Restoration Day, 1896.

The Independent recalls the fact that to-day is Restoration day. It reprints on its first page Professor Alexander’s description of the incidents attaching to it. If inaccurate in detail, it is worth reading and is suggestive to thoughtful persons at the present time. The government in control forgets the day, but Hawaiians remember and respect it, and in a few years time will again observe and honor it.

[Tomorrow will be the 171st anniversary of the restoration of the Kingdom.]

(Independent, 7/31/1896, p. 2)

 

The Independent recalls...

The Independent, Volume III, Number 340, Page 2. July 31, 1896.

Kaulia’s invitation to Morgan, 1897.

KAULIA TO HEAR MORGAN

ANTI-ANNEXATIONIST LEADER SIGNS INVITATION.

Says His People are Anxious to Learn From the Veteran Senator What Annexation Would Mean to Them.

Senator Morgan has accepted the invitation of the native Hawaiians to address them in public meeting upon the political relations between Hawaii and the United States.

Among the signers of the invitation is James K. Kaulia, president of the Hawaiian Patriotic League and president of the Aloha Aina Society. Mr. Kaulia is bitterly opposed to annexation and he is at the head of the opposition among his own countrymen. It was Mr. Kaulia who was largely instrumental in getting a few Hawaiians to gather in an abortive mass meeting at the Union Square last month, and adopt the resolutions protesting against annexation which Mr. Kaulia afterwards at the head of a committee of fifteen presented to President Dole and his Cabinet.

Mr. Kaulia states that he as well as the members of the societies he represents are anxious to hear Senator Morgan and they are truly grateful to him that he has consented to speak.

The invitation sent to the Senator, as well as the signers, is a follows:

“Honolulu, Sept. 24, 1897.

“To Senator John T. Morgan, City:

“We the undersigned native Hawaiians desire very much to hear you in an address upon the political relations between Hawaii and the United States and particularly desire your views as to the condition of the native Hawaiians and the position they would occupy under closer political relations with the United States.

“We therefore invite you to deliver a public address to the Hawaiians in this city at your convenience upon the above subjects, and if you accept, will make all necessary provisions for the holding of the meeting.

“Yours very respectfully,

“D. L. NAONE,
“J. KALUA KAHOOKANO,
“J. M. POEPOE,
“R. W. WILCOX,
“JOHN LOT KAULUKOU,
“JAMES K. KAULIA,
“President Hawaiian Patriotic League and President Aloha Aina Society.
“S. M. KAAUKAI.”

The meeting will be held on Thursday evening, at the Opera House, and Senator Morgan states that he will treat the question to the best of his ability.

(Hawaiian Star, 9/28/1897, p. 1)

KAULIA TO HEAR MORGAN

The Hawaiian Star, Volume IV, Number 1386, Page 1. September 28, 1897.

More on Kaulia and Morgan, 1897.

DISAVOWAL.

Kaulia Censured for Signing the Request to Senator Morgan.

This will certify that Mr. James K. Kaulia, as President of the Hawaiian Patriotic League, had no authority to sign the invitation to the Hon. John T. Morgan to address Hawaiians on the subject of Annexation. The signature of Mr. Kaulia is his personal matter, not as President of our Association.

J. K. Kaunamano,
James L. Aholo,
M. Palau,
E. W. Palau,
S. K. Kaloa,
D. W. Kamaliikane,
G. W. Kualaku,
S. W. Kawelo,
E. K. Lilikalani.

Executive Committee.

(Independent, 9/29/1897, p. 2)

DISAVOWAL.

The Independent, Volume V, Number 701, Page 2. September 29, 1897.

The Independent speaks out, 1897.

Ed. The Independent:—

“The little knot of noisy royalists,” as the Star chooses to call the overwhelming majority of the legal voters of 1892, numbering about 15,000, who in the near future will be called upon to decide by a plebiscite as to the form of government they wish to live under is now by the natural whirl of events fast approaching their object. When the far astray Alabama Senator arose and advocated the passing of the annexation bill at the closing of the last session of Congress, no notice was taken of him, but the bill was laid over until the December term, to be killed in short order, for the following reasons. In the first place the American people excepting a few cranks of the Stevens and Morgan stamp, had far rather have Hawaii as an independent nation than annex it. The silent mutterings of Russia, Germany and France against America annexing the islands, with England quietly watching and enjoying the game, as she well knows, that the moment America reaches out in mid-ocean land grabbing, that moment dies the Monroe doctrine, which America now foresees. Tempest in a teapot, this little fuss and feathers oligarchic trundle bed minority, will end thus: Before next January there will be an understanding between America, England, France and perhaps Germany, for a joint protection of this nation against all other powers. Those nations will then say to Uncle Sam, that we cannot protect a small band of armed traitors against a people who have for the last five years been crying to the world for justice! Therefore, order at once the abrogation of the treaty between Japan and Hawaii, that Hawaii may regulate her plantation labor as the necessity for labor is required, and then in no uncertain tone demand a plebiscite to be taken and see that it is done fairly, which is but simple justice to that doubly wronged nation. That is the play now being prepared to be placed upon the stage of Hawaii, and performed to the admiration and joy of her people.

Au Revoir.

(Independent, 10/16/1897, p. 2)

Ed. The Independent

The Independent, Volume V, Number 716, Page 2. October 16, 1897.

The Evening Bulletin chimes in, 1897.

Other groups in the Pacific have been taken under the wings of great nations, for their own substantial benefit as has already been proved, within the past ten years. Even Samoa would be no exception if any one of the three Powers ruling her had been given the exclusive control, and the unsettled condition of that group is simply a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. But it is objected that the Hawaiian people, in point of civilization and capacity for affairs, are away above comparison with other Polynesians. To this objection it is fair to reply with the question: “Is there not one particular nation to which the Hawaiians are indebted for the chief elements of their distinction, in addition to and apart from their own personal qualities of mentality and teachableness, docility and hospitality?” This answered in the affirmative, as it cannot otherwise be, there naturally follows the question: “Cannot that one nation then be trusted to bear the Hawaiians more closely in its arms to higher planes of civic competence and moral and material prosperity?” With the past advantages and opportunities of the Hawaiians thrown in their path, moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the Samoans and Tahitians should not be every whit their equals, in all respects of credit, today. Still further it is a fair statement to make, that the interests of their great patron nation, the United States, in the Hawaiians’ country are comparatively greater—making every allowance for vested native rights—than the interests of other nations in the countries of the Pacific that they have respectively appropriated. The United States has fully and fairly paid the Hawaiians for the limited proprietary title she bids fair soon to claim over these islands. “Limited” is a word here used advisedly, for when admitted to the Union this country will have reserved to it the privileges of self-government in all matters not federal. Senator Morgan made a good point in his reply to Mr. Kaulia published in the Independent of Saturday, when he intimated in effect that the United States claimed certain intrinsic rights in these islands, and that there is no more reason why the question of annexation should be submitted to a direct vote of the Hawaiians than for submitting it to a vote of the people of the United States. In other words, the United States sowed the seed of civilization and prosperity here, and now comes to reap the legitimate and natural harvest. Uncle Sam is going to “take in” a new piece of ground on his farm, and all the living denizens of that lot will be the better for it.

(Evening Bulletin, 10/19/1897, p. 4)

Other groups in the Pacific...

Evening Bulletin, Volume IV, Number 739, Page 4. October 19, 1897.

Senator John T. Morgan replies, 1897.

MORGAN’S REPLY.

The Senator From Alabama Answers J. K. Kaulia’s Open Letter.

He Defends the Position of Himself and the Annexationists.

Honolulu, Oct. 12, 1897.

Mr. James K. Kaulia,

Dear Sir,—A pressure of engagements has necessarily delayed an answer to your open letter.

Having no disposition to interfere in Hawaiian affairs or to attempt to influence the opinions of the Hawaiians on the subject of annexation to the United States, or to any country, I do not wish to enter upon a discussion, which you invite, as to any views I have heretofore expressed on that subject.

A preference is quite a different matter from an alternative, when the latter is forced upon us by circumstances beyond our control. As my government has not submitted to a vote of our people, the question of our willingness to accept the annexation of Hawaii, and has not a proceeding so unusual and so idle, I have not thought it necessary, or fair, that this question should be submitted to a popular vote in Hawaii, Your Constitution provides for annexation without such a vote. But I would regret to have you feel that I am indifferent to the wishes of your people on this subject; I wish them to feel that our motives are honorable; that our sentiments are only those of sincere regard for their happiness, and that our course towards them will be wise and just.

I have said in the Senate that if I was a Hawaiian citizen I would not prefer annexation to any country. If I were a Cuban I would have the same preference for a separate and independent Republic, won by Cuban blood. This is in the sense of national pride, which must always yield to national safety.

But the present condition of Cuba and of Hawaii does not admit of such a preference.

Cuba has found that she must be a republic in order to escape the terrors of foreign monarchial rule, and Hawaii must also remain a republic to avoid sinking into a like condition.

If Hawaii relapses into monarchy she will be cut off from any reliance on the protection of the United States. In that event we could not accept her into our Union, nor could we, in any event, accept Hawaii as a dependency, or colony. We have no such powers under our Constitution.

When the alternative is presented as it is, whether I would prefer annexation to the United States rather than have Hawaii sink into a petty monarchy, to be ruled by some foreign country, I would prefer to save the liberties of the people, through annexation, to a tawdry show of royalty by a few persons set in authority over them, who would be compelled to do the bidding of some monarch. In the American Union Hawaii would be really independent, and would be forever safe against any foreign interference. She would not be smothered with Asiatic immigrants, nor would she ever become a sugar colony of a monarch, as Cuba is, to be robbed and oppressed by non-resident nabobs, and then flayed alive on the first utterance of a plea or protest in the name of humanity. Finding that it is necessary to act in order to meet the clandestine movements of some citizens and others who are subjects of foreign monarchies, for the destruction of republican government in Hawaii, I would prefer annexation to the United States, rather than risk the danger of having to fight for the life of the country, as Cuba is forced to do.

When Japau wished to annex Formosa to her Empire, she did not consult the Chinese there, to ascertain their wishes. When by a process of emigration Japan has filled these islands with her people, who still owe allegiance to the Emperor, she will ask no questions of the Hawaiians whether they wish to become Japanese subjects; nor will your people be able to resist this quiet process of absorption, you will sink, as the rains sink into the thirsty soil.

If your people were all united in their preference for republican government, I would, if I were a citizen of Hawaii, now prefer her separate independence, as a matter of pride, yet I remember how costly, to Ireland, a like feeling has been, and how it has lost to her people all hope of separate national independence, but the Hawaiian Islands are not independent of fate, however much their native people may desire a separate government. If I belonged to that race I would sacrifice any preference, either of pride or convenience, rather than be suffocated with people who have nothing in common with them in religion, or in their ideas of government. I would unite with the American people in their support of free, constitutional government rather than see any republic relapse into a monarchy, in this Western Hemisphere.

Very respectfully,

John T. Morgan.

(Independent, 10/16/1897, p. 3)

MORGAN'S REPLY.

The Independent, Volume V, Number 716, Page 3. October 16, 1897.

James Keauiluna Kaulia speaks to America, 1897 / 2014.

AN OPEN LETTER.

From J. K. Kaulia to Senator Morgan.

Let the United States Undo the Great Wrong Perpetrated Upon the Hawaiian People by Minister Stevens, and then Consult Them as to Annexation.

There is cause for congratulating ourselves, we who have yet faith in the justice and honor of the great United States, our greatest friend and nearest neighbor, at the presence in our midst of that noble representative of the Senate of the United States Hon. John T. Morgan, of Alabama. Tho Senator comes not hither unknown, unhonored or unsung, for thousands have heard his voice, only a few weeks ago in the Capital City of California, and tributes of esteem have met him at every turn. To those who have no knowledge of Senator Morgan’s character or position it was sufficient to say that the gentleman is Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, a Committee which will, in the near future, pass upon questions of grave importance to little Hawaii, and the result of which means an honorable life as an independent nation or the sending out of national existence the only representative nation in the Pacific. Senator Perkins, a long time friend of Senator Morgan, says: “if there is one that ever occupied the position of a Senator with a conscientious desire to do his duty faithfully to the whole people, it is the distinguished Senator from Alabama.” And the words that Senator Morgan given public voice to, before leaving the City of San Francisco, shows his mission hither; he says, “I am going as far as the Hawaiian Islands for the purpose of trying to understand the geographical, commercial and other situations which I conceive to be very important for the people and the Government of the United States and (mark) necessary to enable me to conscientiously discharge duties incumbent on me and my colleagues in the House and the Senate.”

Again, later on, in the speech delivered by him in San Francisco on the evening of tho 6th of September, Senator Morgan gave expression to sentiments which do honor to his heart and head and enables one to place great confidence in this leading American Senator for he said: “I think that an American citizen who is an honest man faithful to his duties and who has a trust reposed in him by the voice of a constituency when he pursues that cause unfalteringly, honestly, imparcially and justly is entitled to the encomium at least of ‘Well done thou good and faithful servant.’ When we come to the end of our earthly career, if a higher power shall say to each and all of us, ‘Well done thou good and faithful servant,’ we will feel that we have not insufficiently served the Master who can bestow on us benedictions like that.” To us here in Hawaii, who still love Hawaii and hope for the long-delayed but expected justice at the hands of the United States, Senator Morgan voicing such sentiments, would prove a good advocate when time and opportunity makes him familiar with the surroundings of the coup d’etat which caused Hawaii to be the petitioner to her great and good friend, “Uncle Sam,” to have right and justice done her.

To ask for bread and receive but a stone would hardly be provocative of obtaining the praise and blessing of the Just One so aptly alluded to by Senator Morgan. And, Senator Morgan coming here, as he does, on an honest survey, 2,100 miles across the blue Pacific, shut off for several weeks from his people, came not alone but in company of other distinguished members of the Congress of the United States. But why should those distinguished people come so far? when, as Senator Morgan truly says, “The United States Government, great, majestic, powerful and splendid as it is, is still in its formative period. We are not yet a complete Government.” True, Senator, such has been said before and will be again, and as you yourself say, Mr. Senator, “Look at Alaska, that vast body of land which is developing more wealth, both in the supply of human food from the sea and gold from the land, and timber. Look at it. It has not yet a Governor. It has no Legislature; it has a mere form of a judicial system. New Mexico and Arizona are yet under a territorial Government.” But, is it because the goods are of better quality in Hawaii and practically unprotected that the desire for attainment becomes so prominent to-day. The destiny of Hawaii, situated in the Mid-Pacific as she is, should be that of an independent nation and so she would be were it not for the policy of greed which pervades the American Legislators and the spirit of cowardice which is in the breasts of those who first consummated the theft of Hawaiian prestige.

But from Senator Morgan, we hope for bettor results than might be expected when he already has mapped out that the boundary line, The “outside boundary of the United States is to begin at the island of Pioka, 600 miles west of Honolulu, in the Aleutian Peninsula, and swooping from there to the Hawaiian group, then to the land 12 miles below San Diego on the Mexican border.” But “man proposes and God disposes,” and the Senator, who was a sturdy champion of the cause of succession when it threatened to disrupt that great country of his which he now speaks of so fervently, the Senator knows that the ways of Providence are inscrutable and God defends the right.

Again it seems as though it were a great waste of time and labor for Senator Morgan to leave the shores of California when there is so much there to be done in throttling the gigantic steals which are, as he states he has knowledge of, being perpetrated on the United States Government and the people of California. The Senator states that there is now an attempt being made to steal $25,000,000, and that there is “need for the people of California to take immediate action.” In the next few words the Senator tells those same people, American citizens, and members of that “majestic and splendid Government,” that this great wrong that he speaks of is about being carried out in his own grand country (to which he seeks to annex yet virtuous little Hawaii), this monstrous steal of which the honorable gentleman facetiously remarks that 25,000,000 was taken “for pocket lining,” this wrong is being consummated, and will be consummated, and before Congress meets in next December, * * * we will then have presented to us the judgment of a court upon a great case, and you and I, sir, will be asked to swallow it,” and the Senator plainly tells them that they, the people, are practically helpless in a matter of this kind.”

But let us here in  Hawaii aid the Senator in his excursion of some 6000 miles for knowledge on a question which he pleads lack of inform-

(Independent, 10/11/1897, p. 1)

An Open Letter.

The Independent, Volume V, Number 711, Page 1. October 11, 1897.

ation although it seems that the name of the Senator has become attached to at least one official brochure which loomed with thoughts upon Hawaii and the annexation to the United States of America. The logical way to debate this question, Mr. Senator Morgan, would be, first, to prove that the United States has a right to annex these islands, for if the coveted territory were a gold mine of inestimable value, if annexation be an unjust act, the United States should positively refuse to add the Hawaiian Islands to her territory, and Senator Morgan, an honorable representative of that great Government, anxious to do his duty conscientiously, with the seeming love for God in his heart and the desire for the approbation of being “a good and faithful servant” on his lips, should be last man to aid, over so little, in the consummation of a wrong. Then let us reason together, Mr. Senator, on the justice of the question. It cannot be foreign to your knowledge, sir, that, in dispatch numbered 74 of ex-American Minister Stevens, that gentleman previous to the so-called revolution of January 16, 1893, published the fact that he was engaged with certain American citizens to overthrow the Hawaiian Government. In this dispatch sent to Washington some fifty days before the revolution, the then American Minister asks for “wise and bold action” to overthrow the monarchy and rescue the property owners. Can the United States in consistency with past principles annex these islands until she has made herself right before the world by undoing everything that this Minister has done? Can the United States afford to have annexation of the Hawaiian Islands go down into history as having been previously worked up by the United States Minister and American citizens? And let us see fully the hand that the American Minister had in the overthrow of a friendly sovereign. After the Queen had withdrawn the proposed Constitution after an official proclamation had been issued congratulatory on the peace and order which had prevailed, when the usual routine of business and pleasure was again at work, and the Hawaiians had settled down again to their usual quiet life, when no riot had occurred nor no life been lost, Mr. Stevens, the American Minister, writes to Captain Wiltze, commanding the U. S. S. Boston, then in Honolulu Harbor:

“Sir.—In view of the existing critical circumstances in Honolulu, including an inadequate legal force I request you to land marines and sailors from the ship under your command for the protection of the United States Legation and the United States Consulate, and to secure the safety of American life and property.”

Now, Mr. Senator Morgan, where, think you, were the “critical circumstances?” Not in the Government, nor among the Hawaiians. No. The “critical circumstances” were a little knot of foreigners (Americans) trying to overthrow the Constitutional Government so that they could offer the Hawaiian Islands to the United States for annexation, and at the time they did not have a single soldier in arms. It was “critical circumstances” indeed. The Queen with her one thousand or more determined men could have destroyed the conspiracy quickly, but Mr, Stevens, the American Minister, landed the United States troops and held the Queen and the army at bay until the conspirators had organized to overthrow the Government. When the then United States representative (Mr. Blount) arrived here some thirty days after the Provisional Government, which was offering itself and its stolen property to the United States, was still under the protection of Mr. Stevens and the army and navy of America. And Mr. Senator Morgan let me draw your attention to the fact that the Queen did not surrender to the Provisional Government but to the United States and declared in a published statement that, “I yield to the superior force of the United States.” En passant it may be worthy your attention that the protest of Her Majesty to her great and good friend Uncle Sam yet remains unanswered.

Now, Mr. Senator, let us place this state of things as happening in America and at a time, Mr. Senator when you had knowledge from personal experience, of the surrounding circumstances. Let us suppose that at the time the people of the South were working up their great conspiracy to divide the Union that a large Union army was in readiness to squelch the conspiracy. Suppose at this time England with a much larger and stronger army had landed and marched between the forces of the North and South and had held the people of the North at bay until the South had so organized their forces as to be enabled to overthrow the Government! England would have been just as guilty and responsible as if she had taken the American Capital by storm. Do you not think so, Mr. Senator?

But let us consider the position of the United States if this proposed scheme of annexation is consummated. By such act the established policy of the United States is at once broken and the change of national policy is a grave proceeding, it involves the fate of the nation that changes it. The complex territorial interests both at home and abroad of the European powers has forced upon those powers relations of a most intricate character. Territory is the bone of their contention. Intervention is the policy of European nations but it is not the policy of the United States. Instead of being surrounded by rivals, America lives in a sphere essentially her own. No armies or navies are needed to preserve a “Balance of Power,” for there is none to preserve. She is so far distant from the complications of the other great nations that to her it matters not whether the star ascendant of Europe be that of England, France, Germany, Russia or Austria. Her territorial isolation has enabled her to pursue an isolated policy, a policy of “Friendship with all nations and entangling alliances with none” has been the motto of all administrations from Washington on.

The American people delivered from the desire and fear of war sentiments, from standing armies and great navies have been free to take the leading place in this world’s industrial development. But a change of conditions must bring a change of policy. The ocean territories are largely in the possession of other powers; an extension of American domain into the same regions means an identification of American foreign interests with other powers and the consequent entanglement and complications which American policy has always sought to avoid. And why this greed for the Hawaiian Islands? Is it a naval station that is needed? For that it would seem that American home ports are much in need of such protection. Is it a coaling station that is desired? That is obtainable by treaty. Or is it the islands’ wealth that America desires? If so, then America will desire to annex the earth. The shore lines of American policy once crossed is crossed for ever and one acquisition leads but to another. And Mr. Senator, let me say in closing that, annexation or no annexation “Fiat justitia ruat cœlum;” there is a preferred charged of wrong-doing and justice against the United States, let there not be another and graver one of direct subjugation. Ask for the voice of Hawaii on this subject Mr. Senator, and you will hear it with no uncertain tones ring out from Niihau to Hawaii—”Independence now and forever.”

Then Mr. Senator, let The Great Republic of America undo the wrong that has been done to the Hawaiian Nation by its Representatives, and when you come to the end of your earthly career a High Power will say “Well done thou good and faithful Servant.”

James Keauiluna Kaulia.

Honolulu, Oct. 11, 1897.

(Independent, 10/11/1897, p. 4)

ation although...

The Independent, Volume V, Number 711, Page 4. October 11, 1897.

Hawaiian Star’s coverage of the protest rally of July 2, 1894.

The noticable lack of enthusiasm at the Royalist mass meeting yesterday afternoon was not surprising. The half-dozen foreigners who got up the affair, to protest against the Republic, will now probably admit it is a hard matter to work up native enthusiasm at a political funeral.

(Hawaiian Star, 7/3/1894, p. 2)

The noticable lack of enthusiasm...

The Hawaiian Star, Volume III, Number 86, Page 2. July 3, 1894.

Newspaper in favor of the Republic and the mass protest of July 2, 1894.

THEIR LAST POLITICAL ABSURDITY.

Those who have hung a last hope on a turn in the political tide favorable to royalism have again been disappointed. The eager anticipation that the new constitution would not receive the support of the radical element of the political clubs has been dashed by the unanimity and enthusiasm with which the call for to-night’s ratification meeting has been received. Hope deferred hath surely made the heart of the royalist politician heavy; and that “terrible tired feeling” has, since the passage of the Senate resolution, characterized the actions and scheming of the ex-queen’s street politicians. They have not learned of wisdom, though tutored thus far by a kind fate; and they refuse to abate one jot of their absurd pretentions, though a point has been reached where the royalist faith-cure and racial egotism will avail no more forever.

The crowning absurdity of all the royalist planning since the overthrow of the monarchy, has been reached in the mass meeting “to protest” against the establishment of the Republic and the new constitution. Wiser heads have already entered similar protests—protests with somewhat of weight and prestige back of them, made both here and abroad; but they have amounted to naught, not being more substantial under the circumstances than the breath with which they were projected.

It has been certainly an untoward fate that has snapped off the daily yearnings of retrogression and restoration almost as soon as they have been made public through diplomatic or local channels. It seem not yet to have dawned upon the monarchists and their more influential backers of different sorts and conditions that the royalist leaders are failing to play political trumps because the people of Hawaii have refused to deal them the necessary cards. The present, in fact, is a clear case of “new deal” where “bluffs” do not count.

It is pretty safe to say the Royalist mass meeting announced for this afternoon at 5 o’clock is another little game of political bluff gotten up by the usual coterie of anti-Republicans to give color to some little scheme of their own. Or it may be that this time the many desertions an general tendency of the natives during the past two weeks to come over to the Republic and the cause of Annexation has so chilled the political atmosphere that the half dozen foreigners from everywhere, who have been misleading and misadvising the natives for the past year, feel the absolute necessity of an immediate display of vocal fireworks to sustain their fading influence with the natives yet a little longer.

The public will remember the little mass meeting dodge of Mr. C. W. Ashford and other men of the stripe some months ago, when several hundred Chinese were present on special invitation to make a respectable showing. The meeting, however, as far as representing anything or anybody, except the three or four anti-American speakers on the stand, was an unqualified fizzle. Such will be the unlamented fate of the alleged mass meeting this afternoon to protest against the establishing of the Republic of Hawaii. This time the royalist braves will not even have the countenance of the Chinese who have sense enough to see the destinies of Hawaii are pointing elsewhere.

[Just as there were English newspapers in Hawaii with different stances, so too were there different stances taken by the different  Hawaiian-Language Newspapers.]

(Hawaiian Star, 7/2/1894, p. 2)

THEIR LAST POLITICAL ABSURDITY.

The Hawaiian Star, Volume III, Number 85, Page 2. July 2, 1894.

The people speak, 1894.

PROTEST OF THE PEOPLE.

Three Thousand Hawaiians Declare Their Objection to the Republic.

A very short and a very insufficient call was made for a mass meeting on Palace Square at 5 o’clock yesterday afternoon, to protest against the promulgation of the Republic while the question of the revolution was still in the hands of the United States Executive as arbitrator. Scarcely anybody knew a meeting of the kind was intended until yesterday morning. Nevertheless, when the hour arrived there had assembled a thousand people, this number being tripled by the time proceedings began.

The premises of Mr. Nacayama were kindly allowed for the use of the meeting. In the small elevated pavilion overlooking the square were seated Mr. and Mrs. H. A. Widemann, Mr. and Mrs. James Campbell, Mr. and Mrs. John A. Cummins, Mrs. Nawahi, Mrs. Aholo, Mrs. Fernandez and Miss Peabody. In front were Messrs. J. O. Carter, J. Nawahi, J. E. Bush, R. W. Wilcox, J. K. Kaulia and press reporters. There were also stationed at the front the Government shorthand reporter, J. W. Jones, and interpreter, W. L. Wilcox, to catch any sedition that might be talked to the crowd.

Mr. Nawahi called the meeting to order and introduce in turn Mr. Kaulia to read the resolution in Hawaiian, and Mr. Carter to perform the same office in English. The resolution is a follows:

“Be it resolved, that the Hui Aloha Aina and other Patriotic Leagues, together with the Loyal subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in Mass Meeting assembled, representing by far the greater majority of the legitimate voters of this country, do hereby most solemnly protest against the promulgation of a new Constitution, formed without the consent and participation of the People, and we also protest against changing the form of government from the one under which we have lived peacefully and prosperously for many years. And that we maintain that the will of the majority of the legitimate voters of Hawaii should be the supreme power of the land, as such power is so recognized and accepted by all the enlightened countries and by all the enlightened governments of the world.”

Mr. Bush then delivered the following address in both languages:

Fellow Citizens and Friends:

We are convened here this afternoon under the broad canopy of heaven, to enunciate broad and important principles. We are not here to express any personal grievances, nor to make any personal complaints, but as a large body of the people we are here, to express our wishes in a peaceful and orderly manner, against the promulgation  of a document which we deem subversive of our rights as free citizens of this country. We are here in the interests of every individual present, and of every individual absent, whom some of us as associated bodies here represent, and of every unit of this government. We are here to set forth the inherent rights of every man and woman in Hawaii nei, and to object to any act restrictive of their rights, and are doing our duty. However, we are not unmindful of the just and legitimate authority vested in those who have assumed the governmental power to administer the affairs of the governed. We recognize the right of civil government to be, and the duty is divinely enjoined upon all rendering to the governmental power, provisional as well as permanent, that which legitimately belongs to it.

We believe that civil governments are ordained of God for the good of every man, woman and child, through the will of the people, and as long as so administered for their good and with their consent, we should give our adherence to it. We are not in sympathy with anarchy or with the creation of social disorder, believing that all our troubles can be more easily and more intelligently adjusted by the peaceful process of free and untrammeled appeal to the people, from whom all just power to govern belongs, and from whence it should emanate.

And it is because the fundamental principles of just government have been studiously and wilfully ignored by the powers that have been set up over us, through the armed intervention of the forces of a nation presumed to be on friendly intercourse with us, that we are gathered here to make protest against the further encroachment upon those principles and upon our rights as free citizens of an independent country, and especially against the promulgation of a constitution in which, by unusual restrictions, the people have been debarred from participating in, if they so desired. However, we have had other reasons for not participating in the framing of such a document, i.e., that we are pledged to respect the position of the Chief Executive of the American Nation, who, for the honor of his country, and for our benefit, is made a party to our affairs, as arbiter.

Until the United States, through its chosen head, is heard from, we find ourselves on the verge of being made a party, by tacit consent, to an act that sets aside all sense of honor, all moral obligation, yes, to participate in a flagrant insult toward and breach of confidence in a nation to whom we have submitted our differences for arbitration and readjustment. If for no other rea-

(Daily Bulletin, 7/3/1894, p. 1)

PROTEST OF THE PEOPLE.

The Daily Bulletin, Volume VII, Number 1074, Page 1. July 3, 1894.

son than the last, we should all the more loudly proclaim our disapproval of the proposed institution of a new for of Government, under a new constitution formed by an oligarchy, until the arbiter of our dispute is heard from, and until if need be the voice of the people of Hawaii is heard, whose right it is to speak upon Hawaii’s future destiny.

We regret, deeply regret, the necessity that calls for this protest from us. But duty to ourselves and honor to those whom we have appealed to demand that we should give utterance to our views in brief and in unmistakable language, without being personal or vituperative. It is a God-given right, and we would be derelict in duty if we refrained from exercising it, and unanimously sustaining the resolution just read, which embodies all that is necessary to express our principles and by thus publicly and peacefully putting ourselves upon record before the world, absolve ourselves from the charge of being partakers in arbitrary and high-handed measures, the culmination of successive unprincipled acts, which began nearly two years ago.

We have met here to protest against personal government, against every act which restricts the inherent rights of the people. No one can deny that the constitution proposed by the Provisional Government is based upon a fraudulent foundation. The whole fabric from which it emanated is one of injustice, fraud and fiction, and it will end, as all such acts of Neroism should end, by disgrace to the inceptors and disaster to the State that should be unfortunate enough to have such retrogressive principles for its foundations, whereby and by which to rule and govern its people.

Mr. Bush had thrown a few impromptu remarks into his written address, which caused laughter and applause. In arguing that the Constitution of the Republic did not assure stable government, he referred to the quarrel in the Convention between “Brother Damons and Brother Smith.” He asked if men born under the free flag of America could support the conduct of the authors of the Constitution. Cries of “No” answered him.

Mr. Nawahi in a few words spoke of the action in proclaiming a republic as premature, while Hawaiian affairs were yet under consideration by the United States. If he were the American Minister he would tell those people to keep to their provisional status until the matter was settled. He called for the ratification of the resolution by three cheers.

The call was responded to by a roar of voices which could be heard a mile away.

Messrs. Cummins, Widemann and Nawahi were named as a committee to present the resolution to the foreign representatives.

[The "Nacayama" who offers his premises to be used for this meeting must be G. O. Nacayama, seen also as G. O. Nakayama, the Inspector-in-Chief of Japanese Immigrants who lived on Merchant Street near the Opera House, as per PCA article 7/11/1894, p. 3.]

(Daily Bulletin, 7/3/1894, p. 4)

 

son than the last...

The Daily Bulletin, Volume VII, Number 1074, Page 4. July 3, 1894.