The Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu (Oahu), Hawaii) 1840-1841, 1840-09-05
Vol. l.-NO. 13.

which would result from refusal. These
remarks apply to the Treaty in question. 1t
yields important rights for which it receives
no equivalent at all commensurate with the
value of its concessions. In short, it may
be said to grant every thing and receive
nothing. BY it the government of the Sand
wich Islands has virtually put it out of its
power to enact revenue laws for its own
mantainence and the, good of the country,
A right, so essential to the existence of indie
pendent governments, that, without it, they
cannot be considered as really Independent.
1t can adopt no protective policy to encour-
age the industry of its own subjects, as near
ly all independent nations do, and none more
exclusively so than the French.
BY the fourth Article also, which grants
to Frenchmen who are obnoxious to the ac-
ton of the civil or criminal law, trial only by
a foreign jury, chosen by the French Con-
sui, the government has been shorn of the
power to execute impartially and alike upon
foreigner and native its civil and criminal
laws.
Sir Stephen Washington, Judge of the
British Admiralty Court, in speech in the
British Legislature, on the 10Th of March,
1889, says, "That he had never yet heard
that the natives of nation dwelling in
another nation, could claim freedom from
the laws of the land, and never that one State
should say to another, will have COM
mercial treaty for my own advantage; you
shall not exercise the great and important
right Of all States to make treaties of COM
merce according to your notions of adj
vantage" Of this speech writer says,
"The Importance and conclusive character
Of Sir Stephen Lushngtons speech, together
with the fact of his being now on the bench.
advised by that great international judge,
Lord Stowell, which gives to it weight and
influence Of the most decided description,
will render useless any abbreviation of the
addresses of the subsequent speakers"
Lord Palmcrston also said on the same oc-
casion, "That it was not fitting to a country,
by force of arms, to compel another to con-
clude a treaty OF commerce.
we agree WIFI the DrltlSn statesmen IN
their remarks, because they are the dictates
of common sense, and however widely ma
tons may have deviated from them in prac-
tice) from time immemorial have been ac-
knowedged as rules Of equity proper to be
adopted in international intercourse.
1t may be asked in what manner the pow
er of the Sandwich Islands government to
enact revenue laws has been abridged by
the Treaty. We answer, that French mer-
chandses by Article 9th cannot be prohibit
ed at all, however much the interests of the
nation may require it, and 5 per cent is the
highest duty which can be levied Great
Britain and the United States have treaties
placing them upon the footing of the most
favored nations and is it to be supposed
that other poceyful nations, should they en-
gage in commerce with the Sandwich Islands,
will accept less favorable terms' Certain
ly not The power of prohibition thus be-
ing taken away from the government, and 5
per cent. being the maximum duty which
may be levied upon foreign merchandises,
and this in SO limited a commerce as that of
these islands must be for many years to come,
being hardly adequate to defray custom