The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-09-25
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Report of the Select Committee on
the Bill, as Presented tn the Legis-

Kingdom.
SIR The select committee to which
was referred Bill No. 125, entitled Gar
Act to convene delegates to frame Con
stitution for the Hawaiian Kingdom, >
and several other proposed amendment:
to the Constitution and acts relative
thereto report upon the first OF said bllli
as follows:
They have considered the subject mat
ter OF said bill, and have endeavored &c
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
a 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 ac-
quainted, 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
it is only in recent years, and
more particularly, perhaps, in some of
the United States of America, that at
tempts 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.
1t is claimed by those who would have a
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
ticularly urged that the Hawaiians are
deprived of right. 1t is also urged that
a new constitution is necessary in order
that the Chinese question may be set
tied, but 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 for reasons which
are overwhelming and imperative in their
nature. 1t is for this reason that in coun-
tries governed under written constitu-
tons any change in or interference with
the constitution is guarded with great
care, and it is generally prescribed that
changes shall not be made without pre-
liminary action on the part of the regu-
larly authorized legislature of the couu-
try, after which the matter must be sub
mitted to a popular vote, or that a sue
ceeding legislature, elected IN view of the
proposed change, should act finally
thereon. 1t is only by such safeguards
that hasty and i'll considered action can
be averted. The truth of this is illus
trated from the fact that many proposed
constitutional 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
United States.
In considering the constitutional ques-
tons in America and comparing and
contrasting them with Hawaii, the com
parison must be made with the individ-
ual States rather than with the Federal
Constitution. In view of the fact that
the latter is grant of limited powers
wherein it has been held by the Supreme
Court OF the United States that no power
not expressly defined is delegated to the
Congress, whereas, in Constitutions OF
the various States, it is held that no
power is denied unless specifically so
stated in the Constitution or the method
OF its exercise is therein prescribed. In
treating the question of the urgent neces-
sity for change in our constitutional
law and whether there has been VIC
lence done to private or public right, ii
is well to compare the Constitution un-
der which the country was governed
from 1864 to 1887 with that of 1887. 1t
is remarkable, in examining the two
constitutions to find what few changes
have, in point of fact, been made. Ii
was generally supposed that Hawaii was
a Constitutional Monarchy, and it was
only on account of the corruption and
misgovernment which it was seen was
possible under the Constitution of 1864
that a demand, very nearly universal,
was instituted for a change, and the
change which the country demanded
was not in our form of government, but
such a change as should assure to us
constitutional representative government
in fact, as we'll as in name. 1t required
but few changes to accomplish this, and
these changes were accomplished by the
Constitution OF 1887, which was the re-
suit of universal demand on the part oi
the people. Therefore, in a comparison
of the two constitutions, we find that the
changes which have been made specii'
cally define the powers OF the King
make the Cabinet responsible in fact to
the people through the Legislature
and takes from the King the
naming OF one, and gives to the
people the election of the two
branches of the Legislature. 1t also
takes away the power which might exist
with a corrupt government to maintain
itself and to perpetuate wicked govern
ment by corrupting the legislative body
with the offer of public offices. This
| latter principle is recognized IN Other
constitutional countries. In England il
is matter unheard OF to permit govern
| ment officers to interfere in any manner
with elections and, in the same manner
no member of Parliament can be pur
chased by the gift OF an office under the
| Crown. The Constitution OF 1887 ex
, actly as much as that of 1864 maintain!
Hawaii as constitutional monarchy anC
the provisions to guard the throne art
specific and clear in their nature The
| Constitution of the United States and o
many of the States recognizes the same
principle with regard to legislature anC
| office holding as is set forth in our Con
stitution. That the Constitution of 1SS'
was generally acceptable to the people il
clearly shown by its prompt acceptanc,
on the part of the nation and the fac
that every voter in the country immedi
ately swore to sustain it. Had the PEG
ple universally or in q large maiorlt'