The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-09-30
CONSTITUTIONAL: CONVENTION.


Isfure.
To THE HoN. J. :. WALKER, President o.
the Legislature OF the Hawaiian
Kingdom.
SIR: The select committee TO which
was referred Bill No. l25. entitled Gan
Act 10 convene delegates to frame Con-
stitution for the Hawaiian Kingdom,
Snd several other proposed amendments
10 the Constitution and acts relative
thereto report upon the first OF said bills
As follows:
They have considered the subject mat
ter OF said bill. and have endeavored to
obtain information, light and authority
upon the grave question involved there
In, in order that the same may be placed
before this House in the cleareSt possible
manner. The object sought to be OBJ
tanned by the said bill is the framing of
= new constitution for the country by
methods other than those prescribed in
the body OF the Constitution itself. For
any departure from the methods laid
down IN the Constitution, which is iden-
teal with that contained in the constitu-
ton OF 1864, and with which methods
the people OF the country are well &C
quRinted, only the gravest reasons should
exist 1t therefore becomes necessary
that we should consider whether such
grave and important reasons are in ex-
istence.
Countries which are governed by the
principles set forth in written constitu-
tons endeavor to have set forth in such
constitutions only fundamental principles
OF law. This Is the case in all OF
the great constitutional countries. and
II i only in recent years, and
more particularly, perhaps, in some OF
the United States of America, that at
tempis have been made to incorporate
mere legislative matter in the constitu-
tons. The Constitution OF Hawaii has
not departed from the doctrine OF having
fundamental principles set forth therein. /
IL Is claimed by those who would have q |
constitutional convention convened at |
once that the constitution OF 1887 does |
violence to matters OF private right on /
the part OF the people, but it is more par
ticularlv urged that the Hawaiians are /
deprived OF right. 1t is also urged that |
s new constitution Is necessary in order |
that the Chinese question may be set
tied, bit any interference with or change
in the principles which underlie the laws
Of the country should be allowed only
when there are great public questions at
stake, and when there is oppression
among the people. There should be no
such interference except Tor reasons which
are overwhelming and imperative in their
nature. Il Is Tor this reason that in ccun-
tries governed under written constitu-
tons any change in or interference with
the constitution IS guarded with great
care. ard y : generally prescribed that
changes shall not be made without pre-
liminary action on the part OF the regu-
larry authorized legislature OF the coun-
try. after which the matter must be sub
mitted TO popular vote, or that a sue
ceeding legislature, elected IL view OF the
proposed change, should act finally
thereon. 1t Is only by such safeguards
that hasty and i'll considered action can |
Be syerted. The truth Of this is Illus.
-rated iron the TACT that many proposed {
changes in Hawaii in past !
years have been defeated on the meeting
Of the succeeding legislature TO that
which first proposed the change; and
also that the same principle has prevent
ed radical changes in constitutions OF the l
United States.
In considering the constitutional ques-
ions IN America and comparing and {
them with Hawaii, the COM I
Darison must be made with the individ t
Ial States rather than with the Federal /
Constitution. In view OF the fact that {
he latter Is 3 grant OF limited powers I
wherein il has been held by the Supreme {
Court OF the United States that no power {
not expressly defined is delegated to the I
Congress, whereas, in Constitutions OF |
he various States, it is held that no !
power Is denied unless specifically SO
stated in the Constitution or the method '
II Its exercise Is therein prescribed. In :
reating the question OF the urgentneces-
;ity for a change in our constitutional
aw and whether there has been vio- '
ence done to private OF public right, it |
5 we'll TO compare the Constitution I'M
Ter which the country was governed
rom 1864 to 1857 with that OF 1857 1t
s remarkable, in examining the two
constitutions to find what few changes /:
nave, in point OF fact, been made. 1t
vas generally supposed that Hawaii was ;
! Constitutional Monarchy, and it was :
Jnly on account OF the corruption and |
which ii was seen was |
possible under the Constitution OF 1864 ,
hat a demand, very nearly universal,
vas instituted for 4 change, and the |
,hange which the country demanded
vas not in our form OF government, but ;
such 2 change as should assure to US
representative government
n fact, as well as in name. 1t required
but few changes to accomplish this, and |
hese changes were accomplished by the
Constitution OF 1857, which was the re-
suit OF universal demand on the part of
he people. Therefore, in a comparison
Of the two constitutions, We find that the
changes which have been made specifi-
ally define the powers of the King; |
make the Cabinet responsible in fact to |
he people through the Legislature;
aud takes from the King the
naming OF one, and gives 10 the
people the election OF the two
branches of the Legislature 1t also
axes away the power which might exist
with q corrupt government to maintain :
tself and to perpetuate wicked govern |
nent by corrupting the legislative body ;
With the offer OF public offices This I
after principle is recognized IN other
ooupfr-aS In EpoiopI II ,