Polynesian., 1844-11-02

of State and The L. 8. Commissioner in me
Case Of John UIley, an .4mericon citizen.
Printed by order Of Government. Coy
crnmcnt Press: Honolulu, 1914.
a pamphlet with the above title is now in
circulation, and having read it with attention,
we have concluded to avail oursclf of an
editors privilege, and comment upon the
topics therein contained. The case in point.
involving as it does an important prcrogative
of His Maiesty's crown, merits the kcenest
scrutiny and the most lucid explanations.
In the pamphlet before us, it has been di-
Dramatically discussed at a length which
leaves but little room for further debate on
on that ground. We shall, therefore, con-
fine our criticism to that which comes more
particularly within our editorial province;
an examination into the validity of the argu-
ments adduced, the respective literary merits
of the writers, and the temper in which
either disputant has performed his labor.
The pamphlet, to be well understood,
must be peruscd with close attention. The
letter of Ill. II. Ms Secretary of state, Mr..
Judd, is a close, connected and logical az
branches, with legal acumcn and critical eX-
actness. 1t leaves no point which bears
upon it, or just inference to be drawn from
the power claimed by the U. S. Commits
L.
a vividness and terseness of language,
amounting not u~nirequently to a dignified
eloquence, highly appropriate to this species
of writing, which cannot but commend itself
to every reader possessing unbiased reason
ing powers, and capable of literary discrim-
nation. But while we award to it this eulo-
GUM, we are not insensible to some defects
of style. Not u few of the sentences are
of a length that renders it difficult for the
reader to carry along with him a full under
standing of the writer's meaning. This could
have been avoided by a slightly different
construction, aflording more periods. The
facts and reasoning should be clearly, con-
c'sCiy, uiu iuCtiioulIuIy ApICSStu uiiiII
ting of no doubt in the Interpretation. In
this instance we presume there can be none,
and we are confirmed in this opinion by the
singular course which Mr.. Brown has pur-
sued in his reply. From the reception of a
document cmbodying SO distinctly the prin-
clples of the case in dispute, and combining
itself, as it does, only to that subject and its
legnmate interences, w expected, upon turn
ing to Mr.. Browns answer, to find either an
acknowledgement of the business OF the ar
gument, or its contutation. But we were
disappointed, and to show the grounds of our
disappointment, we shall take up his letter
and examine it in detail. 10 do this, we
consider that we are justified in assuming
IN the outset, that IA diplomat should mani
lest, not only the language of Il gentleman,
but the legal and general knowledge which
are indispensable to so weighty Il vocation.
The author of Cours de Style Diploma
'que" remarking upon the qualities necessary
Tor the attainment of Il correct d%iction, says,
"Co'reciness and purityot style are too essen
hat, TO permit one 10 act n diplomatic part,
".ihom haring first ncqaired these frst bases
q depression. Grammatical or other errors,
m acts designed for sreoter or less publicity,
mrom ridicule upon Me anthor; reahen The
consideration ~hich he should merii, and IN
Jure his cause.
" The greatest care should be taken 10 arotd
mpec',res, injurious expressions, o0sms're re-
P'oaches and caiRmnious impressions; II IS an