The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1878-08-03
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE .
TO THE
HAWAIIAN ASSEMBLY.
HON. GODFREY RHODES.
President Of The Legislature Assemble.

A.P. Carter, with two resolutions of Hon. Mesrs. Rhodes
and Gibson, beg to lay before the Assembly their views and
conclusions on the questions involved.
The reports relate to two subjects our treaty relations
with Great Britain and a scheme of East India immigration.
In respect to the former, we are chiefly at issue with the
Government of Her Britannia Majesty in regard to the inter
probation OF the fourth Article OF the Anglo-IawaHan Treaty of
1851, and have to consider a question of claims growing out
of an alleged Infringement of the requirements OF this Arti-
Gle whilst In force.
The views taken on this subject by British and Hawaiian
officials engaged in the discussion are so decidedly in opposi-
ton the one to the other that your Committee have anxiously
sought for some solution or explanation of this wide diver
gence of opinion and Interpretation. The Article in question
is the unconditional most favored nation stipulation of the
Treaty, and insists that the commercial intercourse of the
two contracting parties shall be such that whatever advantage
is conceded by the one to a third party shall be enjoyed by
the other, without reference to any compensation therefor.
But this stipulation is preceded by one that is conditional,
the third Article, which provides that when a concession is
made by any party to a Treaty for an equivalent, that a
return for a corresponding value. And there is apparent
conflict between these two Articles-the one conditional, and
Now, from the Hawaiian standpoint in this discussion,
which has the third Article mainly in view, it has been CON
tended that this Government infringed no Treaty obligations
with Great Britain by ~conceding to the United States in a
Treaty of Reciprocity a free entry of certain goods into
Hawaii, in return for a free entry into America of Hawaiian
produce; and that Great Britain could not insist upon the en-
joyment of a concession for which she could not offer any
adequate compensation. And this view of our Government
is sustained by a British Interpretation of the aforementioned
conditional stipulation of the Anglo-Hawaman Treaty, as is
fully and clearly expressed in the Clarendon instructions of
1856. (see Appendix, Exhibit Az No opinion or inter
probation to the contrary of this view of the case has been re-
ceived by this Government from the British Government
until the Derby instructions of 1877. (ee Appendix, Elk
hibit b.
Hence it has been maintained by our Government that not
only was there no infringement OF our Treaty obligations with
Great Britain growing out ola Convention of Reciprocity with
America, but furthermore, there was no occasion for the de-
nunciation of the fourth or unconditional Article of the
British Treaty in consequence OF the operation OF the Amer
lean Convention.
On the other hand, the representatives of Her Britannia
the letter of the Anglo-Hawaiian Treaty of 1851, and have
comfy, engaging each contracting party not to seek any
modification of their compact except with a view to /" the
improvement of their mutual intercourse and to the interest
of their respective subjects" and not to be brought about in
consequence of either party making some special tariff bar
OaInS with anOtler country. Ell
At this point, your Committee beg to glance in review at
some particulars in the history of our Treaty relations, and at
our traditional policy as incucated by the early organizers of
our Government, and by the representatives. of friendly
Hawaii has had a remarkable and instructive Treaty his
tony. First, in her unrecognized state, she was subject to
the arbitrary sponsio, dictated by a naval commander, at the
lannon's mouth. Afterwards, through earnest and faithful
diplomacy, recognition is secured, and certain treaty relations
milton was only partially granted to a nation in a state of
pupiage, -inasmuch as foreign representatives were allowed
to exercise judicial authority on our soil, and to dictate to our
Government interferences in respect to Legislative and minis
terial action.
But Hawaii was guided by men who Labored patiently
under various difficulties to secure for her the untrammelled
e ee94S fi f Ui sea;ng Wp}En felt daepIv tbe treatv rastr;c tme
which affected the honor of his Sovereign and impaired. the =
independence of his adopted State. By a course of negotia-
ton which must entitle him to rank high as a statesman, he
induced great Powers to grant treaties to this young State,
dence; and among the most important of these was the
Anglo-Hawaiian Treaty of 1851. This was a boon from Great
was framed in the Foreign Office at London, and sent for our
Governments acceptance, as a voluntary offering of goodwill
TONI EDgEtnu. NC6e AppcuOlA, LAuIDl ~ hSioiOI
there are abundant grounds for Hawaii to entertain a high
traditional regard for this Treaty. Yet it was not, and should
not be our policy to entertain any partiahties in treaties with
great Powers. 1t especially behOoves so weak q State as
Hawaii to aim at uniformity and identity in the character of
ber international relations. She could not cOncede an especial
fayor to any one of several guaranteeing Powers without
afFecti ug the independence of her situation. Therefore all
the early friends of Hawaii strongly recommended her to
never grant any especial commercial favor to any nation.
This was he instruction of King Leopold of Belgium, and the
YER especial Injunction of the great statesman of America,
Daniel Webster, who said to Hawaiian Commissioners that
no Power in negotiation with this Kingdom " ought to seek.
for IN exclusive privileges or preferences In matters of COM
merce.' (See Appendix, Exhibit d.
Now the American Treaty of Reciprocity may be regarded
as a departure. from this policy sin its negotiation the
spirit of the Anglo Hawaiian Treaty of 1851 was overlooked,
and its operation has led to the question at issue, as stated
above. between the British and Hawaiian Governments.
1t may be very properly urged that the spirit of the
AngIo-Hawaiian Treaty of 1851, in its 18th Article, required
that some preliminary proposition and mutual understanding
between the two contracting parties should precede any sh-
mutations with a third party, calculated to disturb in any way
the perfect harmony of their mutual intercourse, and that the
unconditional obligations of the Treaty should be observed.
On the other hand, the conditional stipulation can be
rointed at. and very decided grounds taken, that the Sd
Article of the Anglo-Hawaiian Treaty especially recognizes
the principle of reciprocity and of granting especial favors for
valuable equivalents,-which favors, of course, are to be con-
ceded to ali other treaty parties who can offer a like consider
ation-the objection to this being that any one of two treaty
narties should not negotiate with a third party n concession
which it is known that its co-contractant IS not IN a condition
n accent. a..-azE