The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1857-02-12
For the z. c. Advertit

Mr.. EDITOR :-s Sector asks if have g examined
the history of our diplomacy to see whether we (gOv
ernmentl have not subsequently,, without compulln,
ratified and reconsented to the extorted provisions Of
cur own accord" [ gather from Sectors remarks
that he is of the opinion that. prior to the time dhs
sc brief examination,'' the government might not
have been bound, in justice, to observe the conditions
of the extorted provisions of said treaty. 1t is imps-
sible for me to guess when the brief examination took
place, but if Sector will scrutinize my article
more closely, he will, perhaps, discover that therein
admitted we had consented and reconsenteI to the
obnoxious provisions acithout comPulsiOa. That is
what l blamed government for doing. Taking the
principles of public law as a test, I am still, notwitk
standing the consent, unable to perceive clearly thE
the French treaty, even now, is binding upon tha
nation. 1t certainly was not up to the 18th March
1916, and [ think shall be able to show that it wa
not after that memorable day. Thanks to the ElhG
of the government organ for his quotations from tie
report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to The
Legislature that year upon this matter. Read the
last Polqnesian: 1.-THE 3rd and 9th articles are 81 !
Objectionable that his Majesty would have decIinedn
accept it, but for considerations Of respect TO the Em
Of aberdeen and M. Guisot, who had prepared the
treaty by mutual consent, and on mhose behalf as
S@f U'tCNo UT SOttC ShoN RbOA A0bO1S AbSNf|
would be made, as the circumstances of the ISLANDS
might be Sho,cn to require Read the whole Is
quoted by the Polynesian. 1t is to the point. Let
GO Sector note well the words emphasized and look
for authorities applicable thereto.
ellis Majesty would have declined TO accept
Yes and if 1 recollect Alright his Legislature, then
assembled, consisting entirely of natives, passed rsF
lutions praying the King not to accept treaties tOn
any country depriying us of the prerogatives Of .
independent nation. If any confidence can be piaIeu
in the current runor of the time, the King wouldn"
have signed the treaty but for the embarrassing CT
cumstances environing him, which amounted y |
coercion. 1, and perhaps others, have a kind I
painful, buzzing recollection of those times-of Con-
missioner Brown, John WHY'S case, the Grant case
Brewer s. CO. do, Charlton land do, James Rut
dack do, the threatening aspect OF the Ladi %
suit, &C., &C., and many other unnameable outTa'
pressures upon this poor government, which W.
quite enough to bewilder an untutored king and u
a weak adviser with dismay. No resident acquan'"
with the facts had other belief than that the king" Va /
forced, or felt that he was forced, to comply with y
terms Of the treaty. IF such a fact does not estaOD~
the invalidity of the treaty. let US look at the na'~.
of the treaty itself, and see what that has to DO VIZ
its validity. As it has often been SAID, every III"
in treaty with this with a parity clause has an e~
right with France to select, by their consuls, jurNS
try their subjects when accused of crime. The GU
sequences resulting from such foreign interfere
have been mentioned; but to illustrate the point m~
fully, permit me to pursue the subject a little fnrDs.
Suppose a subject of France was charged with HD
dering an Englshman, OF, if you please, O'
the " missionary clique or rice ucrsa, and the =
cused should apply to his consul for protection \,
the III. article of the treaty in question, L I'D
consul, from motives best known to himsel' ID
select a jury VIGOROUSLY known to favor the " ~
and this government would not accept them hal
the case. No one could dictate to the consul n
persons he must select, and that he would sSNs ns
other names than the names first given, what 0H~ chi /
would there be to mete out justice to the ,bs
The felon, if such, would go ~unwhiped SO iaf !"