Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1883-05-12
rHE NfruE pRESS.
rnr IMfLErn on EEnRrAkY.

pears an insinuatug article which its malice |
ha. long been nCuhailng, full Of pcrvenions Of
fact anil distortions Of the truth. We again
teri thai hg Iiglg., statements regarding The /
genealoey Of Her Royal Highness Keelikolani
and her relation. P5aahi, are false. We be
hev5 that they are both related to kameha
meha l.
The Elelc asks whether the Pae Alma /
wishes 10 make out that kaleioku was an lille
gitiuate child Of kamehamsha In that age
such O thing as iIIcgitimacy was unknown.
Marriage was then unknown. Il was the
custom 100 that age Tor chiefs and chicfesses
10 have unions with this one and with that
one. Some chiefs had many wives and some
chielcsses had many husbands, and children
were born of these unions, and these children
were hy mo- means regarded a. illcgitimate at
that time The word illegitimate tsamehai
has been introduced into our modern civil
code, and applies to children born out Of wed
lock
Before the period Of Christian enlighten.
ment when marriage had not been instituted,
such thing as illegitimacy was not heard Of,
10 say Of kaleiaku that he was the illegiti
mate son Of Kamehameha is entirely incorrect,
and what we say Of his parent is merely that
he was a son Of kamehameha. We can boast
that keclkolan and pauahi are grand
children Of kamehamcha /, and it is shameful
for the writer in the Elcle TO deny it. II is
fitting for the writer in the Elele to conceal his
own relationships, and to set up false claims
II vas pure and honorable relation accord.
ing 10 the custom Of the times among the
chiefs Of that age. II We were to set forth the
lines Of descent Of our Hawaiian chiefs, show.
ing with what men the chiefesses united and
the children born and likewise with what
women the chiefs united as well as the children
born 10 them, the writer in the Elele would
not be able to show that any ilegitimate chill
drcn were born to them
First Take this example, for instance, and
point out which Of these children Of kakui.
hewa was Legitimate. Kakuihewa tkl united
with kahaianuiakauailaua IVY and begot IA.
nekapuakuihewa (<D and Kaihikapuakuihewa
Kakulhewa Ok also united with Kaakaualani
twl and bcgol Observation-Disclosures tkl. IA.
kuihewa lkl also united with Koakea twl and
bcgot kalehunapakua State which Of these
was an Legitimate child Of Kakuihewa.
Second Take another instance. Kekau.
like tkl united with Kahawalu twl and begot
Northumberland Cll. Kckaulike also again
united with lloolau (wl and begot Manuhaipo
and a brother Also Kckaulike united with
kekuaiPoiwa Nui tw) and begot kameha.
meha Nui and other children. Also Kekau-
like united with Haalou wv and begot Mama.
hama. Please to indicate by name which Of
these children Of his are Legitimate.
Third Take again, another case. kalani-
kauleleiaiwi lwl united with Kaulahca tlS) and
bcgot kekuaipoiwa Nui (wl. Kalanikaulee.
iai~i also united with Observation-Disclosures.
moku u and begot Keeaumoku O>). Kala.
nikaulelciaiwi also united with Kauauanuia.
mahi tk) and begot Alapai Nui (kl. This
same chieiess, kalanikauleleiaiwi, united with
Lonoikahaupu (kl and begot Keawepoepoe
tkl. Inform US, If you please, which of these
children Of the woman Kalanikaueleiaiwi, was
Legitimate.
We assert It is impossible for you to say that
any one OF these children was iegitimate, for
such distinction was then unknown, and in the
same way 1t cannot be said that Kaoeioku was
an Legitimate tson) Of Kamehameha.
The writer in the Elele adds that "the an.
swerS made to s. NJ. Kamakau at a certain
time are the basis on which he POUNDS his aIgu.
ment, answers made by Kapihe." We admire
the writer in the Elele. We thought that what
you were so boastfully writing was definite
knowledge.
But it appears you know nothing definitely.
You are aware OF your ignorance, and why do
you rush bndly along 1t seems your de-
pendence is on Kapihe, and who is this Ka
pihe What rank has he among the genealog
lists OF Hawaii He is not known.
Our knowledge in this matter is not got by
begging little information here and there,
picking up scrap from this and that news.
paper in the printing offices.
oh, for very shame.
You impute to s. NJ. Kamakau things that
are not his.
We seek the truth, but we can look on this
side and on that, and wherever we see the
truth to lie we follow II is a shame to con.
tend without knowledge.
Again you say 'that the Eele has different
books Of genealogy from the Hawaii Pae Alma
The Elele is able to search in English books
which are of greater age than those accessible
10 the Pae Alma and to ~ The side that
Is in the wrong can look about for something
TO help it out, turning in this direction and in
that without profit II can appeal to the his
tory written by Mr., Bingham and to that by
ID. Malo. But its great weakness lies in the
TACT that It IS lacking in knowledge of its own
and !, is Obliged to turn to some one else for
information, 1t is clear to us that YOU have
Jailed, Tor, as you say, you have no book OF
genealogy.
You give up the argument to us when you
say that e the story of Kamehameha's sayings
at kawaihae that Kaoleioku was his child is not
new story, but is fact well known to every
one. In that you yield the point to us and
confirm our statement ior that is in accord
Hawaiians from the time Of Kamehameha
when he recognized his son, Kaoleioku, in the
presence OF the people in his canoe. That
was strong and powerful evidence that IA
oleioku was child OF kamehameha |.
You say that "kamehameha was urged on by
kaneikapolei TO this secret union with Kane.
ikapolei, ON account other necessities, she being
poor, without food and clothing, in her home at
kailikii, kau; and that the thought Of obtain.
ING child never entered his head" Go back
into your hole. You say that the
parent was poor and hungry, and tina, the de-
size OF the great king for her was for the sake
OF enriching her and appeasing her hunger. A
pretty story, Kamehameha, the father Of IA.
lelopuu, was the elder brother of her father.
Was the daughter Of a chief poor and hungry
kamehameha greatly desired this
union with kaneikapolei ivy, and this adds to
the certainty that kaoleioku was his child and
for that reason he asserted publicly tina, he was
the father.
''fo' that reason you say, "Kameeia
moku was night in conIadiciing Kamehameha
when he tkamehamehal said that Kaoleioku
was his child The King is mistaken. We have
not the malo which was thrown out OF court.
And the kings word Is doubted because OF the
lack Of witnesses to his words Which Is
more to be credited, the denial OF kameeia-
mokn OF the direct assertion OF kamehameha
lha, the child was his Every one would pre-
fer TO believe Kamehameha, for he was the
only witness,
Il is true thai the sacred twins Of KahekiR,
kameeiamokn aud kamanava were appointed
guardians Of the child by Kamehamena |, and
no Others.
The writer in the Elele again asks, "what
Is the reason that this descendant OF kameha.
meha, that Is keelikolani, was proved by IA.
mchamehas Ill, ~ and V, and by Lunalilo.
We think this d good time to state the rea.
sons