The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-01-28
THE PROPERTY QUALIFICATION.

its evening organ, is opposed to any
modification of the constitutional
property qualification Of voters for
Mobiles.
Oar views in favor of property
qualification have been expressed
more than once. We believe in
such qualification. But modili-
cation Of the present arrangement
we decidedly favor, because the law
rs it now stands manifestly misses
the true intent Of property qnaliii-
cation.
The intent in other countries, and
we assume it to he the same here, is
to give greater power to the man
who has a tangible interest in the
country than to the man who lacks it,
That intent is certainly not subscrv-
ed by our constitutional provision.
TO illustrate: man living in
country district is the owner of n
small tract of land, on which he
lives and which he cultivates. lie
keeps . COW or two, some pigs,
| chickens, n horse, etc. His entire
property does not amount to the
taxable or market value Of $4,000.
And vet he has real interest IN the
country, is settled in it for life, and
brings ul family respectfully on
his property. Most of their neces-
sary supplies come from the land;
but that, according to the Supreme
Court, counts nothing in the mans
income. lie sells produce to pro-
cure clothing and such ncccssaries
of life as he cannot raise by his own
labor; hul he does not sell 10 the
amount of 5000 per annum.
This man is'a property owner, a
householder, the father of Il family
born on the soil, is allied to the
country ny his real interest in it,
and consequently is to be relied up
on rs Il true subject or citizen; and
vet he has no vote for Mobiles. The
case is no imaginary one, There
are hundreds of men in this country,
even on this island, in the position
described,
Now come to the city, where you
find scores of employees at fifty dol
lars q month and upwards. who live
in lodgings, own no real estate, are
not houscholdcrs, have no families,
do not care two straws whether the
country sinks or swms, as they have
no tangible interest in it, and are
ready to put on their hats and 'skin
OUT at any moments and yet they
have vote for Mobiles, while the
other man, who by right and reason
has better claim, is excluded.
Another point to he noted is the
taxes paid to the government. The
disfranchised land owner and set
ler-disfranchised so far as the
vote for Mobiles is cOncerncd-con-
tributes more to the public treasury
than the other man who is given the
privilege Of voting for the two
classes of members. The latter
simply pays his FIVE dollars personal
tax, while the property owner pays,
in addition to q similar sum, tax
on his real estate. The man paying
the smaller amount is given the
greater privilege.
DO just and thoughtful men de,
sire to see this anomaly perpclu'
a,cd? The boast Of its new organ
that the Reform Party contends fol
the stat" quo in this regard is not
20 the credit of the party, and i,
not calculated to gain the support OF
thinking men. We contend for q
property qualification, but for q
modification that will so alter the
present provision as TO conform to
the principle that the man really
allied to the country, whether native
born or naturallsed, is the proper
man to have the chief say in the
management of its public affairs.