The Hawaiian Moses? 1893.

“THE MISTAKES OF MOSES.”

We refer, of course, to the Hawaiian political Moses, who has recently broken camp, and set the faithful in motion through sea, desert and wilderness to the Land of Promise, beyond the shadow of the Throne. Yes! We refer to the Hawaiian political Moses, but whether his other name is Dole or Thurston, has not, at this writing, fully transpired. Still, the doubt as to his other name is a merely nominal doubt, not affecting the merits of the case. And as the original state—man of that name was not gifted with immunity from error, so neither has the Hawaiian Moses, even during his very brief pilgrimage, avoided all mistakes. It should ever be the part of a friend to note his friends’ infirmities, and, by bringing them mildly to their authors’ notice, suggest their reform, or convey a warning against their repetition.

———

We are all aware of the high pressure of seeming necessity under which the present government was formed. We can therefore appreciate, to some extent, the causes of the neglect to observe, towards the numerous Native element, those marks of regard and confidence without which no government can hope to endure in Hawaii. We repeat, that the pressure of the occasion must be the excuse of the gentlemen at the head of the movement for their seemingly unfriendly, and even hostile attitude toward the entire Native race, in the ordering of early events under the new dispensation.

———

The exclusion of Hawaiians from a participation in the beneficent project not only seemed, but was, and is complete. There may have been, and no doubt were reasons, seemingly sound to those who adopted them, for such a course,—reasons of which the public cannot judge, because the public know them not. Yet it would seem that one of two propositions must be true; viz.: either the Hawaiians were needlessly, and, therefore, harshly excluded from such participation in the reforming of their own government, or else the entire race were deemed by the leaders to be unfit to participate in such an enterprise.

———

If the former of the above propositions be true, one would naturally expect the mistake to be rectified at the earliest opportunity. That it has not been rectified would seem to stamp it as having been no mistake, but a course deliberately adopted, for, note the opportunity to retrieve the error, (if error it had been thought to be) in the filling of the four vacancies in the Advisory Council, on the 21st inst. It was then, as seems to us, the manifest duty of the government to seek out and appoint to those vacancies, men of Hawaiian blood, whose brains, interests and loyalty to the new idea bespoke than as deserving of such honor and confidence.

———

The failure of the government to attempt to bring even one Hawaiian to a seat at the Council Board is susceptible of only one of two meanings:—1st, that no Hawaiian could be found possessing those qualifications, or, 2nd, that the government were determined to ignore and exclude them, in any event.

———

If such exclusion was premeditated and malicious, the less said of it the better, as it is self-condemnatory. If on the other hand, there be no native Hawaiian fit to occupy a seat in the government councils, with what degree of candor or confidence can the Provisional Government request of expect the United States to incorporate our country into itself? What a commentary upon that request is the action of the government itself, in thus excluding from their confidence the entire aboriginal race, more completely than the Mongolian is now excluded from the Union. Forty odd thousand Hawaiians on these shores, and not one, (in the opinion of the government,) entitled or qualified to have a voice in the government of his native land. What a text for the American enemies of annexation, and how they will use it!

(Liberal, 1/25/1893, p. 2)

"THE MISTAKES OF MOSES."

The Liberal, Volume I, Number 39, Page 2. January 25, 1893.