Hawaii Holomua, Volume I, Number 82, 23 December 1893 — Examples Stevens Failed to Hollow. [ARTICLE]

Examples Stevens Failed to Hollow.

Cleveland's Policy in Strict Accord 'with Our Past Relations wilh Hawaii EITBACTS tram 0FFIC1AL REC0BDS How Former lntrigues to Bring about Annexation were Treated by the United Sbtes, STILL FEEUNG THE ST1NG. Secp.etarv Foster’s Repriraand and the Discovery of the ExMinister’s Misconduct. Coronado, Cal. Nov. 30. 1893. To the Editor of the Herald; I have been reading with curiosity Mr. Stevens’ queer pronunciarnento» ag.»inst President Cleveland’s Hawaiian policy. He speak3 about -‘Anr>erican pietv, Amenean benevolence, American uatriotism.” but he d<ies not cite a.iy instruction from the State Department directir.g or autborizing him as a Minister to intrigue and piot for tbe overthrow of the constitutional g<*vernraent to whieh he waa accredited, or to land United States troops and guns against the wishes of the government, to cover and protect the revolutiouists. or to hoist the Amen’ean flag in Honolulu and declare a protectorate, or to urge and labor for annexation. It is this auth<*rization of his undipIoraatic aelion whieh he needs to produce; and his talk about “American piety and Amerieap benevolence,’ etc., has no bearing on the question of his epn duct. He remu\da me of a similar person of whom an Arizona man man onee said, “He dives down into the unfathomable and soars up into the infinite. but he never pays cash.” The plain fact about Mr. Cieveland’s Hawaiian policy is lhat it is not at all a new policy. lt is in strict accord with ali our diplomatic traditions of intercourse with Hawaii That policy, honorahle to us and just to Hawaii, has had for its object: (1) To retrain from subjugatmg its government ourselves, as we were the first nalion to recognize the Hawaiian nationality and independence, and (2) to protect Hawaii agaiust attack by any other nalion. That is also President Cleveland’s policy and he thus maintains the time honored, just and honorable attitude of our government toward the island kingdom pursned by us for half a century. 3HOULO X’OT SKEK CO.VTROL. Mr. Webster, recognizing the Hawaiian government in 1842, wrote: — “The United States have regarded the existing &uthorities in the Sandwich lslands as a government suited to the conditiou of the people and resting on their own ehoiee, and the President is of opinoin that the intereets of all commercial nations require tbat that government sbould not be interfered with by foreign powers. Of the ve8sels whieh visit the islands it ib known that a great majority beiong to tbe United States. “The United States, therefore, are more interested in the fate of tbe islands and of their government tban any other naiioo ean be; and this consideration icduces the Presideut to be quite willing to. declare, as tbs eense of the government of tbe United States, that the government cf the Sandwich Islands ougbt to he respccted; that no Power ougbt eitner to take poeaeaeion of the islands as » conquest or for the purpoee of cok>nizaUon, and that no Power ougot to eeek for any undue control over the existing government.” Mr. Oalhoun in 1844, oonfirmed the "foll reooffnition on the part of the United 8Utee of tbe inde-

pemlenee of the H&waiian govenunenl.” Later. British and French of ficers at different times took teraporark’ possession of the islandsand both these events led onr government to declare its determinntion to maintain their inde pendence as a nation aud government Mr. Webster wrote in 1851:— ”Tbe Hawaiian Islands are ten times nearer to the United States than to anv of the Powers of Eurnpe. Five-sixths of their commercial intercourse is with the United States, and these eonsiderations, togetber with others of a more general character, have fixed the courso whieh the government of the Uuited States will pursue in regard to them. Tbe annunciation of this policy will not surprise the-governraent.s of Europo, nor be thought to bo unreasonable by the nations of tiie civilized wr>rld, and that policy is that while the governmeut of the United States, itself faithful to its original assurance, scrupulousIy regards the independeuce of the Hawaiian Islands, it ean never consent to see thoso islands taken possession of by either of the great commercial Powers of Europo, nor ean it consent that demands, manifestly unjust and derogatory and iuconsisteut with a bonafide indepeudence, shall be enforced against that government.” NOT OUB BUSIKES8. There were iu those days projects for annexation, or, as Mr. Websterput it, “the surrender by the governraent of the islands (uofby the revolutionary junta put in power by an Aroerican Miuister) of the in sovereignty to tho United States.” A Mr. Severance, then our diplomatic representative at Honolulu, had written Mr. Webster that t'ais annexation could be accoraplished Mr. Webster replied, telling him to mind his proper busiuess. Mr. Wobster wrote Mr. Severance: —* “This is a very important qnestion. and one whieh you will readily see arises above any functious with whichyou arecharged. It may, indeed, bo very proper for you in this case, as well as iu all others, to communicate to your g>vernment whatever the government to whieh you are accredited desire to have so eommunicated, but it is very import ant that on a question involving such deep interests, both domestic aud foreign, you should \’Ourself altogether forbear expressmg any opinion whatever to the Hawaiian government.” That is very ditlerent from the course of Mr. Steveus, who fomented and assisted revolution and made haste to hoist the American flag over the island. An Euglish naval ofiicer and a French naval officer had both done this act at an earlier period. and both were, at the instance of our own government, condemned and their proceedings annulled. There was in those days, as uow, Ameneane in the islands who intrigued for annexation. Concerning these Mr. Webster wrote, what Mr. Slevens would have doue well to observe: — *’You inform us that many ! American citizens have gone to settle in the islands: if so they have j ceased to be American citizens. The governm€ntoftheCmtedState?mu8t of course, feel an interest in them not extended to foreigoers. but by the law of nations they have no right further to demand the pro- j tect:on of this government. Wbatever aid or protection might under any circustances be given thera ! must be given, not as a matter of j right on their part, but in consist- j ency with the geoeral policy and i duty of tbe government and its relations with friendly Powers. You will therefore not encuurage j iu Uieie, nor indced in any others, any idea or expectatiou tbat the islands will heeome annexed to the United States.” ,'EEK XO UNOUE IXFI.UK.VCK. i. On another oeeaaion he wrote:— “We aeek no control over iheir gcvernment, nor any undue in-

duence whatever. Our ooiy vrish is thal ihe jntegritr aud independenceofofthe Hawaiūn territory ru»y be scrupulously m*inlained and that its gOTernmenl should be entire!y impartial toward foreigner? of every nation.” It will he seeo from tbe lollowing passage« from diplomatic correspondence that while iiawaii bas always been a nation in whieh our men charged with p«.>wer took a eloee interesl onr policy towi.rd that government h«s always been honorable aud just. 'Vhere a prospect of eventual annexation was considere«i it was. as you will observe, always made dependent on the consent of the Hawaiian people obtained by fair means, and not, as Mr. Stevens sought to aeeomplish it. by intngue, trickery and force used by him. Mr. \Vebster. in 1S51, wrote Mr. Sverance at Honolulu: — “The Navy I)epartuient will receive inetructions to plaee and to keep the naval arraament of tbe United States in the Pacitic Oeean in such a state of strength and preparation as shall be requisite fur tha preservation nf the honor and dignity of the United States and tbe safety of the government uf the Hawaiian Is!ands.’’ And n<d, observe, to rverturn the constitutional government ot tbe country, as Mr. Steven» did. Mr. Marcy, in 1S51, wrote to Mr. Mason. in Paris, that annexation was talked of at Honolulu, asked him to discover how tho Frenoh goveriiment \vould regard an acquisition of the islands, but added, “provided the transference was etfected by fair means,” not by landing UniteJ States troops and guns to protect a haudful of conspirators in seizing the puhlie buildings as Mr. Stevens did — his friends being so weak when they had, underthe guardianship of L r nited States forces, taken possession, that they had some weeks luter to ap|»eal to him to protect tbem against tho peop’e. VEBY DIFFEREXT FROM STEVESS’ POLICY. Mr. Marcy wrote to our Minister at Honolulu in 1885:— “The policy of the United States in relation to the future of the Samlwich Islands is presented in the instrnctions heretofore given to you. That policy is not to accelerate or urge on any iraportant change in the government of that couutry, but if it has or shou!d become so far enfeebled that it cannot be continued, aml the sovereiguty of the islands must be transerred to another power, then a state of things will exist in whieh it will be proper for the United States to have a regard to the fnture condition of that country. “If tfae Hawaiian Government and people heeome convinced of the necessity of such a change it ia probahle that they will, if Ieft to their freechoice, look to the United States as to the country to whieh they woulel wish to be united. To a proper arrangement of tbis kind thia gr»vernment certainly has no objection.” That ia a very ditferent policy from that pursued by Mr. Stevens. General McCook, Mimster at Honolulu, wrote Mr. Seward. in Sepieober. 1866, a very shrewd and c«»rrect aeeounl of the causes of uneasines3 in the is!ands among the foreign residents. It appliee not badly to the present iime. Ue said:— *‘Before my arrivai here I was led to believe tbat this goverument displayed a marked hostihty toward the government and citizens of the Uoited States. Tbe State Department hae probably been led into the «ame error. 1 am perfectly sati.=hed that uo sucb feeiiog does exist. Many of the American reeidents have rendered themselve* obnoxioo« to the King and his Cabinet by peiuonal abose of ihe Mini»ters and unwarranted iuterference in the polilieal affairs of tbe kiogdom. Tbe natural resu)t of this has been disiike, freely expressed, on both sides. As tbe feeling is apparent)y of an entirely personal cbaracter 1 ean see oo reason wby it ahoald affect my reiationa or the reiatīons of my

government wuh His M«jegty and bis Miniaters. Another class of Americans, the missionaries. have controlled the |x>litical affairs of the conntrv since 1820. Tbey aro dissatisfied becaose within the last few years tbey have lost their huld npou the government and its offices. Fhe first class of Araericans are generally disappointed adventnrers, tne second class are religionist8, who, having onee esercised aupretne power in chnrch and state, feel all the bitterness of disappointment at seeing their political power pass into other hands, and knowing that the native popul»tion is beginning to listen to religion preacbed from other pulpits than their own. ‘The Araerican missionaries have undonbtedly labored faithfullv. but it is their own fault if, after forty years experieuce as 'keeper of the conscience’ to the natives and their princes, they j)ermit themselves to be driven from the field bj T an adroit English priest, whose church is a mere political maehine, and who possesses apparently neither the intelligence uor the virtue of his more experienced and Puritanieal brother missionaries.” "So far as I ean see the inAuenee of the Atnerican govfcrnuient is all that it has e\>r been. The inlluenee of American iudividuals has b u en lost through their own want of tact and harmony.” WAENEO AGAI.\ST INFLUKXCE. Mr. Seward wrote in 1868 to Mr Spaulding then a representative at Houoluiu, who had written to him of annexalion:— it will be well for you nnt to allow extravi.gmt exj>ectation8 <>f syrapatbv helween the United States an«l the friends of annexat«on in ihe ishmds to influenceyour own conduct.” Mr. U. A. I*ierce then American Minister at Honolulu, wrote Secretary Fish in 1871 concerning annexation, thinking there was a favorable oeeaaion to ‘‘inaugurate measures for unnexatiou of the ielands to the United States, the same to be eflVcted as the manifest wiil and ehoiee of the majority of the Hawaiian people, and through menns proper, peaceful and honor sble. It is evident however, no steps will be taken to aocomplish the object named without the proper sanction or approbation of ttie Umted States governnient in approva! thereof.” It is a pity Mr. Stevens did not take as hoiiorable a course as this predecessor of his. Seoretary Fish gave a cold reply to Mr. Pierce’s suggestion. Premising that the United States will not b« wiiling to see the islands in possessiun of any other Power, he said: — *‘Weare not in possession of information sufficiently aeearate and possibly not sufficiently exteuded with respect to the popalatiou, trade. industry, resources and debt, etc., of the Hawaiian Isiands to decide the policy whieh must soon be considered with respect to the relations they are to maiuiaiu toward tbis government.’, Thero are what was called an '‘aunexatiou scare” in the isiauds in 1878. and Mr. £varts wrote to our Miuister there; — “You will endeavor to disabnse tbe miuds of those who impute to tho Umted States anv idea of farthor projects beyond the preseut treaty.” NOTHIKO TO IMPAIK SOVEHEIGXTY. Mr. Bayard wrote to the British Minister in Washington in 1888:— “I was glad to find that you quite uuderstood and had eonvoyed to your government the onlv significauce and meaning of tne Pearl Harbor concession by the Hawaiian government. as provided m the late treatv of th«t goverament with the' United States, and that it contained nothmg to impair the political sovereignty of Hawaii. /‘The existing treaties of the l nited States and Hawaii create. as you *re aware, special and important reciprocities, to whieh

the present matter all prosperity of Hawaii may be said to owe its existence, and by one of the articles tbe cessir>n of any part ot the Hawaiian territory to any other government withont the consent of the United States is inbibited. *‘In view nf such existing arrangements it does not seem ne»-dful f.»r the United States to join with other g>vernments in lh<ir guarantees to secure ihe neutrality of Mawaiian territorv, nor to provide f>r tbat equal accessihilitv of all nations to those porls » hich now exists.” Mr. Elaine wrote in 1881 eoncerning a suppo«ed inelioalion of Europ-an Powers to interfere in Hawailin the raait»*r <>f our treaty with that nation:— *‘You will add that if any other Power shou!d deem it proper to employ undue inAuenee upon the Hawaiian G<>vernment. to persuade or eompel action in ,derogation of this treaty the governraent of the United States will not be uuobservant of its rights and interests, and will be neither unwilling nor unprepareil to supjx)rt the Hawaiian Government in the faithful dischargo of ita treaty obligations.” Mr. Elaine was ready to * support the Hawaiian Government,” observe —not to subvert it as Mr. Stevens did. Mr. Seward, who lniled in a scheme to annex the island of St. Thomas. in tbe West Indies, is the on!y Secretary of State who, so far as appears in the government hlue book, favored annexation, and he only conditiona!ly. Admiral George Brown wrote the Navy Department in September, 1892:— “The subject of annexation has been froely discussed by individuals for a long tirae, but until very T recentl\- there has been no combined concert of action. There now exists in Houolulu an organization comprising the most pro*ainent aunexationists whieh has for its objects the formalation of sume plan by whieh a change of government ean be atfected quietly and with the consent and co-operation of the Queen and the raembers of her cabinet and statf. “It is thought that the Queen will consent to abdicate in favor of a repnblican form of government if she ean be assnred that a suitable provision will bo made for her in the way of a permauont pecuniary settlement. The organization 1 refer + o will not coontenance auythiug of a revolntionary character in the way of force, but expects to be aided by the majurih T of tbe Hawaiians who now favor annexation without having any ideasof how such *an event ean be reached.” CAU8E OF STEVENs' ANXIETY. Observe that this eminent uaval officer spoke on!y of a vo!untary surreuder of the Hawaiian government, not a revolutionary iutrigue to be fostere<.l and proteoted by United States troops and guns as Mr. Stevens did. Mr. Stevens' extremo anxiety at after he bad been snpersetled by Mr Blountandsince his return to the United States to bring abont auuexation arises, it is only fair to suppose, from the fact that he is the onlj' United States Minister, at least in recent years, who has been false to the trust coufided in him and has misused the auihoritv intrnsted to him by this governmeut to upset the regular and consiitutional governmeat to whieh he was accredited, and without autbority set up a protectorate and substitute the American flag on the government buildings for tbat of the nation and g >vernmeut to whieh he was an accredited representative. For tbat, Secretary Foster sharply reprimanded him, and he still fcels apf»rently the stiug of that repnmand, as also of tbediscovery sioce made, of the diplomatic misconduct by whieh he put a stam oo the honor and good name of tbe United Statos. Whieh, fortunate!y for us, President Clcveland has determined (o retnove, Chabi.es Noju>hoff.