Template:382-383 - Revision history

Jere Krischel at 10:03, 18 December 2005

2005-12-18T10:03:33Z

Jere Krischel at 04:16, 9 December 2005

2005-12-09T04:16:19Z

New page

Gresham, and the order to abandon the protectorate and haul down
the flag was in accordance with the duty and honor of the United
States. To haul down the flag of the United States was only an order
to preserve its honor.
The diplomatic officers of the United States in Hawaii have the right
to much larger liberty of action in respect to the internal affairs of that
country than would be the case with any other country with which
we have no peculiar or special relations. In our diplomatic correspondence
with Hawaii and in the various treaties, some of them treaties
of annexation, which have been signed and discussed, though not
ratified, from time to time, there has been manifested a very near relationship
between the two governments. The history of Hawaii in its
progress, education, development, and government, and in Christianity,
has been closely identified with that of the United States—so closely,
indeed, that the United States has not at any time hesitated to declare
that it would permit no intervention in the affairs of Hawaii by any
foreign government which might tend to disturb the relations with the
United States, or to gain any advantages there over the Americans
who may have settled in that country. The United States has assumed
and deliberately maintained toward Hawaii a relation which is entirely
exceptional, and has no parallel in our dealings with any other people.
The justification for this attitude is not a matter with which the present
inquiry is necessarily connected, but its existence furnishes a good
excuse, if excuse is needed, for a very lively concern on the part of our
diplomatic representatives in everything that relates to the progress of
that people.
The causes that have led to this peculiar situation are altogether
apparent. They are in every sense honorable, just, and benevolent.
One nation can not assume such an attitude toward another, especially
if the latter is, by contrast, small, weak, and dependent upon the good
will or forbearance of the world for its existence, without giving to it
a guaranty of external and internal security.
The attitude of the United States toward Hawaii, thus voluntarily
assumed, gives to Hawaii the right to regard it as such a guaranty.
In the absence of a policy to establish a colonial system and of any
disposition for territorial aggrandizement, the Government of the United
States looked with approbation and gave encouragement to the labors
and influence of their citizens in Hawaii, in laying the groundwork of
a free and independent government there which, in its principles and
in the distribution of powers, should be like our own, and ultimately
become republican in form. This has been the unconcealed wish of the
people of the United States, in which many of the native Hawaiians
have participated.
Observing the spirit of the Monroe doctrine, the United States, in the
beginning of our relations with Hawaii, made a firm and distinct declaration
of the purpose to prevent the absorption of Hawaii or the political
control of that country by any foreign power. Without stating the
reasons for this policy, which included very important commercial and
military considerations, the attitude of the United States toward Hawaii
was in moral effect that of a friendly protectorate. It has been a settled
policy of the United States that if it should turn out that Hawaii, for
any cause, should not be able to maintain an independent government,
that country would be encouraged in its tendency to gravitate toward
political union with this country.
The treaty relations between Hawaii and the United States, as fixed
by several conventions that have been ratified, and by other negotia-

ttons, haxre been characterized by a sentiment of close reciprocity. In
addition to trade relations of the highest advantage to Hawaii, the
United States has so far interfered with the internal policy of Hawaii
as to secure an agreement from that Government restricting the disposal
of bays and harbors and the crown lands to other countries, and has
secured exclusive privileges in Pearl Harbor of great importance to
this Government.
This attitude of the two governments and the peculiar friendship of
the two peoples, together with the advantages given to Hawaii in commerce,
induced a large and very enterprising class of people from the
United States to migrate to those islands and to invest large sums of
money in the cultivation of sugar and rice, and in other trade and
industry. The introduction of laborers from Japan and China in great
numbers gave to the governing power in Hawaii a new and very significant
importance, and made it necessary, for the protection of the
interests of the white or European people and of the natives, that the
safeguards of the organic law of the Kingdom should be carefully
preserved. In the efforts to secure these guarantees of safe government,
no distinction of race was made as to the native or Kanaka population,
but Chinese and Japanese were excluded from participation in
the government as voters, or as officeholders.
Apprehensions of civil disturbance in Hawaii caused the United States
to keep ships of war at Honolulu for many years past, almost without
intermission, and the instructions that were given to our diplomatic
and consular officers and to the naval commanders on that station went
beyond the customary instructions applicable to other countries. In
most instances, the instructions so given included the preservation of
order and of the peace of the country, as well as the protection and
preservation of the property and of the lives and treaty rights of American
citizens.
The circumstances above mentioned, which the evidence shows to
have existed, create a new light under which we must examine into the
conduct of our diplomatic and naval officers in respect of the revolution
that occurred in Hawaii in January, 1893. In no sense, and at no time,
has the Government of the United States observed toward the domestic
affairs of Hawaii the strict impartiality and the indifference enjoined
by the general law of noninterference, in the absence of exceptional
conditions. We have always exerted the privilege of interference in
the domestic policy of Hawaii to a degree that would not be justified,
under our view of the international law, in reference to the affairs of
Canada, Cuba, or Mexico.
The cause of this departure from our general course of diplomatic
conduct is the recognized fact that Hawaii has been all the time under
a virtual suzerainty of the United States, which is, by an apt and
familiar definition, a paramount authority, not in any actual sense an
actual sovereignty, but a de facto supremacy over the country. This
sense of paramount authority, of supremacy, with the right to intervene
in the affairs of Hawaii, has never been lost sight of by the United
States to this day, and it is conspicously manifest in the correspondence
of Mr. Willis with Mr. Dole, which is set forth in the evidence which
accompanies this report.
Another fact of importance in considering the conduct of our diplomatic
and naval officers during the revolution of January, 1893, is that
the annexation of Hawaii to the United States has been the subject of
careful study and almost constant contemplation among Hawaiians and
their kings nince the beginning of the reign of Kamehameha I. This

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Gresham, and the order to abandon the protectorate and haul down
 the flag was in accordance with the duty and honor of the United
 States. To haul down the flag of the United States was only an order
 to preserve its honor.
 The diplomatic officers of the United States in Hawaii have the right
 to much larger liberty of action in respect to the internal affairs of that
@@ Line 20: / Line 22: @@
 and deliberately maintained toward Hawaii a relation which is entirely
 exceptional, and has no parallel in our dealings with any other people.
 The justification for this attitude is not a matter with which the present
 inquiry is necessarily connected, but its existence furnishes a good
@@ Line 25: / Line 28: @@
 diplomatic representatives in everything that relates to the progress of
 that people.
 The causes that have led to this peculiar situation are altogether
 apparent. They are in every sense honorable, just, and benevolent.
@@ Line 31: / Line 35: @@
 will or forbearance of the world for its existence, without giving to it
 a guaranty of external and internal security.
 The attitude of the United States toward Hawaii, thus voluntarily
 assumed, gives to Hawaii the right to regard it as such a guaranty.
 In the absence of a policy to establish a colonial system and of any
 disposition for territorial aggrandizement, the Government of the United
@@ Line 42: / Line 48: @@
 people of the United States, in which many of the native Hawaiians
 have participated.
 Observing the spirit of the Monroe doctrine, the United States, in the
 beginning of our relations with Hawaii, made a firm and distinct declaration
@@ Line 53: / Line 60: @@
 that country would be encouraged in its tendency to gravitate toward
 political union with this country.
 The treaty relations between Hawaii and the United States, as fixed
-by several conventions that have been ratified, and by other negotia-
+by several conventions that have been ratified, and by other negotiations,
+{{p|383}}
-ttons, haxre been characterized by a sentiment of close reciprocity. In
+have been characterized by a sentiment of close reciprocity. In
 addition to trade relations of the highest advantage to Hawaii, the
 United States has so far interfered with the internal policy of Hawaii
@@ Line 63: / Line 71: @@
 secured exclusive privileges in Pearl Harbor of great importance to
 this Government.
 This attitude of the two governments and the peculiar friendship of
 the two peoples, together with the advantages given to Hawaii in commerce,
@@ Line 77: / Line 86: @@
 but Chinese and Japanese were excluded from participation in
 the government as voters, or as officeholders.
 Apprehensions of civil disturbance in Hawaii caused the United States
 to keep ships of war at Honolulu for many years past, almost without
@@ Line 86: / Line 96: @@
 preservation of the property and of the lives and treaty rights of American
 citizens.
 The circumstances above mentioned, which the evidence shows to
 have existed, create a new light under which we must examine into the
@@ Line 97: / Line 108: @@
 under our view of the international law, in reference to the affairs of
 Canada, Cuba, or Mexico.
 The cause of this departure from our general course of diplomatic
 conduct is the recognized fact that Hawaii has been all the time under
 a virtual suzerainty of the United States, which is, by an apt and
 familiar definition, a paramount authority, not in any actual sense an
-actual sovereignty, but a de facto supremacy over the country. This
+actual sovereignty, but a ''de facto'' supremacy over the country. This
 sense of paramount authority, of supremacy, with the right to intervene
 in the affairs of Hawaii, has never been lost sight of by the United
@@ Line 107: / Line 119: @@
 of Mr. Willis with Mr. Dole, which is set forth in the evidence which
 accompanies this report.
 Another fact of importance in considering the conduct of our diplomatic
 and naval officers during the revolution of January, 1893, is that
 the annexation of Hawaii to the United States has been the subject of
 careful study and almost constant contemplation among Hawaiians and
-their kings nince the beginning of the reign of Kamehameha I. This
+their kings since the beginning of the reign of Kamehameha I. This