The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-10-05

=
To, which, right OF wrong, / desire
to express briefly through your col
umns. The document is concise and
clear, and the reasons assigned for
desiring aud cndeavoring to promote
closer and more assured commercial
relations with the United States
such as commend themselves in the
main TO the common sense of men
familiar with the condition and re-
quirements of this Kingdom. |, for
one, would find no fault with the
Cabinet for seeking in proper way,
10 strengthen the connection Of
friendship and commerce between
the two countries. Indeed, this Is
in the straight line Of their manifest
duty. But they, of all men, should
not favor this desideratum at the
expense of their country's indepen-
dence for they represent q party
which has adopted, in convention,
independence" as main feature
of its policy, The Ministers, ac-
cording to the "reply," are in har-
mony with this policy, for they pro-
fess to "desire" to secure the
safety and perpetuation of our in
situations by an alliance whereby we
shall have the positive and ellica-
cious guarantee of strong friend
against interference by itself or 9th.
ers with our perfect autonomy, in
dependence, and sovereignty" And
yet Immediately following this, they
admit having instructed the Hawai-
ian representative at Washington to
ascertain if the United States would
be willing to negotiate with us a
convention "t0 continue in force all
treaties and conventions now existing
between the two nations, until they
shall find it mutually advantageous
to abrogate or modify such treaties
or conventions, or any of them"
The projected treaty is to provide
also that Hawaii is "not to nego-
tiate treaties with other nations
without the knowledge Of the Unit
ed States Government" How, in
the name of common sense and the
Queens English, inability TO res
cind or modify an existing treaty
without the permission of the other
party, or to negotiate n treaty with
any other country without the
knowledge, which means ICON
sent" also, of the United States
Government. can consist with ma.
tional independence, | cannot I'M
derstand. 1t appears to me that a
treaty of the nature which the Min
isterial reply outlines destroys lla-
waiian independence, although main
tanning its autonomy. 1t establishes
a protectorate to all intents and pur-
poses, and robs us of our right OF
Independent action in international
affairs. Finally, | hope to be par
doned for indnlging the suspicion
that the Cabinets reply is not so
frank as it appears to be to general
readers. 1t says, ''no treaty has
been submitted to His Majesty for
signature" and ''any statements OF
objects or intentions, and any pur.
ported draft of a treaty stating moro
or other than is above indicated
which may have been published, are
unfounded and incorrect. Can the
Cabinet say that no treaty was sub
mitted to the King for considera'
tom Will the Ministers assert that
the document, of which Il copy wa:
published in the BULLETIN and Other
papers a week or so ago, or docu
ment OF similar import, was not
seen. considered, and at one time
assentcd to by them! Were not thu
"ohjects and intentions expressed
IN that document those of the Gov
eminent at one time, not many
weeks ago? If these questions cal
be truthfulIy answered in the mega
tive, then false impression exists
in some quarters, which impression
is not "unfoundcd.
INDEPENDENCE.