Polynesian., 1844-12-28


disagreed with The commissioners were those affecting
the cases OF Dockam Of the British chaie ship James
Stecdrt, Of Gretnray's estate, and the circular to
governors of the 9th April 1913, t~orbldding them,
thereafter TO inprison any male or female for the
crime OF fornicatlon, unless committed in the open
streets or public thOroughfares. contrary TO an existing
law OF the ISLANDS. and the issue of licenses to anc-
tion ers in Honolulu, contrary 10 the law. Of the King
and chiefs enacted at Lahaina, Oh the Sth April lS43,
which allowed only two licensed auctonccrs for Homo.
lulu, under a tax Of 800 each, per annum.
MIR. Judd seems to have taken up the ground that
such acts of the commissioners we're contrary TO the Sd
article Of the provisional cession, which was as fol-
may be made at the ensuing council of the King and
chiefs, CATER being communicated to the cominissiOn)
should be IN full force SO far as natives arc concerned,
and shall form the basis of the administration Of JUS
tlce by the commission, in matters between foreigners
resident on these Islands,
will not enter upon nm examination of the question
whether MIR. Judd was right or wrong, but in justice to
a NOBLE co%nntryman, perhaps never to be seen again
on these Islands, J will offer some remarks upon the
circular interfering with the existing law against torni-
cation.
That circular was published in the Friend of 3lst Ju-
Iy 1915, and was as fOllOws:--
Office Of the British Commission for the Govern
meat Of thu Sand. kiands, April 81, 1913.
SlR,-ln consequence of its having reached the ears
OF the British Commissioners, from undOubted author
ity that women confined IN the Fort for .tornication
have been let out, at night in the streets, and on board
whale ships m harbor, for the purpose OF raising the
amounts OF their fines by farther torncation, | am iii.
reCted 10 INFORM yOu that by order OF the 4 OmlnlSSlOn-
es no male or female is to be nnpr isoned for the above
crime unless committed in the open streets or public
thoronghtares; but all cases of rape and adultery arc
to be punished as hitherto when complained OF by the
parties concerned.
am, Sir, Your Obj. servant,
H.SEA, Secretary.
II the existing law was so abused, as represented in
the above circular, apprehend no objection can be
raised to the alteration ordered on the score of moral
nv. Nothing could exceed the immOralItv and wick-
edness OF making the penalty of the law against for
hlcation subservlent to the obtaining ofwonien TO COM
mt the very crime with a profit to those who impris-
oned them. But have not been able to ascertain that
the abuses complained of, had any systematic exis-
tence at the Fort, either tolerated or made a profit
OF by the government authorities. On the other hand,
all the respectable residents with whom | have talked
upon the subject, concur in stating that the effects of
the relaxation of the law were in truth most perni-
the Dist OF July, when the law recovered its former
force.
That Lord George Paulct conscientiousIy believed in
the abuses as stated IN the circular, have not the least
doubt, and 1t Is by the sincerity of that belief and not
by the effects of the remedial measures that he
adopted, that we are TO Judge OF his Lordship's moral
intention. because open and shameless prostitution
followed the knowledge of his circular, it is not 10 be
inferred that his ~Lordship loresaw or intended that re-
suit. The bishop Of Exeter himself might have fall.
en- INTO the same mistake, for in his speed, in the
House Of Lords OH the 18th of June last, on the second
reading OF q bill for the suppression Of brothcIs, he re.
marked " that he did not consider prostitution as a
matter for legislative punishment. The punishment of
prostitution he held to be Il thing impossible; and why
was 1t Impossible? lie had no notion that the wisdom
OF man could devise Il punishment that should infict so
much of suffering and of degradation as prostitution
itself. Tie held prostitution itself to be a punishment,
an awful punishment which the God of mercy had de-
vised in order to terrify innocent females from falling
INTO those tremendous evils which he had appointed as
the punishment of the violation of chastity. To at
tempt to punish prOsttutiOn, would, in his mind, be as
wild a scheme as if the guilty city Of the plague had
issued Il law against the violent storm of birthstone and
hail that destroyed it, or us il the lsraelites in tho will
d!erness had prepared to pass a law against the destroy
ing angel
From these sentiments, it is evident that if the Right
Req. ,PreIate had been one of the British Commission
ers of the Sandwich Islands, he would have fallen into
the same mistake with Lord George Paulct, and both
from the same cause, Viz-ignOrance Of The peculiar
hdb'fs and ideas Of a people ,oiM ,chOm prostitution
may bring disease, bul scarcely any other suffering or
degradatiOn.
One other remark, | will venture TO make upon the
administration of L.ord George II has been said that
he was lavish in the expenditure OF the public money
IN considering this charge, II Is necessary TO bea1in mind
tina, the then recent acts of the naval forces OF a great
Catholic power, were understood as enanatIng from
the orders ct their government, and likely to be follow
ed up by others, extending perhaps 10 these Islands,
ana upro0ting the Christian faith rs it had been plant.
cd here by Protestant Missionaries; 1t could not be
expected that Lord George could certainly know
whether these acts OF aggression were authorized or
not authorized by that great Catholic power and he
may have thought It necessary as holder of these
Islands coded to him, by kamohamoha III, for the
queen OF Great Britain. not 10 invic aggression by
weakness, but place himself in n position to ward oil
any interference with his duty to and the trust he held
Tor both sovcrelgns. II he took that view ofhis posi-
fion, the expenses OF raising Il small military force i'm
The Islands, are not so reprchensible as TO some they
may appear.