Jere Krischel at 09:55, 18 December 2005

2005-12-18T09:55:45Z

Jere Krischel at 04:15, 9 December 2005

2005-12-09T04:15:40Z

New page

by another sovereign and independent power had no application to
the facts and circumstances that attended the recent revolution in
Hawaii; moreover, if the revolution there had been directed against
the entire government and for the overthrow of the constitution of 1887,
and all monarchic rule, if it was a sincere, strong, earnest and successful
movement of the people for the recovery of their natural right to
rule themselves, they should not be narrowly questioned and held to
rigid account for a proper and discreet performance of every act necessary
to their resumption of their natural rights, but all America must
unite in the declaration that, under such circumstances, the presumptions
of law should be favorable to such movements, rather than
unfriendly to the establishment by the people of the foundations of their
liberties, based upon their right to govern themselves.
The parliament of Hawaii had been prorogued by the Queen on the
14th day of January, and could not be again assembled under the constitution,
except by the chief executive authority. Until that authority
was supplied in some way, therefore, the Legislature could not be
reconvened. It was the establishment of that authority, the chief
executive head of the nation, which was the question at issue, and
when that was decided, an appeal to the Legislature of Hawaii for its
confirmation or ratification was not only unnecessary, but might have
resulted in a counter revolution. It was, therefore, in the interest of
peace, good order, and right government, that the people of Hawaii,
who were unopposed in their process of organizing an executive head
for the Government, should proceed to do so as they did, regularly and
in an orderly, firm, and successful manner. Thus the abdication of Liliuokalani
was confirmed and has so continued from that day to this.
The Government of the United States has on various occasions recognized
the succession to the executive authority as residing in the Provisional
Government initiated at that public meeting at the arsenal and
consummated on the 17th day of January by public proclamation.
Then, on the 17th day of January, according to the recognition of the
United States, from which there has been no dissent or departure, the
interregnum ceased, and the executive head of the Government of
Hawaii was established. Until this was completed, on the 17th day of
January, by the proclamation of the Provisional Government, the
United States was still charged, under every principle of law and justice
and under the highest obligation of duty, to keep her forces in
Honolulu, and to enforce, in virtue of her sovereign authority, the
rights of her citizens under the treaty obligations and also under the
laws of Hawaii, relating to the safety of person and property and the
rights of industry, commerce, and hospitality in their free pursuit and
enjoyment. And when the Provisional Government was thus established,
it rested with the United States to determine whether the Government
of Hawaii was so far rehabilitated and so safely established
that these rights of her citizens could be intrusted to its keeping. The
recognition of such a state of affairs, within a country whose executive
department has been made vacant in consequence of domestic strife, is
quite a separate and different proceeding, both in form and effect, from
the recognition of the political independence of a government that is
complete in its organization. In the latter case, the recognition excludes
all right of interference in its domestic affairs, while in the former it is
the right and duty of supplying the protection of law to the citizen
that makes interference necessary as well as lawful.
The independence of Hawaii as a sovereign State had been long
reaognized by the United States, and this unhappy occasion did not

suggest the need of renewing that declaration. The question presented
in Honolulu on and after the 12th of January, 1893, was whether the
Queen continued to be the executive head of the Government of
Hawaii. That was a question of fact which her conduct and that of
her people placed in perilous doubt until it was decided by the proclamation
of a new executive. Peuding that question there was no
responsible executive government in Hawaii. On the 17th of January
that doubt was resolved to the satisfaction of the American minister,
and of all other representatives of foreign governments in Hawaii, in
favor of the Provisional Government. This recognition did not give
to the Government of Hawaii the legal or moral right to expel the
troops of any government, stationed in Honolulu in the period of interregnum,
until it had so firmly established its authority as to give to
foreigners the security to provide for which these troops had been
landed. Good faith and an honest respect for the rights of friendly
nations would certainly require the withdrawal of all further interference
with the domestic affairs of Hawaii as soon as that government
had provided security that was reasonably sufficient for the protection
of the citizens of the United States. But the Government of the
United States had the right to keep its troops in Honolulu until these
conditions were performed, and the Government of Hawaii could certainly
acquiesce in such a policy without endangering its independence
or detracting from its dignity. This was done, and the troops from
the Boston camped on shore for several months. The precise hour
when or the precise conditions under which the American minister
recognized the Provisional Government is not a matter of material
importance. It was his duty, at the earliest safe period, to assist by
his recognition in the termination of the interregnum, so that citizens
of the United States might be safely remitted to the care of that Government
for the security of their rights. As soon as he was convinced
that the Provisional Government was secure against overthrow it was
his duty to recognize the rehabilitated State. Whether this was done
an hour or two sooner or later could make no substantial difference
as to his rights or duties, if he was satisfied that the movement was
safe against reversal. If no question of the annexation of Hawaii to
the United States had existed, the conduct of the American minister
in giving official recognition to the Provisional Government would not
have been the subject of adverse criticism. But the presence of that
question and his anxious advocacy of annexation did not relieve him
from the duty or abridge his right to call for the troops on the Boston
to protect the citizens of the United States during an interregnum in
the office of chief executive of Hawaii. They were not to be put into
a state of outlawry and peril if the minister had been opposed to
annexation, nor could his desire on that subject in anyway affect their
rights or his duty. He gave to them the protection they had the
right to demand, and, in respect of his action up to this point, so far
as it related to Hawaii, his opinions as to annexation have not affected
the attitude of the U. S. Government, and the committee find no cause
of censure either against Minister Stevens or Capt. "Wiltse, of the
Boston.
Afterward, on the 1st day of February, 1893, the American minister
caused the flag of the United States to be raised on the Government
building in Honolulu, and assumed and declared a protectorate over
that nation in the name of the United States. This act on the part of
our minister was without authority, and was void for want of power.
It was disavowed by Secretary Foster and rebuked by Secretary

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 by another sovereign and independent power had no application to
 the facts and circumstances that attended the recent revolution in
@@ Line 12: / Line 13: @@
 unfriendly to the establishment by the people of the foundations of their
 liberties, based upon their right to govern themselves.
 The parliament of Hawaii had been prorogued by the Queen on the
 th day of January, and could not be again assembled under the constitution,
@@ Line 53: / Line 55: @@
 the right and duty of supplying the protection of law to the citizen
 that makes interference necessary as well as lawful.
 The independence of Hawaii as a sovereign State had been long
-reaognized by the United States, and this unhappy occasion did not
+recognized by the United States, and this unhappy occasion did not
+{{p|381}}
 suggest the need of renewing that declaration. The question presented
 in Honolulu on and after the 12th of January, 1893, was whether the
@@ Line 61: / Line 64: @@
 Hawaii. That was a question of fact which her conduct and that of
 her people placed in perilous doubt until it was decided by the proclamation
-of a new executive. Peuding that question there was no
+of a new executive. Pending that question there was no
 responsible executive government in Hawaii. On the 17th of January
 that doubt was resolved to the satisfaction of the American minister,
@@ Line 79: / Line 82: @@
 acquiesce in such a policy without endangering its independence
 or detracting from its dignity. This was done, and the troops from
-the Boston camped on shore for several months. The precise hour
+the ''Boston'' camped on shore for several months. The precise hour
 when or the precise conditions under which the American minister
 recognized the Provisional Government is not a matter of material
@@ Line 95: / Line 98: @@
 have been the subject of adverse criticism. But the presence of that
 question and his anxious advocacy of annexation did not relieve him
-from the duty or abridge his right to call for the troops on the Boston
+from the duty or abridge his right to call for the troops on the ''Boston''
 to protect the citizens of the United States during an interregnum in
 the office of chief executive of Hawaii. They were not to be put into
@@ Line 104: / Line 107: @@
 as it related to Hawaii, his opinions as to annexation have not affected
 the attitude of the U. S. Government, and the committee find no cause
-of censure either against Minister Stevens or Capt. "Wiltse, of the
+of censure either against Minister Stevens or Capt. Wiltse, of the
-Boston.
+''Boston''.
 Afterward, on the 1st day of February, 1893, the American minister
 caused the flag of the United States to be raised on the Government

Template:380-381 - Revision history

Jere Krischel at 09:55, 18 December 2005

Jere Krischel at 04:15, 9 December 2005