The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-06-17
THE CABINET.

The Bulletin IN an eUlIOrldl Vi
June 10th, argues that the Cabinet,
not being able to agree, ought to
step out and give place to Cabinet
which can. If this were the view
of the Legislature. it ought never
to have made the differences IN the
Cabinet the subject of inquiry.
That they have done SO is proof
that they did not take this view,
but believed that there was a right
and wrong in the matter, which
could be ascertained and should be
ascertained, with a view not to
condemning both parties, as the
Bulletin would have it do, but to
punish the party in the wrong.
There ought to be no differences in
the Cabinet-that is certain. And
the Constitution, as interpreted by
the Supreme Court, provides that
there shall be none by subordinate
ing the will of the minority to that
of the majority. Some one must be
in the wrong, and it is the business
of the Legislature to ascertain who
it is and to act accordingly. The
Bulletin would have a useful and
patriotic Minister sacrificed be-
cause another officer of the Govern
ment has acted illegally. To de-
prive the country of the services of
the majority of the Cabinet be-
cause the minority has violated the
law. seems very absurd. Yet that
is the logic of the Bulletin article.
The ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ought to
have resigned long ago, if he found
himself not in harmony with his
colleagues He did not do so, and
the rest of the Cabinet could not
turn him out. Are they respon-
sible, pray, for his want of delicacy
in refusing to resign, and for his
abuse of his position while remain
ing? The Bulletin seems to think so.
If the Attorney General on the
other hand, has followed as he con-
tends, patriotic course in resist
ing the rest of the Cabinet, his
conduct ought to be approved, and
not condemned. The Bulletin would
punish him for his very heroism,
and sacrifice him to his own vir
tues. On the other hand, if it
should appear that he has acted
illegally and unwarrantably the
Legislature ought to fix the seal of
it's condemnation upon him.
The differences in the Cabinet
have not been paraded by them.
The Legislature itself has made
them the subject of inquiry, and by
so doing has assumed the RESPONSE
bility of sitting the matter to the
bottom, of Furnishing the guilty and
indicating the innocent. This is a
responsibility which cannot be
evaded, now that it has been vol
UNFAIRLY undertaken. The assump-
ton of the Bulletin that the facts
cannot be ascertained merely be-
cause there are contradictory state
ments, is very strange one, which
would produce very strange results
if adopted by the Courts of justice.
Denials do not always carry equal
weight-and we venture to say
that the asser. ions of Ministers
Damon, Austin and Thurston have
very different weight in the minds
of candid men of all parties, than
those of the Attorney-General.
1t is true the case of the Cabinet
is to be tried before a jury of parti-
zans, but we cannot think so i'll of
human nature as to believe that
there are no men in either party
capable of deciding according to
the truth even if it should run
counter to their prejudices. We
believe there are such men in both
parties. Prejudice plays mighty
role in determining opinion, but not
the safe one, even in politics.