The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-06-17
AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Committee of the Whole re.
assembled at 1:30.
Rep. Kaunamano held that the
functions of the Privy Council were
advisory, not executive.
Noble J. M. Horner took the ground
that the Privy Council and Notaries
were not disqualified, and he favored
the motion to indefinitely postpone
consideration of the matter.
Rep. Kapahu thought notaries ELI
gible.
Noble Neumann thought the way
in which this question had been taken
up was highly creditable, free as it
was from all passion and partnership.
The report made by Mr.. Smith and
himself had been presented simply as
q discharge of duty to the public. If
it were adopted, the House would lose
one of it's most valuable members.
He felt like Calico, who had to
choose between being burned at the
stake and admitting that the sun
moved round the earth. He recanted,
but muttered afterwards, "but still
the earth moves.' We hold still that
we were right in our report. The
speaker referred with appreciation to
the statement of Noble Baldwin, that
the question could not be settled by
any action of this House beyond the
session. He could not support, how
ever, the motion to indefinitely post
pone, but should support his report,
even if he stood alone with his col
league Mr.. Smith. Going on to speak
of the Privy Council, the speaker said
it was an advisory body solely. 1t was
so described in Article 40 of the Con-
stitution, which ne would read. Every
article of the Constitution containing
any reference to the Privy Council
supported this view. There was
nothing to compel the Queen or
Cabinet to follow the advice of the
Council. The Council had no power
to compel her. How then could it be
executive in it's character? The power
conferred on the Council to appro-
pirate money was really legislative.
The object of Article 20, under which
this controversy had arisen, was to
keep the three branches of the Gov
eminent distinct. In 1886 the House
was full of office holders. He would
not say they were corrupt, but the
country, by adopting this Constitu-
ton, had preferred to exclude that
possibility altogether. 1t had been
properly said, in the course of the
debate, that this office did not come
within the view of Article 90, because
it was not an office of emolument.
That was a strong point. With these
remarks he would leave the privy
councillors and address himself to the
question of notary publics. The law
provided that the Minister of the Iu-
terror should appoint one or more
notaries in each district, who should
hold during the pleasure of the Min.
! lister. The Minister could remove
him when he so pleased, without
assigning any cause. The Office was
| one of emolument. The analogy to
all executive officer was close. He
had certain prescribed duties. He had
the power to legalize documents which
without his signature would not have
that character. He could not delegate
his powers. All these circumstances
showed clearly that he was public
| officer. There was no resemblance
between the cases of notaries and
attorneys. The former had fees pre-
scribed by law for certain acts, which
was not true of an attorney. Notaries
had definite functions which were
recognized everywhere in the civilized
world. The position had every mark
of an official one, viz, appointment,
tenure, duties and emolument. He
regretted the necessity which forced
this opinion upon him, and which
would compel him to vote against the
motion of Noble Young.
Rep. Nawahi asked who made the
constitution.
Noble Neumann said it was pro-
mulgated by His Majesty and accept
| ed for the people. He had taken the
oath to support it, and should do SO
until the people changed it, and he
hoped the member would follow his
example which was very good one.
the ingenuity with which the mem.
Der had argued himself into the
House on two points while he argued
himself 1.-THE speaker) out on one.
The hon. Mobiles failing had never
been modesty, as was shown by his
signing the report which declared
him eligible to membership. The
speaker did not intend to go into the
merits of the question fully as he
believed the House had light enough
to vote on the matter. The reports
had disagreed. Who should decide
when doctors disagree? What the
country needed above all just now
was tranquility, and that would best
be served by postponing this matter
He wished to kokua what been al
ready said, viz, that any action taken
now would simply bind the House
for the time being. The sheriffs and
deputy sheriffs, police and district
judges were those the trainers Of
this constitution had in mind when
they drafted Art. 20. There was not
a thought of notaries or privy coun.
cillors.
Rep. Smith said there was but one
ground on which the indefinite post.
ponement could be justified, and thai
was TO introduce an Act to declare
the meaning of the constitution on