Template:394-395 - Revision history

Jere Krischel at 10:50, 18 December 2005

2005-12-18T10:50:28Z

Jere Krischel at 04:19, 9 December 2005

2005-12-09T04:19:06Z

New page

possessio'n of the former in case of aggressions made upon them thereafter
by any hostile powers.
In 1854 the administration of President Pierce authorized the
United States commissioner, Mr. Gregg, to negotiate a treaty with the
Hawaiian authorities for the cession of the sovereignty of these islands
to the United States; but Mr. Gregg succeeded only in obtaining a
protocol for a treaty, by which the United States were to extend a
protectorate government over them. The matter in that form did not
meet with the approval of Mr. Secretary Marcy, and further negotiations
ceased.
I omitted to state in proper sequence that the deed of cession of 1851
was, by order of the Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, returned to the
Hawaiian Government.
In conclusion, I herewith inclose Annual Eeview of the Agriculture
and Commerce of the Hawaiian Islands for the year 1870, published by
the Pacific Commercial Advertiser, February 25, 1871. Additional
copies will accompany my dispatch No. 102. Permit me to refer you to
a lithographic map, published in 1867 by U. S. Bureau of Statistics, as
showing in convenient form the relative position of these islands to the
continents of America, Asia, etc.; also, steamship lines radiating therefrom.
With great respect, your obedient, humble servant,
HENRY A. PIERCE.
Hon. HAMILTON FISH,
Secretary of State, Washington, D. G.
A President informed as to the history of his country could find no
difficulty in dealing with the question of the annexation of Hawaii to the
United States on the ground that it is new; and a minister to Hawaii
who should fail to inform his Government of the political changes in
Hawaii that would affect that question would neglect his duty.
It is not a just criticism upon the correspondence of Minister Stevens
with his Government that he earnestly advocated annexation. In this
he was in line with Mr. Marcy and nearly every one of his successors
as Secretary of State, and with many of Mr. Stevens's predecessors as
minister to Hawaii. His letters to his Government were written under
the diplomatic confidence that is requisite to secure freedom in such
communications, and were not expected to come, under the scrutiny of
all mankind. They show no improper spirit and are not impeachable as
coloring or perverting the truth, although some matters stated by him
may be classed as severe reflections. Whatever motives may have
actuated or controlled any representative of the Government of the
United States in his conduct of our affairs in Hawaii, if he acted within
the limits of his powers, with honest intentions, and has not placed the
Government of the United States upon false and untenable grounds,
his conduct is not irregular.
But, in his dealings with the Hawaiian Government, his conduct was
characterized by becoming dignity and reserve, and was not in any
way harsh or offensive. In the opinion of the committee, based upon
the evidence which accompanies this report, the only substantial irregularity
that existed in the conduct of aiiy officer of the United States,
or agent of the President, during or since the time of the revolution of
1893, was that of Minister Stevens in declaring a protectorate of the
United States over Hawaii, and in placing the flag of our country
upon the Government building in Honolulu. No actual harm resulted

from this unauthorized act, bat as a precedent it is not to be considered
as being justified. The committee have not considered it
necessary to present any resolutions stating the conclusions that are
indicated in this report, and ask that they be discharged from the further
consideration of the resolutions under which this report is made.
We are in entire accord with the essential findings in the exceedingly
able report submitted by the chairman of the Committee on For
eign Relations. But it is our opinion—
First. That the appointment on the 11th day of March, 1893, without
the advice and consent of the Senate, of Hon. James H. Blount as
" special commissioner" to the Hawaiian Government under letters
of credence and those of instruction, which declared that " in all matters
affecting relations with the Government of the Hawaiian Islands
his authority is paramount" was an unconstitutional act, in that such
appointee, Mr. Blount, was never nominated to the Senate, but was
appointed without its advice and consent, although that body was in
session when such appointment was made and continued to be in session
for a long time immediately thereafter.
Second. The orders of the Executive Department by which the naval
force of the United States in the harbor of Honolulu was in effect
placed under the command of Mr. Blount or of Mr. Willis were without
authority or warrant of law.
Third. The order given by Mr. Blount to Admiral Skerrett to lower
CAQ United States ensign from the Government building in Honolulu
and to embark the troops on the ships to which they belonged, was an
order which Mr. Blount had no lawful authority to give. Its object
was not to terminate a protectorate. That relation had been disavowed
by the administration of President Harrison immediately upon
receiving information of its establishment. The flag and troops, when
such order was given by Mr. Blount, were in the positions from which
he ordered them to be removed for the purpose of maintaining order
and protecting American life and property. Their presence had been
effectual to those ends, and their removal tended to create, and did
create, public excitement and, to a degree, distrust of the power of the
Provisional Government to preserve order or to maintain itself. That
order of Mr. Blount was susceptible of being construed as indicating
an unfriendly disposition on the part of the United States toward the
Provisional Government, and it was so construed, particularly by the
people of Hawaii.
In the light of subsequent relations between Mr. Blount and his successor,
Mr. Willis, with the Queen, whose office had become vacant by
her deposition and abdication under the attack of a successful revolution,
this order and its execution were most unfortunate and untoward
in their effect. Such relations and intercourse by Messrs. Blount and
Willis with the head and with the executive officers of an overthrown
government, conducted for the purpose of restoring that government
by displacing its successor, were in violation of the constitution and of
the principles of international law and were not warranted by the circumstances
of the case.
Fourth. The question of the rightfulness of the revolution, of the
lawfulness of the means by which the deposition and abdication of the
Queen were effected, and the right of the Provisional Government to

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-possessio'n of the former in case of aggressions made upon them thereafter
+{{p|394}}
-by any hostile powers.
+:possession of the former in case of aggressions made upon them thereafter by any hostile powers.
 In 1854 the administration of President Pierce authorized the
-United States commissioner, Mr. Gregg, to negotiate a treaty with the
+:In 1854 the administration of President Pierce authorized the United States commissioner, Mr. Gregg, to negotiate a treaty with the Hawaiian authorities for the cession of the sovereignty of these islands to the United States; but Mr. Gregg succeeded only in obtaining a protocol for a treaty, by which the United States were to extend a protectorate government over them. The matter in that form did not meet with the approval of Mr. Secretary Marcy, and further negotiations ceased.
 Hawaiian authorities for the cession of the sovereignty of these islands
-to the United States; but Mr. Gregg succeeded only in obtaining a
+:I omitted to state in proper sequence that the deed of cession of 1851 was, by order of the Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, returned to the Hawaiian Government.
 protocol for a treaty, by which the United States were to extend a
-protectorate government over them. The matter in that form did not
+:In conclusion, I herewith inclose Annual Review of the Agriculture and Commerce of the Hawaiian Islands for the year 1870, published by the Pacific Commercial Advertiser, February 25, 1871. Additional copies will accompany my dispatch No. 102. Permit me to refer you to a lithographic map, published in 1867 by U. S. Bureau of Statistics, as showing in convenient form the relative position of these islands to the continents of America, Asia, etc.; also, steamship lines radiating therefrom.
 meet with the approval of Mr. Secretary Marcy, and further negotiations
-ceased.
+:With great respect, your obedient, humble servant,
-I omitted to state in proper sequence that the deed of cession of 1851
+:{{sc|Henry A. Pierce}}
-was, by order of the Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, returned to the
+:Hon. {{sc|Hamilton Fish}},
-Hawaiian Government.
+:Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
-In conclusion, I herewith inclose Annual Eeview of the Agriculture
 A President informed as to the history of his country could find no
 difficulty in dealing with the question of the annexation of Hawaii to the
@@ Line 28: / Line 18: @@
 who should fail to inform his Government of the political changes in
 Hawaii that would affect that question would neglect his duty.
 It is not a just criticism upon the correspondence of Minister Stevens
 with his Government that he earnestly advocated annexation. In this
@@ Line 43: / Line 34: @@
 Government of the United States upon false and untenable grounds,
 his conduct is not irregular.
 But, in his dealings with the Hawaiian Government, his conduct was
 characterized by becoming dignity and reserve, and was not in any
 way harsh or offensive. In the opinion of the committee, based upon
 the evidence which accompanies this report, the only substantial irregularity
-that existed in the conduct of aiiy officer of the United States,
+that existed in the conduct of any officer of the United States,
 or agent of the President, during or since the time of the revolution of
 , was that of Minister Stevens in declaring a protectorate of the
 United States over Hawaii, and in placing the flag of our country
 upon the Government building in Honolulu. No actual harm resulted
+{{p|395}}
-from this unauthorized act, bat as a precedent it is not to be considered
+from this unauthorized act, but as a precedent it is not to be considered
 as being justified. The committee have not considered it
 necessary to present any resolutions stating the conclusions that are
 indicated in this report, and ask that they be discharged from the further
 consideration of the resolutions under which this report is made.
 We are in entire accord with the essential findings in the exceedingly
-able report submitted by the chairman of the Committee on For
+able report submitted by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. But it is our opinion—
-eign Relations. But it is our opinion—
-First. That the appointment on the 11th day of March, 1893, without
+''First.'' That the appointment on the 11th day of March, 1893, without
 the advice and consent of the Senate, of Hon. James H. Blount as
-" special commissioner" to the Hawaiian Government under letters
+"special commissioner" to the Hawaiian Government under letters
-of credence and those of instruction, which declared that " in all matters
+of credence and those of instruction, which declared that "in all matters
 affecting relations with the Government of the Hawaiian Islands
 his authority is paramount" was an unconstitutional act, in that such
@@ Line 71: / Line 64: @@
 session when such appointment was made and continued to be in session
 for a long time immediately thereafter.
 Second. The orders of the Executive Department by which the naval
 force of the United States in the harbor of Honolulu was in effect
 placed under the command of Mr. Blount or of Mr. Willis were without
 authority or warrant of law.
 Third. The order given by Mr. Blount to Admiral Skerrett to lower
-CAQ United States ensign from the Government building in Honolulu
+''Third.'' The order given by Mr. Blount to Admiral Skerrett to lower
 and to embark the troops on the ships to which they belonged, was an
 order which Mr. Blount had no lawful authority to give. Its object
@@ Line 92: / Line 87: @@
 Provisional Government, and it was so construed, particularly by the
 people of Hawaii.
 In the light of subsequent relations between Mr. Blount and his successor,
 Mr. Willis, with the Queen, whose office had become vacant by
@@ Line 102: / Line 98: @@
 the principles of international law and were not warranted by the circumstances
 of the case.
 Fourth. The question of the rightfulness of the revolution, of the
 lawfulness of the means by which the deposition and abdication of the
 Queen were effected, and the right of the Provisional Government to