The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1873-08-09

from Mr.. Rhodes, in justice to myself and Others.
wrote the article, from which he quotes. in New
York, without the last census statistics at hand. and
my statements about the commerce and foreign
population of the islands being about three-fourths
Of the whole Americans. was = mistake. In speak
ing OF foreigners, | had in mind only those of the
European race: and in the absence Of statistics |
relied upon impressions made from information
received from time TO time incidentally. For instance,
from March 10Th, 1913, to March 18th, 1851, eight
years, there were naturalized, 42S Americans; 204
Britishcrs; % Frenchmen; AZ Portuguese; 23 Ger
mans; 9 Danes; 5 Swedes; 4 Spaniards; , Prussians;
l Italian; l Russian; and IL Spanish-Americans-
| 452 in all; the Americans being about three-hfths Of
the whole. But the number born in the islands, of
American parents, probably bears a larger proper
ton to the American element than do the others, as
they are older residents; including the missionaries,
many of them having large families. 1t should also
be borne in mind that many of the other foreigners
came here as American seamen with American pro-
t~ections, whilst few, if any Americans, came as
subjects of any other government than the United
States. If these be added as Americans, it would
probably swell the three-ffths that was to three
fourths, or more; but l admit the error, whatever it
may be. 1t is clear from the census that for some
years past the ratio of increase in the islands of
American born has not been as rapid as that Of
other foreigners.
1 did not mean to speak of Mr.. Rhodes satisfac-
ton with the British rule in 1913 ironically, or dis
paragingly to him, for he might have been sincere
then and since changed his views, if he thought he
had reason to do so; as every consistently honest
man should do. l do not understand what he means
by a lie of circumstance. If he had said that he did
not make any Suph remark ne was - rpDOrfed -
should have accepted his denial. If he did, he had
the right to do so, and change his mind afterwards.
The standard of right governing nations in their
intercourse with each other. unfortunately is not
that which applies to individuals, or it has not been
in times past. The seizure of the islands by Lord
George Paulet at that time, was no worse than has
been constantly occurring through all history, and
by many nations whose laws would severely punish
similar transactions between individuals. Six dis
tinct demands, humiliating to their independence,
were made on the 18th of February under threats of
hostility in case of noncompliance. There being no
power of resistance, the concession was made.
Claims were then brought against the government,
aggregating SILT ,33O.89, with demands for such
~promptness and terms of settlement as placed it
beyond their power, and the provisional cession
followed on the 25th; but g no Briton was allowed to
bring o grievance against the new government"
The claims were, no doubt, presented as a pretext to
take possession. But what was the true reason why
the British wished to possess the islands, and would
use such pretext to fulfill their wishes, when on
more than one occasion they could have assumed the
prOtectorate of them, as is stated, by the freely ex-
pressed wish of the King? 1t was undoubtedly
because they did not wish the French to have them.
The latter had taken possession of Tahiti, Marquesas
and New Caledonia, and had, in 1889 and 1912,
made such demonstrations here, as to lead to the fear
and belief that such was their purpose. This is not
mere conjecture, as it was so stated to me by one of
the British Commissioners constituting the govern
ment during the temporary cession, and this no
doubt was the reason why so upright a statesman as
the Earl of Aberdeen, or the under Secretary, Mr..
Addington, could tell Mr.. Richards that if Admiral
Thomas had not restored the flag they should not
have done it; for whilst the pretext used could not be
justified on any moral ground. a statesman would
justify it upon this ground. If Nh. Rhodes did not
express his satisfaction, 1 am sure that Britons
deemed honorable in their vocation, did aid in bring
ing about this result, and it was no doubt satisfactory
to them. 1 offer no evidence that he said what he is
reported to have said, and if he did, under the cir
cumstances, l could not call it an offence.
Why SO many Americans have been called into the
service OF the RONtTuutDls Il ~ Oh uCCOuHl U IHclT
greater number, or greater commerce chiefly, but
because they were their teachers and it was more
natural to 90 to them for assistance than to others.
A Frenchman and Roman Catholic says:
eShortly after their arrival, the Protestant Mis-
sionaries asked the King and chiefs who surrounded
him, authority to land, and to fulfill the mission
which they had proposed to themselves. The
King consented to the request which they had made.
Destined to propagate the Christian religion and all
the acts of Europe in this archipelago, these mission
aries had to organize q regular society, whose exclu-
sive relations with the crews Of whalers, had created
a trade of debauchery, habits Of drunkenness and Of
brutal violence. They cOurageOusly accomplished
this part Of their desired task. Thanks to their
efforts, religious, political and civil laws were
reduced to writing and ceased to depend on tradition.
During that reign and in conformity with their en-
gagements, they diffused primary instruction amongst
the Hawaiian chiefs only, and counted Kaahumanu
l. and Kalaimoku among their proselytes."
1t was most natural that they should 60 to their
first teachers who had given them their letters, their
laws, their schools and their religion, and that
these should, when called to send abroad, send for
their countrymen. From the greater frequency too
Of the visits Of American vessels, suitable persons
were more likely to be thrown among them from that
country when the government was in its formative
state. But the first regular Minister of Foreign Re-
lations was a Briton, and the second a Frenchman.
I regret that the native Roman Catholics should
have a tradition that the expulsion Of their priests
was caused by the influence of some American Mis-
| sionaries." It was not so. In reply to aletter upon
the subject of the treatment of the Catholics from
Can't. Russell Elliott, Of II. i. Ms Ship Fly, under
date Of August lst, 1898, Kaahumanu says; "The
missionaries have likewise explained the subject in
the same manner" l am satisfied from my own
personal investigation that it was not so, and it is
lust to the chiefs to say, that they contended first and
last that their course was induced by political and
not religious considerations.
have touched on these topics becausei it seemed to
be called for in the letter of Mr.. r., but they are not
quite relevant to the subject Of ceding a naval
station to the U. S., if by doing so we can obtain the