University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Foreign Relations of the United States

Page View

United States Department of State / Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the fiftieth Congress, 1888-'90

Hawaii,   pp. 832-875 ff. PDF (19.9 MB)

Page 840

840                          FOREIGN RELATIONS.
Does it not appear to conflict in any of its clauses ? The rule of construction
be so exercised as to give force to all of its points if possible. If this
requires the
limitation of any part, such limitation will be placed upon such part in
order that
it may have effect. If *parts are totally repugnant, the clauses last in
time and place
will control. These laws are recognized in England and the United States,
and-are ad-
.nirably laid down in Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, p. 71, etc. With
these rules
in view, we find that the act of withholding of assent to a bill by the King
can be
performed by and with the advice and consent of the cabinet, and that without
advice and consent such act can not be exercised without violence to the
letter and
spirit of the constitution. If the King can by his acts, without the advice
of his
cabinet, which is responsible, or contrary to such advice, render null the
act of the
legislature, then we return to the condition from which we escaped in July
last, and
all of our trouble returns to us again. If our constitution means anything;
if re-
sponsible government is not a delusion; if we gained anything by our new
system, it
is that the King acts by and with the advice and consent of the cabinet,
and for
these reasons I introduced the resolution and advocate its passage.
   Representative Paehaole saw nothing in the constitution requiring the
King's veto
 to be countersigned by one of his ministers. He was of opinion that the
King had
 complied with the constitution, and that the ministers were to blame.
 Noble Widemann said the introducer of the resolution had evidently convinced
 self that his views were correct; but he had failed to convince him, the
speaker. The
 veto was a judicial act. Article 41 was intended for executive and hot for
 acts. This resolution is an uncertain solution of the question. When they
get the
 supreme court decision we shall have a full solution of the question.
 Representative Paehaole opposed the resolution.
 Noble Townsend said: All political power emanates frdrm the people. This
is the
 Anglo-Saxon idea. It is the idea which first developed into political liberty
in Eng-
 land. It is the idea which animated the revolutionary fathers in America.
Itjis the
 idea which led to-the downfall of the despotism of the Bourbons of France.
It is the
 idea which has been shaking all Europe periodically for generations. It
is the idea
 which aroused unb ounded enthusiasm in the greatest people's meeting ever
held in
 these islands, on the 30th day of last June, This idea is prevailing and
has been pre-
 vailing over all opposing ideas for ages. Sometimes it prevails quietly,
and sometimes
 amid commotion, as when an unwilling King signed the first great Charter
of English
 libertyatRunnymede. Inform King Johngranted this measure of liberty to the
 In reality he signed the charter as it was presented to him, and that to
save his throne,
 if not to save his life. In early days the opposite feudal idea, that all
political power
 emanates from the throne, was acknowledged as the foundation of the government
 these islands. That theory of utter irresionsibility to the people developed
the state
 of affairs which prevailed here just before the memorable mass-meeting.
Then the
 people arose in their might and put down that state of affairs. They not
only de-
 manded that incompetent and bad officials be dismissed, but they struck
deep at the
 root of the evil. They demanded that the whole system be changed from its
 foundation. They demanded of the King-for their request was nothing less
than a
 demand-" (1) That he will not in the future interfere either directly
or indirectly with
 theelection of representatives; (2) that he will not interfere with or attempt
to unduly
 influence legislation or legislators; (3) that he will not interfere with
the constitu-
 tional administration of his cabinet." On the 1st day of July His Majesty
 the people, granting all that they asked. He consented also, specifically,
to a new
 constitution. And why did the people want a new constitution ? They wanted
 principles which they had demanded so earnestly incorporated into the organic
 of the land. We all remember what enthusiasm was displayed on that occasion,,
 Even the most extravagant speeches were applauded, as speeches were never
before ap-
 plauded in this land.
 The constitution was promised and the excitement subsided-somewhat. But
 remember With what deep interest all awaited the appearance of that document.
 is an open secret that the work of framing the constitution was given to
some of our
 wisest and shrewdest men, to embody in it the principles which the people
had con-
 tended for. And&they did it. And it was eagerly that the people looked
for the result
 of their work. I remember when the constitution was first printed. I seized
a copy
 of it and spread it on the table and read it through, eagerly looking to
see if we had
 gained our point. I read on and on, seeing little cbanges-some good, some
 ful. As I approached the end my heart sank within me. At last I came to
 78. It was a shock to me. We had it after all. I felt like the wag who read
through with complaints and maledictions till he came to article 78, when
he started
up with the exclamation, "I didn't know it was loaded !" It was
loaded, Mr. Presi-
dent, and it is loaded yet.
  I looked back over the sections and read:
  "The King convenes the legislature, etc." "'The King has
the power to make
treaties." "The King coins money, etc." But I found article
30 different in wording

Go up to Top of Page