The sun., 1893-11-17
The Gist Of the Hawaiian Business.


what Mr.. CLEVELAND proposed to do.
Tho Gist Of tho Hawaiian Business.
1t is important to look narrowly at the
specious plea put forward on behalf OF
President CLEVELAND. that wrongful act
was committed in establishing the present
Hawaiian Government. that to this wrong
the United States were party. and that.
consequently it is the duty Of the United
States to redress the wrong by restoring
the deposed Queen. In any event. it 10 OBJ
vious that the Constitution has not made
the President sole Judge in tho premises.
but that the duty Of the United States must
be declared by Congress before 1t 10 dis
charged by the Executive. If. IN Mr. CLEvE-
LANDS opinion. a wrong had been done IN
the Hawaiian affair, he should have laid the
evidence to that effect. together with the
opposing evidence in possession OF our
State and Navy departments. before Con-
gress during its recent session. or else he
should have waited q few weeks until the
regular session Of Congress should begin.
It Is for Congress. not the President. to de-
eide first. whether wrongful act was COM
mitted by representatives Of the United
States last January In Honolulu; and Sec
ondly, whether that act should now be rec
titled by an act Of war against the present
Hawaiian Government.
Assuming, for the moment. that the evil
dence collected by Commissioner BLoUNT
should be held by Congress to be conclusive
proof that the United States were partyto
the deposition Of Queen L111UoKALAN1.i it by
no means follows that Congress would de-
clare that tho wrong then committed ought
now to be redressed by resort to war. In
international law. as in commercial law.
the redressing Of a wrong Is not SO sim
pie and easy thing as the headlong de-
tenders Of the President would persuade US
to believe. Between the doing and redress
ing Of q wrong. equities may have arisen in
favor OF third parties. which cannot be
brushed aside. Let US take. by way OF ex-
ample. the case Of q promissory note which
the maker delivers to the payee under what
he subsequently believes to DO false pre-
tences concocted by the latter. Neverthe-
less. the maker must pay the note II 1t has
passed into the hands Of innocent holders
for value. Equities have arisen which for
bid the maker to redress the orig inal wrong
by perpetrating another.
That Is precisely the case Of the existing
relation between the United States and the
Hawaiian Government. Once recognized
by the United States. that Government
speedily secured recognition from other
powers. and. among them. from Japan.
which proceeded to enter into contract
with 1t. defining the conditions under which
large numbers OF Japanese should settle
In the Hawaiian Islands. The United States
have no right to interfere with that trans-
action, as they would do II without Japan's
consent they compelled the substitution
Of Queen LILIUoKALANI for tho present
Hawaiian Government as one OF the parties
to that contract. international law is clear
upon the point. that the formal recognition
of Government is not an act with which
the United States or any other power is ut
liberty to play fast and loose. and we do
not doubt that a declaration to that effect
would be made by Congress 1t Is. in truth.
an irrevocable act. A community. once
admitted to the circle Of independent
nations. cannot be excluded from 1t except
by an act Of war: and for such an act on
the part OF the United States the previous
sanction OF Congress ls required by the
Constitution.
There is no principle Of international
law moro undisputed than that tho forr}Ial
recognition OF q government cannot be an
nulled but by an act of war. When. imme-
diately after the coup d<tat OF Dec. 2. 1851.
Lord PALMERsToN. then the head Of the
British Foreign Office. instructed the British
Ambassador at Paris to recognize the
usurplng Government OF LOUIS NAPOLEON.
he aroused furious indignation on the
partOf Queen VICTORIA and OF the British
nation. Lord PALNERsToN was summarlly
removed from his post, but neither his sue
cessor nor any other English statesman or
dIplomatist pretended for an instant that
the recognition OF LOUIS NAPOLEON could
be recalled. The act was accomplished and
irrevocable. and its consequences could
be averted only by war against the
usurper. to whose firm establishment
Great Britain had by that recognition
signally contributed. Another example
may be drawn from American history. 1t
will be remembered that Texas was formally
recognized as an independent republic by
the United States many years before Its
admission as State into tho Union. Let
US suppose that President TYLER had
come to the conclusion that the recognition
OF Texas had been made on misconcep-
tion OF the facts: that the movement which
resulted In her independence had been
largely brought about by American citizens
invading tho territory and assailing the
Government of friendly power. and. in
their wrongful acts. secretly encouraged
and supported by leading American poll
ticians. Would such conclusion on the
part Of President Tyler have justified him
In recalling tho recognition Of Texan inde-
pendence by the United statssf Obviously
not. for international equities had In the