The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-05-16
TAKING DOWN THE FLAG.
Leading United States Opinion on
the Incident.
[omaha, Nebraska, Bee.l

[omaha Nebraska, Beel
Discussion of the action of Com
missioner Blount, in pursuance Of
instructions before his departure to
Hawaii, in ordering the removal of
the American flag from the govern
ment building at Honolulu, con-
tinues. The administration is sharp
ly criticised for this proceeding even
by republican papers which have not
approved of annexation. 1t ought
to be apparent to those who do this
that they discredit the attitude of
the preceding administration regard
ing the raising of the flag. That
act under the authority of the Amer
lean minister, taken entirely upon
his own responsibility, was distinctly
disavowed by President Harrison.
Minister Stevens was informed that
so far as his action appeared to over
step the limit of providing adequate
protection for American interests,
"by setting the authority and power
of the United States above that of
the government of the Hawaiian
islands in the capacity of protector,
or to impair in any way the indie
pendent sovereignty of the Hawai-
ian government by substituting the
flag and the power of the United
States as the symbol and manifesto
ton of paramount authority, it is
disavowed." 1t is impossible to mis-
understand the meaning of this ex-
plicit language. 1t was in effect a
declaration that the raising of the
flag over the capitol of Hawaii was
unwarranted, and,it is perfectly OBJ
vious that if the American minister
had done his duty he would have
ordered the flag removed immediate
ly upon hearing from Washington.
In this view of the matter, and it
is the only one that can fairly be
taken, it is plain that the present
administration has simply acted in
accordance with the position of its
predecessor. If there was no justi-
tication for raising the flag "as the
symbol and manifestation of para
mount authority" the only proper
thing to do was to remove it. The
American minister having made a
mistake the plain duty of the gov
eminent was to correct it. 1t has
been suggested that England or
Germany would not have taken this
course under like circumstances, but
this government does not model its
policy upon that of European gov
ernments and is not called upon to
consider what they might do in any
given state of things. Besides it is
very questionable whether British
or German minister would in the
absence of instructions from the
government assume such RESPONSE
bility as the American minister to
Hawaii assumed. The trained di-
plomatists of those countries act
with better judgment and discretion
than was shown in this case and it is
entirely safe to say that they would
not persist in an action after it had
been distinctly disavowed and repu-
dated by their governments.
Another question raised in con-
nection with this Hawaiian matter
is whether the president did not ex-
coed his constitutional authority in
appointing commissioner to super
sede the minister. Secretary Ores
ham is said to recognize the fact
that mistake was made and Sena-
tor Butler, the chairman of the
senate committee on foreign affairs,
is quoted as expressing the opinion
that the president cannot, without
the advice and consent of the senate,
commission person to supersede
the United States minister. 1t is
contended that if the president pos
sesses this power all he would have
to do would be to send his private
representative to supersede minis
ter whenever he saw fit. There may
be some force in this, but it seems
altogether improbable that the
action of the president, deliberately
taken, was outside of his constitu-
tional authority. Judging from
Washington advices, the prevailing
impression there is that the admins.
tration is not favorable to annexa-
ton, but that it will permit no for
eign power to interfere in Hawaiian
affairs.