The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-06-20


country was with the United States in
1926, and it appears with the declaration
that "The peace and friendship" sub
sisting between the two countries is
thereby confirmed and declared to be
perpetual"
According to the logic of the majority
of the committee, this country was there
by deprived of the " sovereign right" to
declare war, if it thought best to do SO.
In 1889, the first French treaty was
made. Article !, reads There shall be
perpetual peace and friendship" between
the two countries.
In 1916 the first British treaty was
made, Article l, reads There shall be
perpetual peace and amity" between
the two sovereigns their heirs and
successors"
In 1916 treaty was made with Dem
mark. Article reads Z" There shall be
perpetual peace and amity" between
the two soveregns their heirs and
successors" An " additional article"
OF the same date as the treaty, reads
g. This treaty shall not be permanently
binding till it receive the ratification OF
the King of Denmark" The treaty was
thereafter ratified by the King of Dem
mark, and is therefore by its terms
permanent" or perpetual treaty.
In 1s4s, treaty was made with Ham
burg, containing the same wording.
In 1850 new treaty was made with
the United States, wherein it is again
declared that perpetual peace and
amity" shall exist between the two
countries.
In 1852 new British treaty was made.
Article II provides that at any time after
the expiration of seven years from the
date of the treaty, either party shall
have the right to terminate Articles 4, 5
and of the treaty on twelve months
notice." The only logical inference from
this is that the remainder OF the treaty
is perpetual.
In 1854 a treaty was made with
Bremen, which duplicates the wording
used in the Denmark and Hamburg
treaties about permanently binding !"
the two countries.
In 1855 treaty was made with
Sweden and Norway, which opens. with
a declaration of perpetual friend
ship" and in Article II states a
right of termination with respect to
Articles 4, and only. The treaty
concludes with the permanently bind
ing" clause of the Denmark and Ham,
burg treaties.
In 1858 new treaty was made with
France, opening with declaration of
constant peace and perpetual friend
ship"
This treaty leaves nothing to logic or
inference, but states that it shall remain
In force for ten years, after which twelve
months notice of termination of certain
articles may be given. ''But that in re-
gard to the other articles, the said treaty
shall remain nevertheless, perpetually
obligatory, and cannot be modified ex-
cept by II mutual agreement between the
two contracting parties"
1t is useless to particularize further, as
these are simply samples of the treaties
which Hawaii has been making with
other countries ever since it became a
recognised government. 1t will be OBJ
served that in every instance given
above, not only Hawaii but, England,
France, the United States, Denmark and
all the other countries have been bind
ing themselves to perpetual and
permanent" treaties, to be terminated
only by mutual consent" to the same
degree that Hawaii has; so that accord
ing to the majority of the committee all
these countries have during the past
sixty years been recklessly surrendering
sovereign right"
The fact is that the Cabinet were pro-
posing, concerning this point, no more
| than has been done over and over again
by the Hawaiian Government, and no
more than the proudest and most pow
erful nations of the world have volun-
tarily Incorporated in their treaties with
Hawaii.
do not accuse the majority of the
committee of malicious intent, but dc
say that they have shown gross ignor.
ance.
CONCLUSION OF THE MINORITY OF THE
COMMITTEE.
The direction of the House to the com.
| mittee was tWO-fold:
1st-To report whether the proposed
treaty was intended, or calculated to in
any wise ieopardize the political indie
pendence. of Hawaii.
| 2nd-To report whether the proposed
treaty was intended, or calculated to il
! any wise jeopardize the commercial in
| dependence of Hawaii.
There is no evidence, either oral OF
documentary, that there has been any
thing than the most absolute and disin
terested good faith upon the part of the
Cabinet and the Hawaiian Minister a
Washington, and sincere endeavor OF
their part to advance the commercial
prosperity of Hawaii.
The references to annexation" il
connection with the proposed treaty
which have been made, are unworthy o
any honest man. There is no party an(
no individual, that know of, having
any voice or control in Hawaiian affairs
who is in favor of annexation to thu
United States, or any other country, o.
who is not honestly and heartily
in favor of the maintenance anC
perpetuation of Hawaiian indepen
dence and autonomy. So well known il
this that declarations and accusations O
any persons to the contrary, should b,
looked upon with suspicion, and sub
mitted to careful scrutiny to ascertain
Interior objects and motives are not be
ing cloaked under a vociferous semblanc
of patriotism.
| will consider second, the question
whether the proposed treaty was calcn
lated to in any wise jeopardize the poll
teal independence of Hawaii.
say most emphatically that the pro
posed treaty did not jeopardize the poll
teal independence of the country, but OF
the contrary afforded the most substan
!, tial guarantee OF such independence tina
J we ever have had or ever can receive.
My reasons for saying this are as fol
lows: OF all the vast plumber OF island
in the Pacific Ocean the Hawaiian Grou
is the only one of any importance whic
has not passed under the ownership Q
: control of the great European nations