Difference between revisions of "Template:1078-1079"

From TheMorganReport
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
1078 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
+
{{p|1078}}
−
made through your own officers, that the landing of the troops wasnot
+
 
−
necessary, you would not land them1? In other word's, the tiling is
+
made through your own officers, that the landing of  
−
still left entirely in your charge?
+
the troops was not
−
Mr. BELKNAP. Yes; but if 1 do not comply with the request and anything
+
necessary, you would not land them?   In other word's,  
−
happened detrimental to the United States I am responsible.
+
the thing is still
−
The regulations hold me to that.
+
left entirely in your charge?
−
Senator BUTLER. It has become a question of tweedledum and
+
 
−
tweedledee between Mr. Blount and Mr. Stevens—one is a request and
+
Mr. BELKNAP:  Yes; but if I do not comply with the  
−
the other a command. Suppose Admiral Skerrett had declined, on his
+
request and anything
−
responsibility, to take down the flag and send his troops back on the
+
happened detrimental to the United States I am  
−
ship, and anything had happened to the American legation and American
+
responsible. The regulations
−
life and property, Admiral Skerrett would have been responsible?
+
hold me to that.  
−
Mr. BELKNAP. Yes.
+
 
−
Senator FRYE. Would he not have been tried by a court-martial?
+
Senator BUTLER:  It has become a question of  
−
Mr. BELKNAP. Yes.
+
tweedledum and tweedledee
−
Senator FRYE. And would he not have read the Naval Regulations,
+
between Mr. Blount and Mr. Stevens---- one is a request  
−
which are law, to determine whether he had obeyed the regulations?
+
and the other a command.
−
Mr. BELKNAP. Yes.
+
Suppose Admiral Skerrett had declined, on his  
−
Senator BUTLER. The same responsibility rested on Admiral Skerrett
+
responsibility, to take down
−
in declining to obey the order as rested on him in obeying it—if anything
+
the flag and send his troops back on the ship, and  
−
had happened to American interests in Honolulu by the American
+
anything had happened to
−
troops remaining on shore, he would have been responsible. So that
+
the American legation and American life and property,  
−
the responsibility is pretty well understood to be that an Army or Navy
+
Admiral Skerrett would
−
officer sent off on an expedition of that kind is vested with a certain
+
have been responsible?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  Yes.
 +
 
 +
Senator FRYE:  Would he not have been tried by a  
 +
court-martial?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  Yes.
 +
 
 +
Senator FRYE:  And would he not have read the Naval  
 +
Regulations, which are
 +
law, to determine whether he had obeyed the  
 +
regulations?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  Yes.  
 +
 
 +
Senator BUTLER:  The same responsibility rested on  
 +
Admiral Skerrett in
 +
declining to obey the order as rested on him in  
 +
obeying it---- if anything had
 +
happened to American interests in Honolulu by the  
 +
American troops remaining
 +
on shore, he would have been responsible. So that the
 +
responsibility is
 +
pretty well understood to be that an Army or Navy  
 +
officer sent off on an
 +
expedition of that kind is vested with a certain  
 
amount of discretion?
 
amount of discretion?
−
Mr. BELKNAP. He is to determine in his own mind what the interests
+
 
−
of the Government demand. Daring this last cruise I sent officers and
+
Mr. BELKNAP:  He is to determine in his own mind what  
−
men up to the capital of Korea, 40 miles from Chemulpo. I received a
+
the interests of the
−
telegraphic order to cooperate with the minister, and when the minister
+
Government demand. Daring this last cruise I sent  
−
sent to me for a force I dispatched it to him in conformity with the order
+
officers and men up to the
−
of the Secretary of the Navy to cooperate with the minister.
+
capital of Korea, 40 miles from Chemulpo.   I received  
−
Senator BUTLER. YOU did it on your own responsibility.
+
a telegraphic order
−
Mr. BELKNAP. On my own responsibility, in interpretation of the
+
to cooperate with the minister, and when the minister  
−
orders of the Secretary, the wishes of the minister, and of my own personal
+
sent to me for a force
−
knowledge of Korean affairs.
+
I dispatched it to him in conformity with the order of
−
Senator FRYE. Before this order of the Secretary of the Navy, given
+
the Secretary of the
−
to Admiral Skerrett to obey the orders of Mr. Blount, did you ever
+
Navy to cooperate with the minister.
−
know of any such order?
+
 
−
Mr. BELKNAP. I never heard of it.
+
Senator BUTLER:  You did it on your own  
−
Senator FRYE. Did you ever know of a minister or commissioner in
+
responsibility?
−
a foreign country making such an order as Mr. James H. Blount made
+
 
−
to Admiral Skerrett? I refer to the one 1 have just read.
+
Mr. BELKNAP:  On my own responsibility, in  
−
Mr. BELKNAP. Never. As I said before, it is the most peremptory
+
interpretation of the orders of
−
order I ever saw in print.
+
the Secretary, the wishes of the minister, and of my  
−
Senator FRYE. The order of Capt. Wiltse to the officers who took
+
own personal knowledge
−
the troops on shore is as follows:
+
of Korean affairs.  
−
" S I R : You will take command of the battalion and land in Honolulu
+
 
−
for the purpose of protecting our legation, consulate, and the lives
+
Senator FRYE:  Before this order of the Secretary of  
−
and property of American citizens, and to assist in preserving public
+
the Navy, given to
−
order."
+
Admiral Skerrett to obey the orders of Mr. Blount, did  
−
Now, I would like to ask you what are the rights of officers in command
+
you ever know of any
−
of ships in foreign countries touching the matter of preservation
+
such order?  
−
of public order ? That part of Capt. Wiltse's order was not in response
+
 
−
to the request of Mr. Stevens. He said nothing about public order;
+
Mr. BELKNAP:  I never heard of it.
−
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 1079
+
 
−
he adopts the old diplomatic form of expression, protection of life and
+
Senator FRYE:  Did you ever know of a minister or  
−
property; whereas Capt. Wiltse in his order uses the additional expression,
+
commissioner in a foreign
−
"assist in preserving public order." What do you understand to
+
country making such an order as Mr. James H. Blount  
−
be the rights of a commanding officer with regard to preserving public
+
made to Admiral
−
order in foreign countries?
+
Skerrett?   I refer to the one I have just read.
−
Mr. BELKNAP. All the foreign countries are not alike as regards the
+
 
−
conduct of ships of war. There are small governments where the fleets
+
Mr. BELKNAP:  Never. As I said before, it is the  
−
would act differently from what they would in larger countries; but
+
most peremptory order I
−
the landing of a force is a grave act and should always be well considered.
+
ever saw in print.  
−
Senator BUTLER. And 1 suppose they are in large measure controlled
+
 
−
by the treaty stipulations of those countries?
+
Senator FRYE:  The order of Capt. Wiltse to the  
−
Mr. BELKNAP. In great measure; but in Honolulu there is not a
+
officers who took the
−
street, there is not a precinct, there is not a corner of it where an
+
troops on shore is as follows:
−
American is not living or has not his business and property, and to
+
 
−
protect that property it is necessary, in case of a riot, where the police
+
"Sir: You will take command of the battalion  
−
can not control, to land a force from a ship.
+
and land in Honolulu
−
Senator FRYE. Then you would say that Capt. Wiltse, if in his judgment
+
for the purpose of protecting our legation, consulate,  
−
he thought there was liability of a riot and the likelihood of the
+
and the lives and
−
destruction of American property, had a right to order his troops ashore,
+
property of American citizens, and to assist in  
−
one of his purposes being to preserve public order?
+
preserving public order."
−
Mr. BELKNAP. Yes; I would have done the same thing under the
+
 
−
same circumstances.
+
Now, I would like to ask you what are the rights  
−
Senator FRYE. SO that when you landed your troops in 1874, notwithstanding
+
of officers in command
−
the fact you knew the result of lauding those troops and
+
of ships in foreign countries touching the matter of  
−
interfering with that mob to preserve public order would result in the
+
preservation of public
−
maintenance of King Kalakaua on the throne, you would have done
+
order? That part of Capt. Wiltse's order was not in  
−
what you did by way of landing the troops and putting down the riot?
+
response to the
−
Mr. BELKNAP. Yes.
+
request of Mr. Stevens.   He said nothing about public  
−
Senator FRYE. It is not for the officer or minister to take into consideration
+
order;
−
what would be the effect of such landings and putting down of
+
 
−
riots; he is concerned simply in the fact that they are landed for the
+
{{p|1079}}
 +
 
 +
he adopts the old diplomatic form of expression,  
 +
protection of life and
 +
property; whereas Capt. Wiltse in his order uses the  
 +
additional expression,
 +
"assist in preserving public order." What do you  
 +
understand to be the
 +
rights of a commanding officer with regard to  
 +
preserving public order in
 +
foreign countries?  
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  All the foreign countries are not alike  
 +
as regards the
 +
conduct of ships of war. There are small governments  
 +
where the fleets would
 +
act differently from what they would in larger  
 +
countries; but the landing of
 +
a force is a grave act and should always be well  
 +
considered.
 +
 
 +
Senator BUTLER:  And I suppose they are in large  
 +
measure controlled by the
 +
treaty stipulations of those countries?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  In great measure; but in Honolulu there  
 +
is not a street,
 +
there is not a precinct, there is not a corner of it  
 +
where an American is
 +
not living or has not his business and property, and  
 +
to protect that
 +
property it is necessary, in case of a riot, where the  
 +
police can not
 +
control, to land a force from a ship.
 +
 
 +
Senator FRYE:  Then you would say that Capt. Wiltse,  
 +
if in his judgment he
 +
thought there was liability of a riot and the  
 +
likelihood of the destruction
 +
of American property, had a right to order his troops  
 +
ashore, one of his
 +
purposes being to preserve public order?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  Yes, I would have done the same thing  
 +
under the same
 +
circumstances.  
 +
 
 +
Senator FRYE:  So that when you landed your troops in  
 +
1874, notwithstanding
 +
the fact you knew the result of landing those troops  
 +
and interfering with
 +
that mob to preserve public order would result in the  
 +
maintenance of King
 +
Kalakaua on the throne, you would have done what you  
 +
did by way of landing
 +
the troops and putting down the riot?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  Yes.
 +
 
 +
Senator FRYE:  It is not for the officer or minister  
 +
to take into
 +
consideration what would be the effect of such  
 +
landings and putting down of
 +
riots; he is concerned simply in the fact that they  
 +
are landed for the
 
purpose of protecting life and property?
 
purpose of protecting life and property?
−
Senator BUTLER. That is true in time of peace, not in time of war?
+
 
−
Mr. BELKNAP. In time of war it would be a different question.
+
Senator BUTLER:  That is true in time of peace, not  
−
Senator BUTLER. For instance, you would not feel warranted in
+
in time of war?
−
landing a force at Bio now?
+
 
−
Mr. BELKNAP. NO; SO" far as I understand the situation at this
+
Mr. BELKNAP:  In time of war it would be a different  
−
distance.
+
question.
−
Senator BUTLER. Mr. Frye asked you some questions with regard
+
 
−
to the power of naval officers. Suppose you were in charge of the
+
Senator BUTLER:  For instance, you would not feel  
−
Charleston, we will say, at the port of Liverpool or Copenhagen, and
+
warranted in landing a
−
you were ashore and a riot were about to break out, would you feel
+
force at Rio now?  
−
authorized to land a force to protect American property?
+
 
−
Mr. BELKNAP. No, unless the Government confessed its inability to
+
Mr. BELKNAP:  No,  so far as I understand the  
−
afford protection.
+
situation at this distance.
−
Senator BUTLER. So that it is not universal?
+
 
−
Mr. BELKNAP. NO.
+
Senator BUTLER:  Mr. Frye asked you some questions  
−
Senator FRYE. HOW about Panama?
+
with regard to the power
−
Mr. BELKNAP. In Panama we have the right by treaty. I landed
+
of naval officers. Suppose you were in charge of the  
−
there myself.
+
''Charleston'', we will
−
Senator BUTLER. But it is not a universal rule?
+
say, at the port of Liverpool or Copenhagen, and you
−
Mr. BELKNAP. NO.
+
were ashore and a riot
−
Senator BUTLER. It is done in pursuance of some treaty stipulations
+
were about to break out, would you feel authorized to  
−
between our Government and the government where the troops
+
land a force to
−
are landed.
+
protect American property?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  No, unless the Government confessed its  
 +
inability to afford
 +
protection.  
 +
 
 +
Senator BUTLER:  So that it is not universal?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  No.  
 +
 
 +
Senator FRYE:  How about Panama?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  In Panama we have the right by treaty.  
 +
I landed there
 +
myself.  
 +
 
 +
Senator BUTLER:  But it is not a universal rule?
 +
 
 +
Mr. BELKNAP:  No.  
 +
 
 +
Senator BUTLER:  It is done in pursuance of some  
 +
treaty stipulations
 +
between our Government and the government where the  
 +
troops are landed.

Revision as of 13:38, 31 January 2006

-p1078-

made through your own officers, that the landing of the troops was not necessary, you would not land them? In other word's, the thing is still left entirely in your charge?

Mr. BELKNAP: Yes; but if I do not comply with the request and anything happened detrimental to the United States I am responsible. The regulations hold me to that.

Senator BUTLER: It has become a question of tweedledum and tweedledee between Mr. Blount and Mr. Stevens---- one is a request and the other a command. Suppose Admiral Skerrett had declined, on his responsibility, to take down the flag and send his troops back on the ship, and anything had happened to the American legation and American life and property, Admiral Skerrett would have been responsible?

Mr. BELKNAP: Yes.

Senator FRYE: Would he not have been tried by a court-martial?

Mr. BELKNAP: Yes.

Senator FRYE: And would he not have read the Naval Regulations, which are law, to determine whether he had obeyed the regulations?

Mr. BELKNAP: Yes.

Senator BUTLER: The same responsibility rested on Admiral Skerrett in declining to obey the order as rested on him in obeying it---- if anything had happened to American interests in Honolulu by the American troops remaining on shore, he would have been responsible. So that the responsibility is pretty well understood to be that an Army or Navy officer sent off on an expedition of that kind is vested with a certain amount of discretion?

Mr. BELKNAP: He is to determine in his own mind what the interests of the Government demand. Daring this last cruise I sent officers and men up to the capital of Korea, 40 miles from Chemulpo. I received a telegraphic order to cooperate with the minister, and when the minister sent to me for a force I dispatched it to him in conformity with the order of the Secretary of the Navy to cooperate with the minister.

Senator BUTLER: You did it on your own responsibility?

Mr. BELKNAP: On my own responsibility, in interpretation of the orders of the Secretary, the wishes of the minister, and of my own personal knowledge of Korean affairs.

Senator FRYE: Before this order of the Secretary of the Navy, given to Admiral Skerrett to obey the orders of Mr. Blount, did you ever know of any such order?

Mr. BELKNAP: I never heard of it.

Senator FRYE: Did you ever know of a minister or commissioner in a foreign country making such an order as Mr. James H. Blount made to Admiral Skerrett? I refer to the one I have just read.

Mr. BELKNAP: Never. As I said before, it is the most peremptory order I ever saw in print.

Senator FRYE: The order of Capt. Wiltse to the officers who took the troops on shore is as follows:

"Sir: You will take command of the battalion and land in Honolulu for the purpose of protecting our legation, consulate, and the lives and property of American citizens, and to assist in preserving public order."

Now, I would like to ask you what are the rights of officers in command of ships in foreign countries touching the matter of preservation of public order? That part of Capt. Wiltse's order was not in response to the request of Mr. Stevens. He said nothing about public order;

-p1079-

he adopts the old diplomatic form of expression, protection of life and property; whereas Capt. Wiltse in his order uses the additional expression, "assist in preserving public order." What do you understand to be the rights of a commanding officer with regard to preserving public order in foreign countries?

Mr. BELKNAP: All the foreign countries are not alike as regards the conduct of ships of war. There are small governments where the fleets would act differently from what they would in larger countries; but the landing of a force is a grave act and should always be well considered.

Senator BUTLER: And I suppose they are in large measure controlled by the treaty stipulations of those countries?

Mr. BELKNAP: In great measure; but in Honolulu there is not a street, there is not a precinct, there is not a corner of it where an American is not living or has not his business and property, and to protect that property it is necessary, in case of a riot, where the police can not control, to land a force from a ship.

Senator FRYE: Then you would say that Capt. Wiltse, if in his judgment he thought there was liability of a riot and the likelihood of the destruction of American property, had a right to order his troops ashore, one of his purposes being to preserve public order?

Mr. BELKNAP: Yes, I would have done the same thing under the same circumstances.

Senator FRYE: So that when you landed your troops in 1874, notwithstanding the fact you knew the result of landing those troops and interfering with that mob to preserve public order would result in the maintenance of King Kalakaua on the throne, you would have done what you did by way of landing the troops and putting down the riot?

Mr. BELKNAP: Yes.

Senator FRYE: It is not for the officer or minister to take into consideration what would be the effect of such landings and putting down of riots; he is concerned simply in the fact that they are landed for the purpose of protecting life and property?

Senator BUTLER: That is true in time of peace, not in time of war?

Mr. BELKNAP: In time of war it would be a different question.

Senator BUTLER: For instance, you would not feel warranted in landing a force at Rio now?

Mr. BELKNAP: No, so far as I understand the situation at this distance.

Senator BUTLER: Mr. Frye asked you some questions with regard to the power of naval officers. Suppose you were in charge of the Charleston, we will say, at the port of Liverpool or Copenhagen, and you were ashore and a riot were about to break out, would you feel authorized to land a force to protect American property?

Mr. BELKNAP: No, unless the Government confessed its inability to afford protection.

Senator BUTLER: So that it is not universal?

Mr. BELKNAP: No.

Senator FRYE: How about Panama?

Mr. BELKNAP: In Panama we have the right by treaty. I landed there myself.

Senator BUTLER: But it is not a universal rule?

Mr. BELKNAP: No.

Senator BUTLER: It is done in pursuance of some treaty stipulations between our Government and the government where the troops are landed.

Retrieved from "https://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Template:1078-1079&oldid=4193"