The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1894-02-13
A LOGICAL EDlFlCE.
HENRY CAsTIi's rICLE IN THE
"INnEPENDENT."
A Sound structure of Political Argu-
ment-The Hawaiian Case
Ably Presented.

assumption, OF course. that she was de-
posed only by the actual co operation of
the United States. 1t is conceded per-
haps that such an act on the part of the
President would, as an act of war. be
an infringement on the Constitution.
1t is admitted also that even with the
assent of Congress it would involve a
violation of international law and a
breach of international comfy. 1t
would probably be allowed also by men
who are accustomed in any degree to
reflect upon the relations OF law and
morals that the circumstances must be
rare indeed which can justify the dis
regard of rights clearly established by
law; and such are the rights of
the Provisional Government of Ha.
waii. Yet, in spite of all these
pressing considerations, there are those
who still maintain that ii the United
States assisted in dcthroning the Queen.
it is Just that the United States
should restore her. Is there any foun-
datiou in any code of morals, actual or
ideal, for such an opinion?
That the restoration of Queen Liliuo-
kalani would be, on the contrary, an
act of the grossest injustice is PROPOSE.
ton so manifest that il is not easy to
understand how candid man can have
ever conceived a contrary opinion. The
wrong which, upon the theory of the
Administration, has been done, is the
wrong of the United States itself, acting
through its representative, and neither
did nor could have effected the conduct
Of the revolutionists in Hawaii. To
deny this is simply to deny the right of
al .,tf
had a perfect right to rise against the
Queens Government, and in doing so
they were justified in accepting any as
sistance which offered itself, no matter
from what quarter it came. Suppose
that the British Minister had offered to
assist the Committee of Public Safety,
would it have been the duty of that
committee to have inquired into the
authority by which the Minister was
acting before accepting his aid 3! 1t was
not only the right of the Hawaiian re-
volutionists to accept all the help which
they could get, but if their cause was
Just, it was their duty so to do: and
they could not have rejected such help
without being unfaithful to the cause
upon which they had staked their lives
and their fortunes. Suppose that the
post-revolutionary government in France
had regretted the assistance rendered
the colonies in the American war. Sup
pose that it had desired to disavow, and
as far as possible to undo, its action in
the war. To make the case as drastic
as possible, let it also be imagined that
the interference of France on that oc-
casion had been an act of unprovoi1ed
and unwarranted aggression upon Eng
land. Would justice have required
that France should go to war on the
colonies, and endeavor to restore them
to Great Britain? Would justice for
one moment have allowed even the in
tended reparation To be made in that
way? The case requires only to be
stated to be answered. 1t is obvious
that the contemplated Justice would
be an act of nonstruous injustice, a
preparation" to England indeed, hut an
iniquitous wrong to the United States.
Yet the case as supposed is strictly
parallel to that of Hawaii to-day, Ac-
cording to Mr.. Cleveland, the Com
mittee of Public Safety and all its fol-
lowing We're rebels, as the American
colonies were in 1875. The United
States, he says, has assisted them against
the lawful auth rity of the Queen of
Hawaii, as France assisted the colonies
against the lawful authority of the
King of England. If it is just now to
make reparation to this Queen by maxi
ing war against the regularly estab-
lished Government of the Hawaiian
Islands, would it have not been equally
just then for Napoleon to make repara-
ton to that king by making war upon
the regularly established Government OF
the United States:
What the Administration claims ia
Ia ,.,. . 4. Al.
revolution because it had no right tC
assist it. 1t has right to tear down
the present Government because it had
no right to tear down preceding one.
On confession that it has done wrong
before, it bases the rIght,to do wrong
again. 1t robs Peter to pay Paul, and
claims to be acting on principle in
doing so. 1t proposes to eXpiate it:
own guilt by punlshing the innocent
The case is distinguished by the further
popularity that here not only is the ac
cused the innocent-that is common
enough-but the malefactor, the Gov
eminent which has committed the
wrong has constituted itself Judge, jury
and eXecutioner. In court so estah
lished it need surprise no one that thu
ordinary forms of law are not observed
that the examination is inuuisitoria
and private that the victim is withou
witnesses and without hearing anC
that the condemnation, like the exam
ination, is also dark, uncertain ant
secret. 1t may be Justice" which i
thus administered, but in this masl
and garb it is of kind unknown t,
gods and men. Stripped and unmasked
it is simply bold appeal to the right o
the stronger.
1t should be unnecessary to observ
that the United States has no juri, die
ton in any case, real or supposed, be
tween the Provisional Government an
the deposed Queen. Nothing has eve
been submitted to the United States TO
arbitration, and Liliuokalani is in cor
temptation of law as well as in point O
fact simply private individual who ca
have no claim against the Hawaiian
the American or any other Govern
ment, except as any private person ma
have such II claim. If the facts of tn
Hawaiian revolution were such as MI
Blount, and Mr.. Cleveland and MI
Gresham after him, assert them to hay
been, no doubt the eX-Queen has a goo
claim in morals, if not in law, againS
the United States Government. In tia
case Mr.. Cleveland should hasten [
secure the satisfaction of this claim b
urging upon Congress the passage of
suitable indemnity. This would be
more honorable way of discharging a
equitable demand than by committin
an act of piracy in the Pacific.
have thus far treated this questio
of abstract or ideal justice upon the a
sumption that the Administration
theory of the facts is true one. As
matter of fact that theory is fal:
throughout. 1t is based upon NJ
Blount's repoi t, and that report is in i
turn based upon the statements of Il
ex-Queen's Cabinet and others of h
adherents. The report is practically
finding by these persons. Mr.. Bloul
himself does not seem to have exercise
any functions of selt ction or judgme
beyond what is involved in his unifor
adontion of all statements coming fro