The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-12-21
STANDING COMMITTEES.

port on Bill 22l, relating to amending
Section S of the Judiciary Act. The
committee did not favor the bill.
Tabled for consideration with the bill.
Noble Kauhane, from Education
Committee, reported on Bill ODD, re-
lating to the appointing of school
teachers by the Inspector General of
Schools from among native Hawai-
ians and foreign residents. The COM
mittee recommended to lay the bill
on the table. The report was adopted.
Rep. Waipuilani, from Public Lands
Committee, presented report on Bill
"A, relating to Homestead Act. The
committee considered this bill of no
advantages, and they therefore pre-
sented an amended bill, signed by the
members of the committee.
The new bill took its usual course.
RESOLUTIONS.
Minister Wilcox announced that it
had pleased Her Majesty to sign the
4 following bills:
Bill 1873, to exempt certain forest
lands from taxation.
Bill BOG, relating to the vending of
goods and merchandise.
Bill 216, relating to duties.
Bill 126, relating to highways.
Bill 70, relating to dentistry.
Minister Wilcox replied to question
of Noble Horner, setting forth first,
that the Queen had vetoed Bill IT'S by
the advice of the Cabinet; and second,
that the Cabinet would execute the
bill if carried over the veto.
Acknowledgement Brown gave no.
tice of an Act to prevent the landing
nj f1nifiVo3 and ctnw1uaUa
AT 9:47 A. NJ. the House proceeded
to the
ORDER OF THE DAY.
Consideration of vetoed bill I75.
The Secretary read the veto mes
sage.
Rep. Kamauoha moved that the
consideration of Bill It's be indefin-
itely postponed, and that the ayes and
noes be taken.
Noble Horner said the House had
spent a good many weeks trying to
establish the principle of popular gov
ernment, which was the principle of
majority rule. 1t had spent long
time on the Appropriation bill. It
had voted out two or three Cabinets
to maintain this principle, even when
their members were unobjectionable.
Now. to sit quietly down and let this
bill be defeated by veto, is to
stultify ourselves. He did not believe
in the idea that the House had no
right to define the hours of labor of
Government employees. 1t was not
reasonable. The House had the right,
and now to have four men step in and
slap us in the face, and say this is
none of your business; it would be a
disgrace to us, if we submitted to 1T.
The House through its committees
has gone into every branch of the
Government, investigated it, fixed
the wages of employees, cut down
their number, etc. That was all
right, but when it came to saying,
you shall work a little longer, then
these gentlemen across the way said
we had no right to do it. We were
entrenching on the rights of the Exc
cutive. If so, we have been doing it
all along. All these matters which
we have changed in the appropriation
bill have been interferences with the
Executive, and the bill must be
vetoed. There was no use in standing
up for principle any longer, if this
veto is to stand.
Rep. r.. w. Wilcox said his expert.
ence was that those who talked the
loudest about principle stuck to it
just as long as was convenient, and
that was all. So he should support
the veto of Her Majesty.
Noble Horner did not wish to reflect
on Her Majesty for recommending
this veto. The Cabinet were willing
to father it, and it came on them.
Rep. Bipikane said the bill was the
act of the House. He had helped to
pass the bill, and was going to stand
by it. With him yes meant YES, and
no meant no, to the end.
Rep. Smith had not been in favor of
the bill on the third reading, and he
thought it on the whole unwise. But
that was not the sole question now.
The veto was ministerial. He must
take issue with the Ministers on some
of the grounds in the veto message.
The contention that the bill was an
unconstitutional interference with the
Executive was literally absurd, and
would appear SO upon a little refiec-
ton. On this principle, the House,
in the Judiciary Act, had been guilty
of a most glaring interference with
the Judiciary Department. 1t had de-
fined its terms, its jurisdiction, the
number of judges aud clerks, the
character of their work, and the rate
vi COlHpSilSdtlOn. Inc Judges
might say, We are more COM
petent to define the duties of
our employees. We know best
how much they should be paid. The
Legislature should not interfere. How
absurd that would be. He could not
approve ofthis veto-not in any spirit
OF faction opposition. He believed
the Cabinet had used their best judg-
ment, bat they had grievously erred.
Some of the objections to the bill made
in the debate were most puerile and
thoughtless. The contention for in
stance that policemen under this law
could not be compelled to work more
than seven and half hours day
was preposterous. The bill merely
said that they should work not less
than seven ana a half hours a day.
Attor.ey-General Brown-Does it
say they must work more?
Rep. Smith said that was question
he was ashamed to hear. The ground
set forth by Noble Horner was not
the only one on which the veto should
be opposed. The Queen had a right
10 veto any bill, and could not be held
To account for it in anyway. But il
was generally conceded that the rirht
should merely lie exercised on the
most important occasions to avert y
great public danger; but this was NOT
case of that kind, and the gronnds
ses lofth In the message were wholly
erroneous and incousistent with the
III