The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-03-17

sionary party to PROSTATE the mon
archy, and that action had been taken
before the troops from the Boston
landed.
There was then no executive head
of the Government of Hawaii; it had
persisted.
In landing the troops from the
Boston there was no demonstration
of actual hostilities, and their conduct
was as quiet and as respectful as it
had been on many previous Occa-
siOns when they were landed for the
purpose of drill and practice. In
passing the palace on their way to
the point at which they were halted,
the Queen appeared upon the balcony
and the troops respectfully saluted
her by presenting arms and dipping
the flag, and made no demonstration
Of any hostile intent. Her attitude
at that time was that of heipleSSne3S,
because she found no active or cour-
ageous support in her isolated posi-
ton, which was self-imposed and was
regretted by few of her former SUBJ
jects. In this condition of Hawaii
the laws for the protection of life and
property were, in fact, suspended SO
far as the executive power was con-
cerned, and the citizens of the United
ands, and their property rights, were
virtually outlawed. The citizens of
Honolulu were not held ameGable to
the civil authorities, but were treated
by the Queen, as we'll as by the peo-
pie, as III the country was in a state OF
war. a policeman was shot down on
the streets by a person who was con
Quoting a wagon loaded with arms to
the place of rendezvous where the
people had assembled, and no action
was taken for the purpose of arresting
or putting on trial the man who did
the shooting.
In a country where there is no
power of the law TO protect the citi-
ZenS OF the United States there can be
no law of nations nor any rule of COM
ity that can rightfully prevent our
flag from giving shelter to them I'M
der the protection of our arms, and
this without reference to any distress
il may give to the Queen who gener-
ated the confusion, or any advantage
it might give to the people who are
disputing her right TO resume or to
hold her regal powers. In every
country where there is no effective
chief executive authority, whether it
is newly-discovered island where
only savage government prevails, or
lyzed by internal feuds, it is the right,
claimed and exercised by all civilized
nations, to enter such country with
sovereign authority to assert and pro-
tect the rights of its citizens and their
property, and to remain there with
out the invitation of anybody until
civil government shall have been es-
tablished that is adequate, in a salts
factory sense, for their protection.
The committee agree that such was
the condition OF the Hawaiian Gov
eminent at the time that the troops
were landed in Honolulu from the
steam warship Boston; that there
was then an interregnum in Hawaii
as respects the executive office; that
there was no executive power TO en-
force the laws of Hawaii, and that it
was the right of the United States to
land troops upon those islands at any
place where it was necessary in the
opinion of our minister to protect our
citizens.
In what occurred in landing the
troops at Honolulu there may have
been an invasion, but it was not an
act of war, nor did it create that con-
dition of the public law in Hawaii.
In the period of reconstruction, as
it is called, which followed the civil
war of 1S61-'65 IN the United States,
q very similar condition existed, or
ives assumed to exist, which caused
Congress to provide for vacating
offices in several of the
States and filling them by
of the President.
In these States strong military
bodies were stationed and general
officers of the Army took command
and enforced the laws found on their
statute books and also the laws of the
United States. All the civil officers
in those sovereign States were re-
quired TO obey the commands of those
Army officers, and they did so, often
under protest, but with entire SUBJ
to the military power and
Authority of the President, exerted
the instrumenta1ity of the
Army. That was not war. Yet it
was the presence of military force,
actively in the enforcement
of the civil laws, and in full suprem-
acy over the civil authority.
The only reason that could justify
this invasion of sovereign States by
the armies OF the United States was
the declaration by Congress that the
executive governments in those States
the incumbents; that there was an
interregnum in those States as to the
office of governor.
If the Queen, or the people, or both
acting in conjunction, had opposed
landing of the troops from the Boston
with armed resistance, their invasion
would have been an act of war. But
when their landing was not opposed
by any objection, protest, or resist
ance the state of war did not super
vene, and there was no irregularity or
want of authority to place the troops
on shore.
In this view of the facts there is no
necessity for inquiring whether Min
lister Stevens or Capt. Wiltse, in
arranging for the landing of the
troops, had any purpose either TO aid
the popular movement against the
Queen that was then taking
definite and decisive shape, or to
promote the annexation of the Ha-
waiian Islands to the United States.
But justice to these gentlemen re-
n