Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-11-13
HAWAII AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The Situation Discussed From a Legal
Point of View.

Speaking OF Secretary Gresham's recent
letter to the President relative to Hawaiian
affairs. distinguished member of the Dis
trict bar stated to Star reporter TODAY
that the step proposed to the Presiient vas
not only un-American, but also contrary
to the laws Of International neutrality. In
American, because 1t sought indirectly, II
not directly, to restore a monarchy a form
OF government wholly -epusnant to every
true American. and contrary to interna-
honal law, because whatever may have been
the cause or causes which Cverthrew the
Hawaiian monarchy. whether the influence
OF the United States had been wrongfully
exerted in that direction or not, By over
Jealous or designing citizens and officers CT
this country. the fact remained that the
reigning sovereign was deposed AMI a pro-
visional government established. That pro-
visional government, it appeared, had been
duly recognized by this country, both by
the last and by the present administration.
And 1t also appeared that the provisional
government had been fully recognized nv
other countries Because of such recogni-
ton the provisional government had in con-
temptation Of International law, as The
stars informant understood 1t, thereby be-
come an established government fully en-
titled to all the rights and privileges Of
otner established governments
So established continued the iavver
the provisional government possessed the
nsnt 70 continue until the people of the
Hawaiian Islands, not the people of the
United States. chose to change 1t. Suppose
england or Germany or, indeed, any other
power mad proposed OF crush out the pro-
ylsionai government by the restoration of
Queen Liluakalani to her former throne
the United States would have been, and
properly so. the very first government 10
nave Protested against such a step. And.
III IL Il
nave followed up its protset with a declara-
ton OF war, Its protest failing to prevent
foreign interference Yet, in taking such a
step against the interference of another
power the United States government would
not have been justified because of any
rights, actual or supposed, acquired by ii
IN Hawaii through the establishment of the
provisional government, as one of the great
powers of the world could have justly rest
ed its right to prevent foreign interference
upon the sole and ample ground that such
q foreign Interference would have been a
violation of the laws Of neutrality.
But ! cannot believe thai this govern
ments representative has been instructed
to restore the deposed queen to her throne
at all hazards. with force II necessary, for
1t Is simply too preposterous. The old max
i'm that two wrongs do not make a right
applies very strongly in this case. If we
did wrong in aiding the dethronement OF
the queen We certainly should not commit
another wrong by overthrowing the present
provisional governmtne. To restore the
late queen to her throne would, in my opin-
lon, amount to violation by this govern
ment OF one OF its grandest positions-the
Monroe doctrine. That doctrine, which
every subsequent administration has proud
ly maintained. Is, in effect, that the United
States will not allow the establishment OF
any monarchical form of government on
the American continent, and yet this adj
ministration. II reported correctly, proposes
doing that very thing upon what is virtual
ly American territory. But, as l have said
] canot believe that such is really time pur-
pose of the present administration. 1 am
apt to believe. / sincerely hope at least
that II will turn out that our present repre-
sentative TO the Hawaiian Islands has only
been instructed to withdraC the previous
recognition. and, IN that. the moral sup
port Of the provisional government. thereby
leaving the whole settlement of the cues
ton alone to the Hawaiian. And in doing
even that am not certain but that we
would be making great mistake"