Hawaii Holomua, Volume II, Number 15, 18 January 1894 — IS HAWAII AN INOEPENOENT STATE? [ARTICLE]

IS HAWAII AN INDEPENDENT STATE?

European Powers Regard Her as Under Our Protection and Acquiesce in the Relation. — Is Hawaii really an indepeddent and soverign State? What is the relation, defined by public law, of the military and naval forces of the United States to Hawaii? Those questious must be answered before one can pass a cor ; rect judgment on the issues raised bv what PresiJent ClevelanJ bas Joue, or permitteJ others to Jo. ; ii. i A starting point is Secretary Gresharo’s instruction of March 11. 1893, to Mr. B!ount iu regarJ to using the navy. WouU he 1 have employed such langnage in relation to lanJing raariues at Liverpool or Harve or Breiueu? He said: — “Historical precedents anJ the general course of tho United States authorize the employment of its armed force in foreign territory for the security of tlie lives and property of Ameiiean citii zens and for the suppression of lawless aud tumultuous acts threateuing thera.” Tbe uext senteucedeclares that i the necessity and expejieucy of such employmeut is iu the Jiscrotiou of the diplomatic agent of the oouutry \vhoso army or navy is at band. Can that bo the accepted internatioual law of to day, to be every\vhere applied by our Ministers aml Ambassadors? “Employment” of onr arraed forces in England or France or Germany impliea ordering not only our marines to go aslioro and fight, but our naval vessels to open their batteries in anticipation of “tumu)tuous acts” and provent them. Is not tbat makiug war? Is that a correct exposition of our Amerioan muuic:p«l law? Has Congress ordered such a mle for the government of onr laml and u»val forces? Would PresiJent Cleveland or Congress, ' tolerate tho “employment” of ’ British or Frenoh or German force in New York city on such a j i theory and for such a purpose? lu the next paragraph the i authority of Mr. BIount to em- ! i ploy force is limited “to sueh j measnres as are uecessary to protect the persous anJ proj)€rty of : our ciiizeus,” but what is the reul bearing of that Jiscretiou thus committed to onr Jiplomatio agents all over the world on tbe contention now upmost in go many newspapers that only | Congress ean “ Jeclare war” auj I ' iuake rules concerning captures 1 on laud anJ water?” I Is not declaring war unlike be- i ginuiug by tbe £xecntive acts of , physieal force? Whieh of our i wars wu8 not begon by the Ei- I ecutive *nd afterward deciarej I, [ hy Congrefis? In Great Brit*in | | it is the exclusive prerog«tive of tbe Crown to “declare” war, bnt , it is uot in our coontry the pre- j j rogrative of the Presideut. If the iustmction of Gresham 1 < | to Blount is sound—and perhaps : ' • it is—then is there not a serious |' sigoificance in our new navy en- j' j th« command oI onr diploma-; * | tic *gents “from Dan to Beer-! i | s,h« iu ’ j | Furilu r on in the iastruot;on 1* to B)oant it is s*id thal if it gfc a l!: I ** neceSM 0’ toUnd au ar med I. lorce the as*ent of th« loc*l t aathority ‘-‘ahooU be first ohlaiu- € I ed if it c*n be Oo»e wiU»o«t p* j {

ja«l»c2 to the snterests intolved,” bnt that imports boundlei>s discretion to a poe?ibly inexperieuced or orer realous diplomatic ‘ ngent. What if in tfae city of New York there shal! happen t*> be a div»rg?2cc cf opin»on bctwe- u a i Brit>sfa Admini ou tfae spot aad 1 tbe “loeal aatfaority ’ respecting | doe protection of tfae life aud property of British subjects tfaen | in tlie city? Tfaose iuqniries bear on the rigfats f powers and duties of tbe President to ernploy pfaysic;«! force in Hawaii, and on tfae Congressional power of inij'eacfameut for wbat fae may there do. III. I But is Hawaii really an inde- ! j>endeut and sovereign Stnte? Do ! not the Europeau Fowers look on Hawaii as only a semi- ; ndepen- | dent State. nnder the protection of tfae United States, and aequiesce in tlie relation ; Does not tfaat explain Eng!isfa, French and Gerrnan assent to wfaat Stevens and oar navy did last Junuary? IV. There is uo mvstery in the depemleuee of an independent State. TLg United States eenstitute and actually are such a one. lu theory, and as a general rule. no other State eau iuterfere in the internal coacerns of an independent State against its conseut and will. Iuterveution is, iu general, a hostile act, au act of war, but is an unconsented forcible interventiou by the United States in the domestic alfairs of Hawaii an act of war whieh ouly Congress eau make? May not the President’s iutervention ou Hawaii havo beeu, or be, an act of friendship toward that State, aud so not war? On tbe facts thus far made puhlie, Stevens and our navy did interveue by force iu Hawaii in order to dethrone tbe Queen and set up tlie “Provisional Govornment,” but wasit, orwas itnot, an act oP“war,” whichonly Congre.ss eoukl do aud “declare.“ Protectiou of tfae lives and properties of our citizens, tbe seonvity of treaty rights, were it seems, onh* a part, and a minor part of tfae reasons for such armed Hawaiian iuteiTention. We did not intervene in January nt Honolnlu in self-defense ! or in protection of the legitimate j government, or to eheek intervention by another State, or against wrong doing, or against uuusual acts, or under a treaty, or to keep ; our ti*ade witfa Hawaii. Stevens intervened to promote a rebellion | aud Harrison sauctioned the in- ! tervention. W as it an act of war in the I sense of our constitution, for whieh Harrison eonkl or onght j to faave been impeached? Wfay will uot tfao gusfaing newspapers iaekle tfaut conundrum? : v The revo!t was snccessful. For ten raonths tfae rebel government bas beon in power under the flag aud guns of the United States displayed on the Hawaiinn soil dnring one half tbe period. Can i Clevelaud intervene a second j time as lawfullv aa Harrison did, and in the way Harrison did, and so restore the Qneen if he sees fit? If fae does will it be “war’’ any more tfaan .son’8 acts to de tfai-one tfae Queen? I s it not bigfa time that tfae newspaper gush j over “war be brougfat to the test of law and eommon seuse? First of a!l what is the trne mle io j regard to tfae discretion whieh ' our diplomatic agents such as ; tbey are, ean, or sfaould be per- I mitt*Hl to exeerci.se over our new navy? Are tfaey at discrelion to order I i«ndmg aud figfating >rfaerever 1 theymaybeall over tfae worid?' C*n our diplomatists or the |, SeoreUxy of State or the President nse with imponity our arm- ; ed forces to promote rebellioa i anywbere and every nnder the prctense of protecting tfae life ; I or property of «n Americant VI faat is tfae limit ol execative i 1 power iu tfaal relation? Wfa*t ū H tfae bounda*y |faerein execotive and Congree«omd »t power. X- Y. Z.~N. T. Henkl. 1 l- *