Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu], Hawaii) 1844-1864, 1854-04-29


Government resisted all motions, made in
Parliament, to declare void the treaty made
between Lord Ashburton and the late Hon
orable Daniel Webster, upon that ground.
If, since | have had the honor of beino the
Kings Minister of Foreign Relations, have
invariably contended for the prerogatives
due to His Majesty. it is equally true that
have ever been no less sensitive in warding
OFF every lmputation on his honor and good
faith, by advising course which would
render that imputation unjust. Upon this
policy, am glad to have with me so high an
authority as Lord Palmerston; in his speech
/ in Parliament of the 18th of July, 1882. on
the Russian Dutch Loan, against motion
that the British Government should cease all
all further payments thereon his Lordship
spoke as follows:
In the course of these discussions, ap-
"peals have been made to authors of high
authority upon matters of this sort: there is
one short passage in one of these authors,
" mean Vattel, which | will take the liberty
&c to read, because it is extremely opposite
Ito the present question. Vattel, IN his
chapter on the observation of treaties,
"says the terms Of a treaty must be equal -
81 see those pretended great politicians
g smile, who place all their subtlety in cir
'cumyenting those with whom they treat,
g and regulating the conditions of a treaty
$ IN such manner that all the advantage
'' shall accrue to their masters Far from
! " blushing at a conduct so contrary to equity,
''to rectitude and national honesty, they
8 make it their glory and pretend to merit
" the name of great negotiators. How
''much do men in public character glory in
$ what would dishonor an individal The
"prlyate man, If he is without conscience,
laughs at the rules of morality and Justice;
&c but he laughs in secret, it would be dan
gerous and prejudicial to him, publicly to
''make mock of them. Shall powerful
90 States abandon, openly, that which is
g honest for that which may appear useful !?
" 1t often happens, for the happiness of the
'' human race, that this pretended utility is
g fatal to the powers who follow it, and t,lat
6 even among sovereigns, candor and right
g are found to be the safest policy.
'' In what did all the subtleties and all the
tergiversations of a celebrated Minister,
&c intimately connected with Spain terminate !:
He, by such conduct, produced result to
his own confusion, and to the great injury
"of his master, while the good faith and
generosity of England towards her allies
procured for her immense credit, and
elevated her to the highest state of influ-
Z" ence and consideration.
"l say | am anxious to follow the autho-
g rlty of this writer. If it were possible,
(which | deny, that we could by acceding
g TO this motion, relieve ourselves from the
payment of this money, it could only be
g done by the sacrifice of our good faith, and
/" by the abandonment of the honor of the
:" country, which, however plausible may
q be the appeals made to you, will, | am
"persuaded, never be regarded by a British
Parliament, as consistent with either sound
policy, or the true interests of the Empire -
Now bringing this quotation to a practical
point, | would say-f 1t were possible, ,chich
! 4 deny, that ice could ,cithod the consent OF
France, reliere ourselves from the observance
Of The Treaty Of the 10Th March, Is46, Il
could only be done by The sacrifice of the King s
good faith, by The abandonment Of the honor d
His Government, and by exposing Him to The
danger Of ,car, ,rhich, ,rhaterer plausible ap-
Ipeals may be made to you, piH, lam persuaded,
nerer be listened TO by Ha,raiian Parliament,
as consistent arih either duty TO the King, the
marinis Of Christianity, or the rules Of moral
obligation.
! | trust as Lord PaImerston quoted Vattel
as have said above, to British Parliament,
on question where the option was national
faith, or the saring Of some money, it will not
be considered offensive in me to offer you
another quotation from the same author,
which | consider rticularly opposite to the
question now discussed. Vattel says: IAN
injury cannot render a treaty invalid. He
g who enters into engagements ought care
mix 70 haf no cnp-
90 cludes; he may do what he pleases with
his own property, relax his rights and re-
''nounce his advantages as he thinks pro-
"per; the acceptor is not obliged to inform
g himself of his motives, and to weigh their
s'justvalue. FIVE might break treaty be-
; " cause we found ourselves injured by il
"there would be no stability in the contracts
"of nations Civil laws may set bounds tc
"injury and determine the point capable o.
" producing the utility of contract But
'' sovereigns acknowledge no Judge. How
" shall they obtain certainty of the injury
, "to invalidate a treaty; The peace and
"happiness of nations manifestly require
Z" that their treaties do not depend upon. a
: s'nullity so vague and dangerous"
But even were we induced to plead injury
under the treaty OF tne SOtn hdTCh, iOfo
could we do so with truth. Our whole reve-
nue. in 1916, was So, 947, and have already
shown in my Report of 1853, that our reve-
nue. ON the Importation and consumption o
spirits alone, during that year, was so ,209
1t is, therefore, clear that the subsistence o.
that treaty has not been incompatible with
the public good, so far as that depends upon
an increase of revenue; and l am not aware
of any ground upon which We could plead
positive injury under that treaty eren suPPos-
ing such an argument to be admissible. except
ing only the injury, in the abstract. to the