The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-06-07
ASKS FOR PAPERS
Continued from First PageJ

taken away and the money gotten out
Of the soil in another way.
At the conclusion Of the speech by
the Minister of Finance there was ap-
plause on the part Of the members of
the House who favored the passage of
the bill.
Rep. Loebenstein said that il was a
trite saying that a late conversion is
ancial regeneration as proposed by the
Minister Of Finance came at a late
day The poll tax was certainly a
just one for it gave equal rights to the
poor and the rich. Rep. Achi called
the attention Of the speaker to the
report OF the Minister of Finance in
which he recommends the abolition OF
the poll tax. The poll tax should GER
tainIy be removed. 1t no longer need
ed. In Olden times il was for the eX-
press purpose of the payment Of the
salary of the reigning monarch. 1t
was very hard at the present time for
the poor man to make a living Tho
time would come when it would be an
easy matter for the rich man to make
money while it would be a very hard
job for the poor man to even make a
living.
Rep. Isenberg objected to the use OF
the word poverty as applied TO the
natives. There was no need for them
to be poor. There were many men on
the Islands who would give the first
preference to the natives as labOrers.
For himself he would be willing to
give a native $40 month instead of
SD 10 a Chinaman. The fault how
ever was all with the natives them
selves. Rep. Isenberg said in closing:
Let us leave the Japanese and Chi
nese in their own countries and take
our natives to work
Rep Robertson stated that there ap-
peared to be two reasons for OppO-
sitiOn TO the bill The first was to
the effect that the poll tax of one dol
lar was in consideration of the voting
right. In the first place the matter
of voting was not a right but a privil-
egey so that the argument fell to the
ground Immediately. Again there
were many men on the Islands who
had to pay their taxes without being
allowed the privilege of voting. The
second argument was to the effect that
the Government was in need of the
revenue produced by the poll tax. This
was certainly very rich TO come from
men who had voted against Schedule
E. The House represented the masses
as distinguished from the classes.
Certainly the members should not
halt in the removal of 81 from the
poor when the majority of the mem
bers had not long ago voted for the
removal of thousands of dollars from
the rich. The argument was advanced
that there was need of the revenue.
The question was how ought it to be
raised Should the So be taken from
Tom, Dick and Harry whether they
had the privilege of voting or not or
should it be taken from the people
who could we'll afford to pay. The
members of the House would not be
doing their duty by the people whom
they represent if they rallied to remove
the poll tax in the face of having vOseG
for the defeat of Schedule z.
Upon being put TO vote there was
a tie on the question of indefinite post
ponement. Those who for voted for
this were as follows: Reps. POgue.
McCandless. Atkinson, Richards, Paris,
Loebenstein and Isenberg. The other
side was as follows: Reps. Robertson,
KaeO. Gear, Wilder, Kaai, Achi and
KahauleliO. Speaker KaulukOu voted
against indefinite pOstpOnement.
When the question of passage in sec
Ond reading was put the vote stood
the same with the exception of Rep.
Atkinson who changed his views and
voted for passage. This made s to 6.
At 4:15 the House adjourned.