The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-09-15
Continued from LIST Page,)

NODle nurStOn Salu the Attorney (
General had said it was q matter of |
taste whether the Cabinet was voted |
out or not. That was not so. 1t |
was not matter of taste, personal
feeling or jealousy. "Of all sad |
things of tongue or pen the saddest
are these" to have been Cabinet |
Minister. There was no position so
hard to bear, so thankless, as that of
a Cabinet Minister He did not,
therefore, oppose these men for him
self or his friends, but on principle
Several speakers had said personal
feeling was the motive of the opposi-
ton. He had no more of that than
he had few days ago when they
had stood shoulder to shoulder in
voting out the previous Ministry and
later they were all yachting together
at Pearl Harbor on the best Of
terms. If "genial Paul " was not his
friend as much afterwards as before;
if Mr.. Macfarlane did not work with
him as much and as cordially as be
fore in advertising the country
abroad, it certainly would not = ''s
fault. 1t had been said the majoI.
did not know what it wanted. i.
did know; an issue was never more
clear cut than now. 1t was the ques-
ton of representative government
VS.. personal governmental the
right of the majority to rule. This
was not principle invented by the
Reform party. 1t had been develop
ed by Great Britain, the mother of
Liberty, with blood and iron through
a thousand years of struggle and
suffering. Hawaiians have inherited
these rights so easily that they did
not know what it was to fight for
them. If Hawaiians had had to fight
for their rights instead of receiving
them as a present, they would not
talk in the presence of great, plain
principle, about personal jealousy"
and "scrambling for office" They
don't know what they are talking
about. After forty years only the
Hawaiians have reached a position
which it took England thousand
years to win. Forty years ago the
monarch was absolute here. Ka-
mehameha V. could send Legisla-
ture home and put forth Con
stitution resting on his own will
alone, and the whole country sub
mitted to it. Would we stand
that kind of thing to-day, gentle
men? No! and yet that was only
a few years ago-in 1865. Yet
the country put up with it then
The common people We're afraid OF
the chiefs, and the monarchy was
practically absolute. Only six short
years ago, in 1886, what was the stu
alton? We had a king who put
Cabinets in and put them out with
out caring snap of the finger what
the Legislature said about it. He
usually chose his Ministers at mid
night. He kicked them out after a
vote of want of confidence had fail
ed, and kept them in after the
House had voted them out. 1t was
called constitutional monarchy. 1t
was constitutional farce. That
was personal rule as opposed to re-
preventative rule. The king was
practically absolute as far as the
Cabinet was concerned. If by any
means the people elected anybody
to represent them, they were faced
by "a Mobiles who represented only
the king. You might talk yourself
deaf, dumb and blind, and you could
not move the Mobiles. Was that re.
preventative government? No IT
was personal government OF
most absolute kind. Few countr.
ON this broad earth have made more
rapid progress in political liberty
than we. Only in 1886 the king had al
absolute veto. His mo" outweightet
4S votes. Now bill can be carried
over his head. Office holders have
been banished from the House. w,
have advanced so far that now in
stead of Cabinet trembling before
the King, we have one which is owe
his head, whose advice he is bount
to take, and which can be only pu
out of Office by vote of 25 of TIN
elected members of the House. Som
day, do not know when it will be
but some day, as surely as the su
rises and sets, the people will rul
absolutely in this country, and W
won't have any monarch. | don
believe the country is ready for tina
to-day. It may not be ready mex
year, nor for many years, but the da
must come, for it is the tendency G
the whole world. The time whe
the monarch can ride roughsho