The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-06-24


inc or intimidating OF His Majesty, the
majority of the committee conclude that
there were two Objectionable clauses In
the proposed Treaty, viz:
"O One in Article 4, by which we
we're to be deprived OF the sovereign
right of concluding treaties with other
nations -
2. Zone in Article 6, by which we
were denied the equally sovereign right
of terminating the treaty otherwise than
by unanimous consent"
THE COMMITTEES FIRST POINT.
The majority of the committee ad-
vance no explanation of their first point,
make no argument and give no reasons
for their conclusion. hi.a'
The reason that they do not is self
evident, from the tact that there is no such
clause in the treaty, nor any semblance
of such clause This statement of the
committee is therefore direct and un-
called for misrepresentation. 81 1
The only mention of treaties in such
section, is that in consideration of the
United States guaranteeing the indepen-
dence of the Hawaiian Islands, the Ha-
waiian Government should inform the
United States of any treaties which 1t
proposed to negotiate with any other
country. There is no suggestion OF the
consent of the United States being re-
quired, or of any limitation to.sbe placed
upon our present rights in that respect.
AS the first point made by the majority
of the committee, has absolutely no
foundation in fact, it is not necessary to
considerit further than to call attention
to it as most signal illustration of the
partizan spirit in which that report is
drawn.
THE Committees SECOND POINT.
The committees second point is that
of Article 6 of the treaty: "We were de-
MED the sovereign right OF terminating
the treaty, otherwise than by unanimous
CONSENT and they subsequently speak
of this section as binding us " perpetu-
ally" and the perpetuity obligation on
our side"
The committee advances no proof,
reason, argument or precedent to show
that the right to terminate treaty at
pleasure is a " sovereign right" to be
sacredly guarded, or that there was any
proposition to "bind ourselves perpetu-
ally" but content themselves with refer
ring to certain letters from Mr.. Carter
written since the initiation of Cabinet
action concerning the treaty, and in the
light of subsequent action by the United
States Congress.
The utter hollowness and lack OF
foundation for this charge is shown by
reference to treaties made between Ha-
waii ard the various foreign countries,
which could have easily been examined
by the majority of the committee had
they not acted with such unseemly
haste.
So far from the right to terminate a
treaty at pleasure being a (" sovereign
right,'' not to be modified or parted with,
it is and has been continuously treated
simply as one of the terms of contract
to be varied according to varying circum-
stances and as the parties may think
their interests require.
Reference to Hawaiian treaties shows
that the first treaty ever made by this
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
" hereby 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 30.
In 1885, the first French treaty was
made. Article l, reads 6 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 &C their heirs and
In 1916 treaty was made with Dem
mark. Article l reads: 3" There shall be
perpetual peace and amity" between
the two sovereigns their heirs and
successors" An additional article"
of the same date as the treaty, reads
Z" 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 a
permanent or perpetual treaty.
In l848, q treaty was made with Ham
burg, containing the same wording.
In 1850 anew treaty was made with
the United States, wherein it is again
declared that perpetual peace and
amity" shall exist between the two
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 1856 a treaty was made with |
Sweden and Norway, which opens with
q declaration of perpetual friend
Ship" and in Article II states a |
right of termination with respect to |
Articles 4, 5 and 6 only. The treaty |
concludes with the permanently bind |
ing" clause of the Denmark and Ham
burg treaties.
In 1858 q new treaty was made with |
France, opening with declaration of |
Constant peace and perpetual friend