The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-03-07

The attempt of Minister Willis to answer
President Dole's bill of particulars ID .
wretched failure. It il not disputed that
Willis demanded the abdicatiou Of Presi-
dent Dole and his associates; that he re-
fused TO answer whether the policy com.
mitted TO him was to be executed With
force. In face Of his record Minister
Willis can not say anything that does not
add sanctimonious falsehood 70 his base,
transparent treachery. Prof. Theodore s.
Woolsey, professor Of international Law in
the Yale Jaw school, discusses the Ha-
waiian question in the Yale Reriew for the
current month. He points out that ''in
the eye of international law" the pro-
visionai character Of the present Hawaiian
government does not make 1t any The less
. sovereign state. and that even granting
that its origin was owing to . wrongful
act OF the United States, its subsequent
legality is not impaired thereby. Prssi-
dent Cleveland pretended that because
the provisional government was merely
established "to exist until terms Of union
with the United States Of America have
been negotiated and agreed upon" il
lapsed simply by reason of his refusal to
consider the treaty of annexation.
Prof. Woolsey completely eviscerates
this fallacy and shows that according to
the rules Of international law, iii gov.
eminent is organised to secure certain OBJ
jects," II 10 not competent for any other
than itself to decide whether those OBJ
jects are achieved or are impossible, or
what other objects shall succeed them. +"
What this new governments shall do with
iss own. whether II shall withdraw in
favor of the deposed queen or form itself
into . permanent republic 10 q matter
purely for internal decision" The New
York Sun thus summarizes the decision:
"Prof. Woolsey is of the opinion that
the hasty recognition of the provisional
government by Minister Stevens Was
wrong: but he denies that on that account
its sovereignty as an independent state
is in any respect impaired. The in
tervention Of France in our Revoiu-
tionary war Vas technically illegal.
was an act OF war. but the recog-
milton OF the United States was not
thereby invaiidated. Our recognition
OF Texan independence was wrong, il be-
ing likewise premature, but no one ques-
toned the Legality of the Texan status.'
To show that the recognition of q provi-
sional government Is no new thing he in
stances the case OF Costa RIGA in 1868. the
recognition Of the national defence COM
mitiee as the government Of France in 1870
and the recognition Of the Caideron gov
eminent in 1851 a. the existing prov,-
sional government of Peru. Not only
our recognition of the new government In
Hawaii, not only its recognition by other
states he concludes. but also every sub
sequent act proves its sovereignty. We
have accredited . minister 10 IL, We have
received a minister from it,
That being %, 'our own usage and the
rules Of international law require that
our attitude toward the provisional gov.
eminent should be ~ toward sovereign
state. Its rights are the same, our rsla-
tons to IL are the same. - in the case Of
its predecessor. To restore the queen by
intervention would be fresh wrong ANY
forcible interference in the affairs Of Ha-
waii. even TO insist on a plebiscite whose
result should determine in whose hands
the government shall reside. would be IL
legal. One wrong cannot be cured by an
other. Oar duty 10 simple. II consists in
keeping our hands off ,"