The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-12-02
Ia WAH AND INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW.
The Situation Discussed From a
Legal Poinf of View.

Speaking of Secretary Gresham :
recent letter TO the President re.
Iative to Hawaiian affairs, a dis.
tlngulshed member Of the Wash.
ington bar stated to a Washington
Star reporter that the step pro-
posed to the President was not
only un-AmericaD, also but con-
trary to the laws of international
neutrality. Un-American, because
it sought indirectly, if not directly,
to restore a monarchy, a form of
government wholly repugnant to
every true American, and contrary
to international law, because what
ever may have been the cause or
causes which overthrow the Ha-
waiian Monarchy, whether the in
fuence of the United States had
been wrongfully exerted in that
direction or not, by overzealous or
designing citizens and officers of
this country, the fact remained that
the reigning sovereign was deposed
and a provisional government es-
tablished. That Provisional Gov
eminent, it appeared, had been
duly recognized by this country,
both by the last and the present
administration. And it also ap-
peared that the Provisional Gov
eminent had been fully recognized
by other countries. Because of
such recognition the Provisional
Government had in contemplation
of international law, as the Stars
informant understood it, thereby
became an established government,
fully entitled to all the rights and
privileges Of other established gov.
ernments. at ruu-rfe'
$50 ~~.c'
s.r established" continued the
LAWYER, "the Provisional Govern
ment possessed the right to con-
tinue until the people of the Ha-
waiian Islands, not the people OF
the United States, chose to change
it. Suppose England or Germany
or, indeed, any other power had
proposed to crush out the Provl-
sional Government by the restora-
ton of Queen Liliuokalani to her
former throne the United States
would have been, and properly so,
the very first government to have
protested against such a step. And,
if I mistake not, this government
would have followed up its protest
with declaration of war, its protest
failing to prevent foreign interior
ence. Yet, in taking such a step
against the interference of another
power the United States Govern
ment would not have been justi-
fed because of any rights, actual
or supposed, acquired by it In Ha-
wall through the establishment OF
the Provisional Government, as one
of the great powers of the world
could have Justly rested its right to
prevent foreign interference upon
the sole and ample ground that
such a foreign interference would
have been a violation of the laws Of
neutrality.
"But L cannot believe that this
Governments representative has
been instructed to restore the de
posed Queen to her throne at al
hazards, with force if necessary, To-
it is simply too preposterous. The
old maxim that two wrongs do no
make a right applies very strong l.
in this case. If we did wrong IL
aiding the dethronement of tn
Queen we certainly should not com
NIT another wrong by overthrow
ing the present Provisional Govern
ment. To restore the late Queen t.
her throne would, in my opinion
amount to a violation by this gov
eminent of one of its grandest posi-
tions-the Monroe doctrine. Tha
doctrine, which every subsequen
administration has proudly main
tanned, is, in effect, that tn
United States will not allow tn
establishment of any monarch
ical form of government on tn
American continent, and yet thl
Administration, if reported col
rectly, proposes doing that yer
thing upon what is virtually Amer
lean territory. But, as l have salS
| I cannot believe that such is reaii
the purpose of the present Admir-
istration.p