The Daily bulletin., 1889-12-03

masters are always those who have
never done, and do not realize what
a days work Is.
The writer in the p. e. u. of
Nov. 9TH defines his highest ideal of
loyalty as loyalty to our honest con-
victiOns Of truth and right. 1t is
good definition as far as il goes
The difficulty is that nations like in
dividuals judge of right and wrong
according to their light or according
to their education, manners, national
habit, etc. One important depart.
ment of education of the native has
been sadly neglected, that is patri-
otism, love of their flag and coun-
try and loyalty to their king. Are
we afraid to tell or teach the 1Ia-
waiian what true patriotism is, from
selfish motives? We know, from
any liberal standpoint, they cannot
take advantage of such teaching as
far rs foreigners are concerned,
even though they wished to do so;
they have, in lieu OF patriotism,
strong mingled feelings of love, re-
spect, pride, and fear of their king,
it is hereditary and part of their re-
ligion, or superstition which the last
issue of the Friend complains OF.
The writer in the +. G.. a. of Nov.
9TH does not go far enough. a per-
son can be loyal to q reasonable
cause. There is no allusion to
patriotism, to love of either the
head of the country or the country
itself. We did not expect ever to
read of more impartial definition
of the word loyalty, than that given
by an American in an American die
tionary. Straws show which way
the tide flows and this definition of
loyalty, reduced to individual ideas
Of right and wrong regardless of
surrounding circumstances, or the
ideas of the majority, would be a
log in the water, that would wreck
the Hawaiians as nation or any
other good cause.
The main difficulty seems to be
that small minority Of the nation
who are educated, rich, and power
full, and, outside of mercenary or
commercial views, may have superb
or ideas of right and wrong, or
loyalty and treason, would enforce
their views upon the common peo-
pie. This enforcing process is OBJ
jectiOnablc. Had these expounders
of right and wrong stuck to their
tenets they might yet lead the peo-
pie, but they have ignored the right
so often for money, or to forward
some pet commercial scheme, that
in making q choice between them
and the native, we have to choose
the latter, because there is hope of
raising his ideas of right and wrong
to level with our own, while with
the former there is no hope, be-
cause they have debased their high
standard of right and wrong to the
level of the money mongcr. 1t Is
the essence of treason.
The definition in Webster's Die
tionary of the word ''loyal" is
"Devoted to the maintenance OF
law, disposed to uphold the lawful
authority, faithful TO the lawful gov
ernment, whether parental, civil or
divine, 2. Faithful to the Sover-
eign either as the maker of the law,
or as the personal representative of
the government, ,allegiant. 8. Hence,
faithful to lover or friend, especi-
ally under trying circumstances,
constant rs loyal heart. Loyal
ist--A person who adheres to his
Sovereign or to the lawful authority
especially one who maintains his al
legiance to his prince or govern.
ment and defends his cause in times
of revolt or revolution. Loyalty
In loyal manner, faithfully"
We have had this crime thorough.
ly cxpounded by law or supposed to
lave been, of which we have no
thing to say, but there is no truer
test of loyalty than the willingness
TO sacrifice. When a man is willing
to sacrifice or stake everything, even
his life, for his country, there is no
doubt OF his loyalty. He may have
made a mistake in judgment of what
is right: individuals, communities
and nations do so, but seldom vii.
fully. Let us look in Webster
again, as common people do, fol-
the definition of "treason. We
read-''The offence of attempting
to overthrow the government of tho
state to which the offender owes al
legiance, or of bctraying the state
into the hands of foreign power
treachery." AS personal example:
Judas Iscariot and Benedict Ar.
mold were traitors, because one was
disciple and the other an officer
when the act of treachery was com.
mitted. Their positions represent.
ed views directly contrary to their
act: had they resigned their posi-
tion previous to the act, they would
not have been historical traitors.
They lost faith IN their cause. II
there are any officials that never had
faith in the Hawaiians as nation,
and if they had, have lost it, let
them withdraw from all governme nj
benefit, and be recognized as rebels
I