The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1867-07-13

Mr.. EDITOR Not n little interest has been ex-
cited in our dusty town by the article in the Gcsete
of this week in criticism of the grafton Of the Rev.
Mr.. Corwin on the 18th of July.
Perhaps I am not a " superficial reader,'' but for
one, I do find it difficult to obtain any other idea from
the Hawaiian Proclamation of Neutrality as given in
the Gazette, than that it does most distinctly recog-
nize '. belligerent rights" / soak now of the pop
uiar sfecf of the proclamation and 1 say without
hesitation that he must not only be a very superficial
reader now, as he must have been a very superficial
Observer then, had he been living here when the proc
lamation first saw the light, who should fail to I'M
derstand distinctly that its object was to do all this
! Government was capable of doing to legalize and
make 7 81 ectable the most hideous rebellion the world
had eve, sen.
1t was not issued in ignorance as to the feeling
with which it would be received by the United States
Government, for the Hawaiian Ministry were well
aware that &c 4,tion of Great Britain and France
had been stron IL protested against and complained
of by the American Secretary of State, as not only
hasty but unfrieldiy, and while claiming neutrality,
being in fact the very reverse oft
Any candid reader superficial or otherwise-of
the American rebellion, must admit that the neutral
ity p~roclamations of the various powers that issued
them, did more to intensity the strife and inspire con-
fdence and hope in the hearts of its leaders than any
or all other influences, and will also admit the perfect
propriety with which the United States Government
protested against their hasty issuance and complained
of their unfriendly character. -
The Hawaiian proclamation may not be precisely
the same in terms with that of Great Britain or
France, but it would be quite as satisfactory evidence
of that fact to compare it with those instruments
themselves rs to compare it with the long string of
80 orders - issued by Earl Russell to the Lords of the
s1nuiraIfy while ifs afracf praciSalv tho same
and the only impression which the United States Gov
ernment could fairly be expected to receive from it
was, that it was this Governments feeble contribu-
ton to assist the enemies of a friendly power. 1t was
issued, rs the then Hawaiian Minister of Foreign At
fairs said TO a resident here, in anticipation Of the
possible appearance in our harbor at any day of an
armel war steamer direct from Europe, bearing the
flag of the Confeleracy, and designed TO prey upon
the peaceful American commerce of the Pacific -
. and L. said he, " she comes, she'll be a trhacker."
If such n vessel had come, she would not, however,
have come rs a s. privateer - to be excluded by our
carefully-worded proclamation from the ports Of the
Hawaiian Kingdom, but as a regularly-commissionei
war ship of the Confederate States of America, and
therefore entitled to all the Inequalities of a neutral
and friendly port, including 81 coal and ordnance de-
pots" Is it strange, then, that with the then exist
ing condition of things the American Government and
American citizens should regard the unnecessary and
uncalled for Hawaiian Proclamation as an unfriendly
utterance, and look upon it as a tacit invitation to
some swhacking" war steamer to ravage the COM
merce of the Pacific?
That it did not have the effect to bring one here in
the early years of the war was certainly not its fault,
and that it failed to protect its own flag from the raw
ages of the pirate Shenandoah when the war had
closed, would seem to have in it q spice of retribution
illustrative of the old saying that '' curses come home
to roost."
1 have no time to follow the writer in the Gazette
trough the four point is which he makes in reviewing