Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 278, 11 September 1891 — OLLA PODRIDA. [ARTICLE]

OLLA PODRIDA.

The current comment on the ea* binet takes many forms of expresaion sLnd always unfavorable: They are "weak," u rotten," "!azy;" u they are doing nothing;" u they belong to neither sect nor party," a they are 011 the fence along side of the Bulletin," "they have made a mess of the administratton," "the Meehanics and the Hawaiians are down on them", f 'what are they good for," #< Sam is an over grown boy," they cannot last," "they are in■competent" u there's got to be a dbange" and so 011 ad infinitum. Even the ladies who know but little about it, say * l wbat a shame it is the way things are going on; our boys have to leave the country while malihinis jump into high position; and it seems as though the missionaries have just got Sam by the nose; and do you thinkthe Queen will ever make a National Cabinet so the people will be satiefied ? and so on.

And what is it all about ? Why aimply because the cabinet choose to' consider themselves an independ- ! ent and self constituted oligarchy, at liberty to govera or misgōverii the oountry according to their individual caprice; to ignore the people, andthe party and pnneiplee for whieh a majority contended ae a £oDBtitutional privilege; and cve» treating the Queen s wishes with discourtesy. To treat the appropriations for roads, bridgce «nd other puhlie iaiprovements as a dead letter, and in fact to lay aside ihe whole legislation of the sessi«n of 1890, either through indolence, incompetence or uiuliāhneea. Their general attitude has aleo been offensive to many. whose patriotism and and interest in the welfare of the country, regretfully note tlie njany errors of administration that are W.ing ma<le. There i? the whole ('.aee in ,\ nutsheil.

Thc legislature as a bociy was eon #picuou?ly abi> nt trom the ]>ro«-ee

Bion of the latē -Prince Coi*sort as they were also froin of the latie King. That such a body representing the second estate if the Kingdcrm should be unrepresented om Biich an important occasion has caused comment and inquiry and we leam that the chief reason is on account of the inferior position assigned to them in the funeral cortege, behind the judiciary. It is a fact that the Supreme Court have always arrsgated to themselves a snperiority to*all other men or body of men and they have hitherto been humored in their ceit. But if the constitution is to be our guide we are there infoTmed that the powers of the Kingd'om are divided between the Executive, Legislature and Judicial, thereby distinctly giving the legislative body precedence over the judiciary. We hope that proper courtesies on this basis will be observed in future. Faney the American Congress, or the British Commons, or the French Deputies, as a body, accepting a rating inferior to their iudiciarv.

There is a strong and growing sentiment that in a revision of the constitution, provision should be made for the elect'ion of the justices of the Supreme Court by the people. Ka Leo has not yet given any consideration to this idea, and does not etand committed to it; but we have sought to fathom the cause for the rapid spread of the wieh for such a method of creating judges. We find that while the court is openly said to be too often biased by church influencies or political partizanship, yet comparatively little complaint is made of their ultimate judgments —• at least m the public press* But the pubiie seeing to eomplain that they do not always mainiain the conservative dignitv and reserve expected of their bigh p.osition, and are too prone to pull wires along with the missionary politicians and attempt to interfere with or influence affairs that concerno nly the Executive branch of the government. Another complaint expressed to us, i8 that they are also endowed with too mueh autocratic power and do not hesitate to use it, especiaily in muzzling the press and publie opinion in mattere concerning them, and thereby they plaee themselves beyond the reach of fair criticism. It appears to be a growing belief that a systen ef electing judges, in contrast to the pfesent method of rōyal patroriage; aud life tenure, would bring them nearer to the f pet>ple, secure a more impartial . administration of justice, and render them amenable to public cri- , ticism.

If many otKer insta&ces that we might cite did not suffice, the Supreme Court has most sertair.!y made an undeniablo display of political partizariBhip in its recent appointwnt of a clerk. It <vas a <liroct lnsult tc the {K?dp]e und to the admimstration wto had dismiseed thc man from hie formcr high poet, for it is uselcBs to elaim that he was eminentlv fit for hiy new and inferior |>ost. A man who had xnade himselt* so fibensive a political meddlcr nml bull-dozer that he was denouneod by a larg<* majority of thc peoplo, l>v a poHlieal partv, by legiplativo < oimuittecs. and ilnalh' ejeeted froni ollu'o by n«t pro-

per man for the court to take under ittj wing, uiyless tbey wished to anneunee themselves openly" as the sympathizers and prdteetors of a political party. It is by thus descending from the high dignities that should surround the bench» that they have invited adverse criticism, ~and led the people into'a dicussion of the merits or demerits of having such a powerful, autocratic and royally oonstituted organization as part of our body polit le, and into a study of proper eounter eheek or remedy therefore.