HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.5 
 
On the other hand, was it not natural for the white race to vaunt 
their wealth and intelligence, their Christian success in rescuing the 
native from barbarism, their gift of a Government regal in name but 
containing many of the principles of freedom; to find in the natives de-

fective intelligence, tendencies to idolatry, to race'prejudice, and a dis-

position under the influence of white and halt-white leaders to exercise

political domination; to speak of their thriftlessness in private life and

susceptibility to bribes in legislative action; to proclaim the unchaste-

ness of native women, and to take at all hazards the direction of public

affairs from the native? 
With such a powerful tendency to divergence and political strife, 
with its attendant bitterness and exaggerations, we must enter upon 
the field of inquiry pointed out in your instructions. 
It is not my purpose to take up this racial controversy at its birth, 
but when it had reached striking proportions and powerfully acted in 
the evolution of grave political events culminating in the present 
status. Nor shall I relate all the minute details of political contro- 
versy at any given period, but only such and to such extent as may 
illustrate the purpose just indicated. 
It has already appeared that under the constitution of 1852 the leg- 
islature consisted of two bodies-one elected by the people and the 
other chosen by the King-and that no property qualifications hindered 
the right of suffrage. The King and people through the two bodies 
held a check on each other. It has also been shown that in 1864 by a 
royal proclamation a new constitution, sanctioned by a cabinet of 
prominent white men, was established, restricting the right of suffrage 
and combining the representative and nobles into one body. This lat- 
ter provision was designed to strengthen the power of the Crown by 
removing a body distinctly representative. This instrument remained 
in force twenty-three years. The Crown appointed the nobles generally 
from white men of property and intelligence. In like manner the King 
selected his cabinet. These remained in office for a long series of years

and directed the general conduct of public affairs. 
Chief Justice Judd, of the supreme court of the Hawaiian Islands, 
in a formal statement uses this language: 
Under every constitution prior to 1887 the ministers were appointed by the
King 
and removed by him; but until Kalakaua's reign it was a very rare thing that
any 
King changed his ministry. They had a pretty long lease of political life.
My 
father was minister for seven or ten years and Mr. Wyllie for a longer period.
It 
was a very rare political occurrence and made a great sensation When a change
was 
made. Under Kalakaua things were different. I think we had twenty-six different

cabinets during his reign. 
The record discloses thirteen cabinets. Two of these were directly 
forced on him by the reformers. Of the others, six were in sympathy 
with the reformers and eminent in their confidence. The great stir in 
cabinet changes commenced with the Gibson cabinet in 1882. He was 
a man of large information, free from all suspicion of bribery, politi- 
cally ambitious, and led the natives and some whites, 
It may not be amiss to present some of the criticisms against Kala- 
kaua and his party formally filed with me by Prof. W. D. Alexander, a 
representative reformer, 
On the 12th of February, 1874, Kalakaua was elected King by the 
legislature. The popular choice lay between him and the Queen Dow- 
ager. 
In regard to this, Mr. Alexander says that "the cabinet and the 
American party used all their influence in favor of the former, while 
the English favored Queen Emm, who was devoted to their interest." 
 
573