Template:364-365 - Revision history

Ken Conklin at 16:45, 20 December 2005

2005-12-20T16:45:07Z

Jere Krischel at 06:40, 18 December 2005

2005-12-18T06:40:47Z

Jere Krischel at 06:39, 18 December 2005

2005-12-18T06:39:52Z

Jere Krischel at 06:39, 18 December 2005

2005-12-18T06:39:35Z

Jere Krischel at 12:49, 9 December 2005

2005-12-09T12:49:43Z

Jere Krischel at 07:05, 8 December 2005

2005-12-08T07:05:04Z

Jere Krischel at 07:00, 8 December 2005

2005-12-08T07:00:44Z

Jere Krischel at 02:28, 8 December 2005

2005-12-08T02:28:20Z

New page

any change in the incumbency of the office of President. It is in
all respects as much the same Government in every right and responsibility
as if it had been under the same President during the entire
period covered by the recent revolution in Hawaii and the succeeding
events.

This view of the situation will enable us to examine more dispassionately the conduct of our Government, and to ascertain whether it
has been such that it can be safely drawn into precedent in any future
questions that may arise in our intercourse with this or other American
governments.

The right of the President of the United States to change his opinions
and conduct respecting a course of diplomatic correspondence
with a foreign government is no more to be questioned than his right
to institute such correspondence; and it can not be assumed that the
opinions of one President, differing from those of his predecessor, has
any other effect upon the attitude of the Government than would follow a change of opinion in the mind of the same person if there had
been no change in the incumbency of the office. This is a view of
the situation in which all foreign nations may have an interest, under
the usages of independent powers and the international laws. But
the question now under consideration is regarded as being peculiar to
what we may term the American system. It may be true that Hawaii
can not be considered as a separate and independent power in respect
of all its relations with the United States, yet the acts of successive
Presidents of the United States which affect it must be regarded as the
acts of one President. But there are many good reasons and a long
and consistent course of dealing between the United States and Hawaii
that materially affect, if they do not entirely change, the actual relations
between Hawaii and the United States and make them exceptional.
When we claim the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of
Hawaii, as we would not interfere with those of a European nation, we
must also admit her right to whatever advantages there may be in the
closeness and interdependence of our relations, and her right to question
us as to any conflicts of policy between Mr. Harrison and Mr.
Cleveland that may be justly said to work a disadvantage to the interests
of Hawaii, if there are any.

And another principle which does not apply in our dealings with
European powers comes into application in this case to influence the
rights of Hawaii in her intercourse with the United States.

Hawaii is an American state, and is embraced in the American commercial and military system. This fact has been frequently and firmly
stated by our Government, and is the ground on which is rested that
peculiar and far-reaching declaration so often and so earnestly made,
that the United States will not admit the right of any foreign government
to acquire any interest or control in the Hawaiian Islands that is
in any way prejudicial or even threatening toward the interests of the
United States or her people. This is at least a moral suzerainty over
Hawaii. In this attitude of the two Governments, Hawaii must be
entitled to demand of the United States an indulgent consideration,
if not an active sympathy, when she is endeavoring to accomplish what
every other American state has achieved-the release of her people
from the odious antirepublican regime which denies to the people the
right to govern themselves, and subordinates them to the supposed
divine right of a monarch, whose title to such divinity originated in
the most slavish conditions of pagan barbarity.

The point at which it is alleged that there was a questionable interference by our minister and onr Navy with the affairs of Hawaii was
the landing of troops from the ship ''Boston'' in Honolulu on the 16th
day of January, 1893, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. That ship, on
which the minister was a passenger, had been off on a practice cruise
at Hilo, a distance of nearly 100 miles, since the 4th day of January.
On her return to the harbor a condition of affairs existed in Honolulu
which led naturally to the apprehension that violence or civil commotion would ensue, in which the peace and security of American
citizens residing in that city would be put in peril, as had been done
on three or more separate occasions previously when changes occurred
or were about to occur in the government of Hawaii. Whatever we
may conclude were the real causes of the situation then present in
Honolulu, the fact is that there was a complete paralysis of executive
government in Hawaii. The action of the Queen in an effort to overturn
the constitution of 1887, to which she had sworn obedience and support,
had been accepted and treated by a large and powerful body
of the people as a violation of her constitutional obligations, revolutionary
in its character and purposes and that it amounted to an act
of abdication on her part, so far as her powers and the rights of the
people under the constitution of 1887 were concerned. This state of
opinion and this condition of the executive head of the Hawaiian
Government neutralized its power to protect American citizens and
other foreigners in their treaty rights, and also their rights under the
laws of Hawaii. There was not in Honolulu at that time any efficient
executive power through which the rights of American citizens
residing there could be protected in accordance with the local laws.
It is evident that the Queen's Government at that time had no power
to prevent the landing of troops from any quarter, no power to protect
itself against invasion, no power to conduct civil government, so far
as the executive was concerned, if the effort to exert such power was
antagonized by any opposing body of people in considerable numbers.
Indeed, no effort seems to have been made to exert the civil authority
except through the presence of a small and inefficient body of policemen.
The authority of the Queen was not respected by the people; it
was opposed, and no force appeared to be used for the purpose of
overcoming the opposition. It yielded to a silent but ominous opposition.
Without reference to the question whether, in strict law, the
action of the Queen in her effort to overturn the constitution of 1887,
and to substitute one by a proclamation which she had prepared, was a
revolution in government, or an eftort at revolution, or amounted to
an actual abdication, the result was that an interregnum existed.

If we give full effect to the contention that this interregnum occurred
because of the apprehensions of the Queen that force would be used by
the United States to compel her abdication, those apprehensions could
not have occurred before the landing of the troops from the Boston, or,
if they existed, they were idle, unfounded, and unjust toward the
United States. It was her conduct, opposed by her people, or a large
portion of them, that paralyzed the executive authority and left the
citizens of the United States in Honolulu without the protection of any
law, unless it was such as should be extended to them by the American
minister, in conjunction with the arms of the United States then on
board the Boston.

It will appear hereafter in this report that there is well-settled authority
for the position that at the moment when the Queen made public
her decision to absolve herself from her oath to support the constitution
of 1887 her abdication was complete, if the people chose so to regard
it. That constitution and the Queen's oath to support it was the only

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:39, 18 December 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{p\|364}}any change in the incumbency of the office of President. It is in all respects as much the same Government in every right and responsibility	+	{{p\|364}}any change in the incumbency of the office of President. It is in all respects as much the same Government in every right and responsibility as if it had been under the same President during the entire period covered by the recent revolution in Hawaii and the succeeding events.
−	as if it had been under the same President during the entire
−	period covered by the recent revolution in Hawaii and the succeeding
−	events.

	This view of the situation will enable us to examine more dispassionately the conduct of our Government, and to ascertain whether it		This view of the situation will enable us to examine more dispassionately the conduct of our Government, and to ascertain whether it

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{p|364}}any change in the incumbency of the office of President. It is in
+{{p|364}}any change in the incumbency of the office of President. It is in all respects as much the same Government in every right and responsibility
 as if it had been under the same President during the entire
 period covered by the recent revolution in Hawaii and the succeeding

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<!--p364-->any change in the incumbency of the office of President. It is in
+{{p|364}}any change in the incumbency of the office of President. It is in
 all respects as much the same Government in every right and responsibility
 as if it had been under the same President during the entire
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 the most slavish conditions of pagan barbarity.
-The point at which it is alleged that there was a questionable inter<!--p365-->ference by our minister and onr Navy with the affairs of Hawaii was
+The point at which it is alleged that there was a questionable interference {{p|365}} by our minister and onr Navy with the affairs of Hawaii was
 the landing of troops from the ship ''Boston'' in Honolulu on the 16th
 day of January, 1893, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. That ship, on

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<!--page 364-->any change in the incumbency of the office of President. It is in
+<!--p364-->any change in the incumbency of the office of President. It is in
 all respects as much the same Government in every right and responsibility
 as if it had been under the same President during the entire
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 the most slavish conditions of pagan barbarity.
-The point at which it is alleged that there was a questionable inter<!--page 365-->ference by our minister and onr Navy with the affairs of Hawaii was
+The point at which it is alleged that there was a questionable inter<!--p365-->ference by our minister and onr Navy with the affairs of Hawaii was
 the landing of troops from the ship ''Boston'' in Honolulu on the 16th
 day of January, 1893, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. That ship, on

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 The point at which it is alleged that there was a questionable interference
 {{p|365}}
-by our minister and onr Navy with the affairs of Hawaii was
+by our minister and our Navy with the affairs of Hawaii was
 the landing of troops from the ship ''Boston'' in Honolulu on the 16th
 day of January, 1893, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. That ship, on
@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 action of the Queen in her effort to overturn the constitution of 1887,
 and to substitute one by a proclamation which she had prepared, was a
-revolution in government, or an eftort at revolution, or amounted to
+revolution in government, or an effort at revolution, or amounted to
 an actual abdication, the result was that an interregnum existed.