The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1857-05-21
Arrest Of NJ. G. MOnsarrat, Esq.

On Monday last Mr.. Monsarrat, auctioneer, was
arrested and has since been kept in confinement at
the palace. The facts in the case, as near as We can
learn them, are these
Owing to a difficulty which occurred in January last,
at a dinner party given by Prince K~amehameha, the
particulars of which we need not here rehearse, as they
are generally known, Mr.. Monsarrat was required by
the King to leave the kingdom. He did so, leaving
in the Fanny Major, which sailed for California on
the Dist of that month. 1t was generally understood
at the time that he was banished from the kingdom,
and that this course was taken as the only alternative
left ff him.
Acting on the advice of his friends, who, as well
as the public generally, supposed the whole affair
would die out N 9 few weeks and be overlooked, Mr..
NJ. returned to Honolulu in the Yankee on her last
trip from San Fr4ncisco, with tie purpose of again
establishing himsAlf III business as auctioneer, and
applied ursuccesafullyI for a renewal of his license,
which had expired dur4ng his absence.
During the last week, a note was sent by order of
His Majesty to Nj. Monsarrat or his brother-in-law,
Mr.. Dowsett, inquiring what were the intentions of
Mr.. NJ, whether to remain in the kingdom or not.
To which, reply was made that it Uas his intention to
remain. The note from the King further inquired
whether his purpose was to remain solely to close up
his affairs or permanently. Reply was made that he
would remain permanently.
On Monday morning last, the Kings private Secre-
tary, Mr.. Nelson, called on Mr.. Monsarrat and re-
quested him to visit the palace, as His Majesty wished
to see him.. At II o'clock in company with Mr..
Dowsett, he went up to the palace. The King came
into the room with the letter which he had re-
ceived the week previous from Mr.. M. stating his in
tention to remain here permanently, and asked him
if that was his determination. He replied that it was.
A IoJ1 xuoo c,-r .~J n r,orJ 80 CJ1iare rooroLo S4o
the room, arrested Mr.. M, and placed him in confne-
from ~hi,h he has not boon relooOoa-on
Tuesday afternoon Mrs. Monsarrat applied at the
palace for admission to SEQ her husband, which was
granted, and the same privilege was granted to seve-
raj Of Mr.. MS friends.
A circular letter was addressed on the day of
the arrest, by the Minister of Foreign Relations. to
each of the foreign consuls, stating that the King had
seized the person of MIR. M, ''on account of the injury
which his family had received from him, and that it
was his purpose to detain him in custody until an
opportunity offered to transport him to some foreign
country
Mr.. Monsarrat is an English subject by birth, but
having taking the oath of allegiance, is now a Hawai-
ian subject. We understand that General Miller,
II. B. MS Consul, has decided not to interfere in the
matter.
Immediately after the arrest was made the soldiers
were generally called out. At dusk cannon were
planted in the avenues leading to the palace and. the
grounds placed under guard of the artillery, in case
of any attempt to rescue Mr.. NJ. from confinement.
The friends of Mr.. Monsarrat made application for a
writ of ha6eas corpus, but the result of the attempt
to procure his liberty in that way is yet uncertain.
The hobeas corpus act has not been suspended, as was
rumored to be the case.
On this affair there is of course difference of opin-
ion. Some maintain that it is arbitrary and uncon-
stitutional-a direct violation of the security and
liberty of the subject or resident. %The constitution is
clear and explicit in the guarantees it holds out for
the subject. (See articles 5 to 10 inclusive If the
ease rests solely on the constitution there can be no
doubt but the precedent now set, of arrest and con-
fnement by the King, beyond the power of the law
or courts, is striking at the very foundation of our
personal security.
But others view the case differently, even on this
point of constitutional right. IF Mr.. Monsarrat gave
his word of honor to the King that he would leave
the kingdom, and if it was understood that he should
not return again Con which point there appears to be
dispute,) it modifes the case and the action of the
King, and Mr.. M. was bound to abide his word.
But let us look further, and ask if our executive is
not in the right? His rights are the same as those
of his subjects, only perhaps more sacred. Is there
a man in this community, having a family, who
would sit quietly by and see the chastity of his wife
or sister violated by the guest invited to his festive
board? All Christendom ~sustains the course of the
husband or brother who, without waiting for the tar
dy course of law, takes the law into his own hands,
and inficts summary justice for such an invasion of
his rights, even though death follows, and though the
crime may have been done under the priestly garb Of
religion, or in the holy chancel of the confession
al. There are often in like cases some extenuating
circumstances and there may be in this. The fault
may not be wholly ON the part of the man, and we
would fain believe that none of it rests there. But
the act is still the same, morality and private rights
have been invaded and violated, and surely no man
can complain if the sovereign of the land does what
every man would do in his own case, execute justice,
and maintain his rights, let the consequence be what
it might.
Under all the circumstances of the case, and espe-
eially after the firm determination of the sovereign in
this matter, we see no alternative left, however much
we may regret it, but the banishment of Mr.. Monsar-
rat from the kingdom, and the more quietly and
peaceably the step is complied with, the less trouble
will arise from the affair.