The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-12-22
ADDRESS or F. N. HATCH, ESQ.

Fellow citizens: You have been in
vited to meet tonight to consider oul
present political situation. We are
confronted by the declaration OF Sec
rotary Gresham that royalty must
be restored and our Government de.
stroyed. a kind providence has given
as this opportunity TO be heard before
final action will be taken upon thi:
issue. At present we are proceeding
merely upon the newspaper reports
which have been received here and
which certainly we have a right TO
discuss. We do not know what action
will be taken nor whether ii will be-
taken by the President or by Con
gress. Certainly any action taken
oy the Congress of the United States
OF America cannot be resisted by
anybody in this community. Let Us
not be misunderstood or misrepre-
sented by a hostile press; we dc not
meet here tonight 10 defy the power
OF the United States; that would be
absurd, gentlemen, nor to villify those
at present in charge of the Govern
Inent OF the United States. But we
meet with the hope that our words
Will be heard by Congress before ac-
ton Is taken by that body.
There are certain features in the
letter OF Mr.. Gresham to the Presi.
dent which show that he is proceed
ing upon false assumption. Let us
nope that the distinguished secretary
mas been misinformed up to this date.
IL is certainly our prerogative to point
out the false assumptions and to chal-
Ienge them. Now chief among those
false assumptions is the one which
seems to underlie the whole letter,
that there has BEEN submitted to the
arbitration of the President of the
United States the question whether or
not we had right TO establish a gov
eminent in this country. Gentle
men, L challenge that assumption.
The assumption is false in every
respect. Let me briefly point out
why. Two parties can make a
contract, but it requires the consent
OF three to make a valid arbitration;
that OF the two parties in interest and
the arbitrator. The parties must
clearly define the subject matter of
the arbitration.
1t is absurd to contend that there
could be any arbitration by inference
or imputation. First: Has there
been any issue framed; has the Pro-
vlsional Government submitted to
the decision of anybody it's right to
exist? Not one word or one act can
be produced in support OF that con-
tentlon. Gentlemen, from the nature
OF things, government which started
in revolution, though now the gov
eminent de jure as well as de facto,
could not submit the question of the
legality of its existence to any arbi-
tration because its right lay in it's
might. Having satisfied our consci-
ences as to the business of our cause,
we depend upon our might and are
answerable to no other power. /
brand as false the claim that we have
put in issue the question whether or
not we were proceeding legally or not
In overturning q corrupt and rotten
Second: Has the President of the
United States up to this point pre-
tended to have been acting in judi
cial capacity? 1 say his acts do not
Justify that assumption. An arhitra-
tor or n judge would not interfere with
the existing status of the parties. The
President of the United States, imme-
diately upon gaining his seat, lowered
the American flag and thereby
changed the status of the parties.
That was not the act of judge, gen.
tlemen.
he was proceeding with judicial in
Has he given any notice
that hearing would be had on such
q date? Has he notified anybody that
witnesses were being examined? Has
he given anybody an opportunity to
those witnesses or to
confront them? Has he given any
body on our side an opportunity TO
cross examine those witnesses, or to
confront them? Has he given any
body on our side the opportunity to
be heard? Now we do not need the
legal knowledge of that distinguished
Judge who is now Secretary of State
10 know that no arbitration could
stand for a moment in law, however
the matter, which was
conducted ex parte, without an oppor-
-unity to be heard; without an inspec-
lion of the evidence which has been
produced, or opportunity to examine
he witnesses? How was the late ar
Oitration conducted in Paris? Did a
number of gentlemen get together on
he Behring sea question and in pri-
Tate decide upon that matter? Did
hey send private agent off to Behr-
ng sea to look about and scratch the
pack of the seals, interview the neigh
)ors and make report?
Gentlemen, it can hardly be con-
ended that the Provisional Govern
anu We bnC
supporters of that Government, have
admitted our right to exist to Colo
lei James III. Blount, of Georgia. The |
President of the United States had the |
lndoubted right, so far as we were |
to examine into the status |
lere, the situation of the country, as |
,earing upon the question whether or !
lot he should continue the negotia- /
ions of union pending when he took |
lis seat as President. That was osteE-
IDLY the object for which Colonel |
3lount was sent to these shores. We |
insist that up to this point there has |
,een no judicial Investigation in which !
10Th parties have been given the OPP |
,ortunity to be heard.
And again, as showing conclusively |
he utter absurdity of the position that |
his has been an arbitration; could an |
of such a nature be posi- |
lie when the Government of the Uni |
ed States had a treaty pending before |
{, between it and the power which it /
5 charged was submitting its right to !
Xist to the decision of one man? We |
we're a power de facto then; we were
by certain great powers OF |
he world, which made US power de
ure, and we were a power having |
realty relations with the United States /
f America. A treaty had been nego-