The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-11-17


tive proceedings of the preceding
evening, at which session were passed
the proposed Constitutional amend
ments, including those to disfranchise
all voters other than subjects" of
the realm. Let us see how well those
proceedings bear out your charge that
1.-THE measure is conceived III the in
terest of the Bush-WilcOX faction,
as it weakens the influence of every
element which they do not directly
control" Kindly submit to being
judged by your own reports and ut
terances on this subject, scarce more
than a itwelve-month old.
We find, then, when the "Omni-
bus Bill,u embracing little of every
thing in the way of Constitutional
amendment, and including the sweep
ing Acknowledgement of foreigners,
came up for final passage, Mr.. Cecil
Brown moved that the ayes and noes
be taken on section (article) after
being read. When Article SO Ito dis
franchise all Noble voters owing
foreign allegiance was read, it passed
on a division of 81 to 5. Who were
the 81 advocates of Acknowledgement :?
Without naming them all here, will
mention the following names which,
I assume, you do not include among
the terrible "faction" referred to,
viz. Cecil Brown, Cummins, Spen-
Ger, Peterson, Widemann, Berger,
Horner q. NJ, Horner CIV. ",
Parker, Baldwin, Walbridge, Will
cox g. NJ, Wilcox "a. S., Horner
(A.), and Knudsen. Who opposed
the Acknowledgement? Only five
members, but their names are elo-
quent in REPUTATION of your present
claim, viz: Messrs. r. w. Wilcox,
Baker, Waipuilani, White and Kane
ALI.
The fact that the amendment to
Article 81 qualifications of electors of
Representatives passed without OPP
position, does not support your posi-
ton nor weaken mine. By the time
the veto on that article was reached,
it was evident that it would pass, and
by the aid of Reform votes, and the
futility of opposition was demon
strated. Not one member of the So
called Reform party opposed the
acknowledgements and Mr.. Baldwin,
the most influential and leading
member of that party in the House,
was not only an ardent supporter of
acknowledgements but was a promi-
nent member of the committee that
conceived and recommended that
measure. Let these facts reply to
your imputation of intrigue on the
part of the native Hawaiian element,
in that "the measure is conceived in
the interest of" the Bush-WilcoX fac
ton.
Now let us consider your editorial
comments upon that measure, Mr..
Editor. In your issue of November
Is, 1890, you say, in reference to the
success of the "Omnibus Bill" "The
third reading of the amendments to
the Constitution was taken up Mon
day evening, and all were approved,
almost unanimously. The ONLY ONE
WHICH IS OPEN TO CRITICISM is
THAT RELATIVE TO BILLS
VETOED BY THE KING" (Smali capt.
tails are mine.) Gin Article SO, the
adoption of the word subject for
resident is not change of any
radical importance, and may possibly
prove useful in the event of a claim
by foreign government, for endow-
ing its subjects resident temporarily
in this Kingdom with the franchise,
when they are wholly incapable of
understanding the Importance of the
trust" etc. THE AMENDMENT TO
ARTICLE 62, SUBSTITUTING THE
WORD SUBJECT FOR RESIDENT
WILL BE GENERALLY ENDORSED
(My small capitals, again. = "On
the whole, the Special Committee on
Amendments to certain Articles of
the Constitution, carried the Legisla-
ture with them, and they deserve
well of the country. We venture to
hope that the most rabid plat
form and street-corner orators of a
few months ago find themselves
quietly put aside by this plain COM
mon sense OF THE REFORM PARTY,
ASSISTED AND SUPPORTED BY THE
CONSERVATIVE WING OF THE So
CALLED NATIONALS" (Still my
small capitals.)
Now, Mr.. Editor, were you right in
1890, when you lauded disfranchise-
ment as the "plain common-sense of
the Reform party?" or are you right
in 1891, when you denounce disfran-
chisement as an odious thing, con-
ceived in the interest of the Bush
Wilcox faction? Were you correct in
declaring, in 1890, that disfranchise-
ment was not even 'open to criti-
cism?" or are you correct in your 1891
position of denouncing it as scheme
of place hunters?
Now, Mr.. Editor, for a few facts.
The most pertinent of these, perhaps,
is that the attempted disfranchise-
ment of the 'bone and siuewn of the
foreign element is part of the So
called reform project to so concentrate
the voting power that they, the Re-
form "barons," can again handle it at
will, and marching their men to
the polls like cattle, dictate and con-
troll the suffrage of the alleged free
man, and nominate and regulate all
legislators and legislation, with the
profitable etceteras behind and beyond
these ceremonies. I know whereof I
speak in this matter, and cite the
measure above discussed as carrying
into effect of the sentiment once ex-
pressed by prominent sugar factor
and Reform wire-puller, that consti-
tutional amendments would be in or
der, to emancipate the body polite
from the dictation and control of ssthe
riff-whites." By the term quoted, it
is assumed that said wire-puller re-
ferred to those white men who differed
from his peculiar ideas of politics.