unit he is not called upon to act, not
withstanding the opinion of the Supreme
Court. This is not partizan question
| and we should not make it So If We
| decide that one member can destroy the
action of the Cabinet, we will be on very
dangerous ground. Suppose few
| months hence member of the Cabinet
| chooses to block its action. There viii
be nothing to hinder it. Some of the
| members have had good deal to say
| about Article Al of the Constitution. tt
| me it seems very plain. will read it
1t begins with the phrase-the Cabinet
that confuses some, as though tina
phrase governs the whole article, but i
does not. The next sentence begins, no
with " the Cabinet" but with they
They are removable for instance if con
victed on felony. According to the in
depreciation of the Attorney-Generalt hiI
would mean that the whole Cabine
would have to be convicted of felony. I
seems perfectly clear that vote of wan
of confidence can be brought against one
two or three. By so doing we would b,
establishing no new precedent. Tim,
and again, in the United States, Eng
land and other countries, an offending
Minister has been pushed out of thu
Cabinet. The matter stands in this wa,
then. The Acknowledgement has defiet
the rest of the Cabinet. It rests with u
to decide for one or the other. 1t is
tremendously important question. will
not discuss the merits of the Cabinet
actions. I do MOI think they are befor,
us. They are in the hands of the com
mittee and we ought not to prejudg
them.
Noble McCarthy-The last speaker ha
informed us that we are sent here to d,
what is right. Mr. President, propos
to do what think is right. believe il
the right of the House to pass vote o
| want OF commence on single memDcr
But resolution of want of confidenc
has been brought against the whole Cab
met, and think the whole Cabinet ha
shown by its action that it does not de
serve the confidence of this House. /
majority of the voters of the country hav
decided against this Ministry. On Ha
waii the independent members wer'
largely elected by voters of our party
Mr.. President, this Ministry was defeate,
at the polls. The last speaker inform
us that we should treat this in a non
partizan way. But, MIR. President, is
non-partizan to 60 into caucus and sig
paper agreeing to vote for want G
confidence against the AttorneyG Genera
on condition that the rest of the Cabine
should resign next day. Should tn
Ministers say they did not put thi
"troops" clause there, neither did MI
Carter nor MIR. Blaine. If nobody wa
in favor OF it how did it come there
The principal involved seems to be tina
the Ministers of the Cabinet should nc
block the Cabinet. | think that is al
right, but gentleman Of their own part
who was SO disguised that he called it