The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-04-20
rrsER. The Post cites and COM
meuts as follows:

q
into which well-meauiug men have
! got themselves in the matter may be
seen in the speech of Mr.. w. y. Arm
| in Honolulu. Said he:
'sThe serious question is, how shall
the 1000 Americans impress the AM
| erican idea on the institutions to be
| created hereS We must consider es-
pecially the ease Of the native Ha-
wsiians. They do not understand our
system Of government; they cannot
govern us, aud they cannot govern
| themselves. They are simple and
often childish. We, who have in
heritsd love for them, who have
been born among them and know
them, are bound 10 see that in no
event, NJ any time, or under any cir
cumstauees, shall they receive any
other but just and humane treatment.
You who have come here 10 reside
will agree with US in this, because you
are just and humane, and have no
! desire 10 do other than what is really
for the best good of the natives
Analysed, that language can mean
nothing but minority rule and des-
potism which will be as benevolent as
convenient. And yet il is the talk of
men who call themselves republican
and whose main objection to the
Queen was that she wanted to be so
'.just and humane" TO the natives as
10 let them have the kind of govern
ment they wanted.
What is it that the Post finds to
criticize in the language of Mr..
Armstrong? Simply that ne says
the whites must be lust and hu
name" In the acknowledgment
of this obligation, the Post finds a
despotic intention. The shotgun
rule of Louisiana, which neither
protested nor praoticed justice and
humanity the Post always found
way to justify or condone; but for
the rule in Hawaii of intelligence
and property, guided by considera-
tons of justice and hum anity, the
Post has nothing but condemna-
ton.
The real justification for the as
sumption OF control here by white
men and natives Of the better class
is something which the Post has
steadily ignored. They rose to
protect the liberties guaranteed
them by the Constitution against
aggression from the Throne. There
is no dispute about the fact; it is
admitted by the royalists. There
is no denial also of the right of
revolution under such circum-
stances; it is good American doc
trine. In view of these facts, how
can the Post possibly free itself
from the charge of heterogeneous
ness in its attitude on the Hawai-
ian question ?
It is not true in any case, that
the words cited from Mr.. Arm
strong imply any intention to es-
tablish minority rule" in this
country. They do imply the in
tention on the part of the educated
and conservative minority not to
allow the country to be ruined,
whether by a majority or not. This
intention is implicit in the minds
OF all educated minorities, in New
Orleans, New York and Honolulu.
To allow the will of the unin-
structed majority to prevail in all
matters is something that the Post
itself would never wish. What
would become of the silver ques-
ton if the majority had its way?
Unquestionably the majority OF
HaBaiians would have liked to see
J. NJ. Horner food the country with
irredeemable paper money. VIII
the Post say, then, that the Legis-
lature was despotic in killing Hor-
ner's little bill?
The educated minority in Ha-
waii intend to be just and humane
to the Hawaiians, and this means
that they have no desire 10 exclude
them the franchise. They did not
mean, however, to let the Queen
take away their own rights in jan
uary, 1898, and they do not mean
10 let the natives vote them away
non