The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-03-18
Reply to MIR. Theo. H. Davies.

Reply to MIR. Theo. H. Davies.
Mr.. EDITOR: Mr.. Theo. II. Davies
letter in the ADVERTISER of Thursday is
a refreshing depression from the present
trend OF newspaper controversy and in
vites open discussion that the latter dis
courages.
Many believe that the Cabinet made
mistake in not having the question OF
treaty revision thoroughly discussed in
public before taking action, and also that
the proposed treaty itself put limits on
our independence not as ii actually eX-
lists. but as We conceive it to exist, and
therefore makes the Cabinet declaration
for maintenance of her independence in
violate, etc. Is it not the fact, however,
that if the proposed treaty had gone
through il would have given the United
States no other right than she now claims
and stands ready to exercise at any time.
The proposed treaty it is true would have
given her greater facilities to enforce her
present position by giving her a chance
TO inspect beforehand any treaties we
might wish to make, and to be torwarned
Is 10 be forearmed; but after she had
seen any proposed treaty she would by
virtue OF the treaty now under discus
sion have had no power to do one single
act that she does not now claim the right
10 do and will do if occasion calls Tor it.
Mr.. Davies SAYS: 1.-The King has the
power TO make treaties. Is
il consistent with 1.-The present indepen-
dent state OF this Kingdom, free from aay
control on the part OF any foreign govern
ment," that the King and Cabinet shall
lose the power to make treaties?
Again, assuming, what do not for the
moment believe, that the United States
Government would consent to guarantee
our independence by itself or by any
foreign power, could they leave the
Foreign Minister (whoever he might
happen to be- TO provoke what quarrels
he chose with foreign powers in reliance
on the guarantee OF the United States
Government 20 shield him from the con-
sequence?
" The first condition imposed by the
United States must be the control of the
Hawaiian Foreign Office"
Strip this statement of the natural ex-
aggeration and one-sidedness of argu-
ment and Mr. Davies has stated what is
practically our present and existing rela-
ton with he United States to-day, and
will be, treaty or no treaty, regardless of
whatever Cabinet is in power, or whether
We wish it or not. If for instance,
Chinese or Japanese or European feet
appears off our coast TO settle differences
with us, however wrong. however unpro-
voked our actions may have been, it will
be with the United States that such
L.. -, L.
ences, and practically to the same extent
and in the same degree as if the Foreign
Office that had provoked the differences
was hers and not our own The indi-
vidual guarantee OF the United States
means not that any foreign power will be
debarred from enforcing her demands
against us altogether, but that such
power will be debarred from enforcing
her demands by or TO the extent of taking
away or compromising our independence.
That is precisely the recognized position
OF the United States to-day, and when
Mr. Davies intimates that such a posi-
ton stated on paper compromises our in
dependence, he admits, in effect, that
our independence is already compro-
missed
The King has power, says Mr.. Davies,
10 make treaties under the Constitution,
but does any one suppose that the United
States will not now resist as vigorously
and precisely to the same extent as ifthe
proposed treaty had gone through, any
treaty on our part with Foreign power
which affects American supremacy here?
Does not the United States take the posi-
ton now that We cannot make treaties
which are incompatible with the inter-
ests of the American nation, and this
though every constituency in the King
dom voted for that and the King and
Cabinet supported them?
The proposed treaty so far as its politi-
cal features are concerned, while it gives
an additional means or safeguard to the
United States relative to proposed trea-
ties with Foreign powers by providing
for inspection for the same, is otherwise
simply declaratory of the unwritten law
which now and in the nature OF things
in the future, must govern our relations
with our neutral neighbor and our ma
tural market, and which in turn must
govern our neighbor in dealing with isl
ands which in unfriendly or possibly IN
friendly hands, would be an undue
menace TO her commerce in the
North Pacific. l therefore restate
the proposition that the proposed
treaty while apparently affecting
our independence simply preserves
it as it now practically exists. In any
other sense no other European power
whatsoever is to-day independent. But
it NAV be said that while the United |
States may make the above pretensions |
it does not follow that they are just or
should be admitted on our part. 1t |
seems TO me that the strength of these
pretensions lies in their very justice. |
They are as Just as it was that England |
should tell Spain in the war of the Span
ish succession who should or should |
not be her own king or queen, or that |
England should have say in the status |
of Constantino2le in disputes between
Turkey and Russia. Fifty millions OF |
people with vast territory bordering on
the Pacific ocean and with an unbounded
commercial future before them, have
natural right to say in certain of our |
affairs which are as inherent, just and |
strong as the claim of our aboriginees to |
their say in such affairs also, and the
claim of the United States to show before