The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-03-20

| do not entirely change, the actual re-
! lations between Hawaii and the Unit
/ ed States and make them exceptional.
When we claim the right to inter
fere in the domestic affairs of Hawaii,
as we would not interfere with those
of European nation, we must also
admit her right to whatever advan-
tages there may be in the closeness
and interdependence of our relations,
and her right to question us as to any
conflicts of policy between Mr.. Harri-
son and Mr.. Cleveland that may be
| justly said to work disadvantage to
the interests of Hawaii, if there are
any.
And another principle which does
not apply in our dealings with Euro
pean powers comes into application in
this case to influence the rights of
Hawaii in her intercourse with the
United States.
Hawaii is an American state, and is
embraced in the American CONNER
cial and military system. This fact
has been frequently and firmly stated
by our Government, and is the ground
on which is rested that peculiar and
far-reachiDg declaration so often and
so earnestly made, that the United
! States will not admit the right of any
| foreign government to acquire any
| interest or control in the Hawaiian
Islands that is in any way prejudicial
or even threatening toward the inter-
ests of the United States or her peo-
pie. This is at least moral suzerainty
over Hawaii. In this attitude of the
two Governments, Hawaii must be
entitled to demand of the United
States an indulgent consideration, if
not an active sympathy, when she is
endeavoring to accomplish what every
other American state has achieved
the release of her people from the
odiOus anti-republican regime which
denies to the people the right to gov
ern themselves, and subordinates them
to the supposed divine right of mon
arch, whose title to such divinity orig
mated in the most slavish conditions
of pagan barbarity.
The point at which it is alleged
that there was a question: BILE inter
ference by our Minister and our navy
with the affairs of Hawaii was the land
ing of troops from the ship Boston in
Honolulu on the 18th day of January,
1898, at o'clock in the afternoon.
That ship, on which the Minister was
passenger, had been off on practise
cruise at Hilo, distance of nearly 100
miles, since the 4th day of January.
On her return to the harbor a cOndi-
tion of affairs existed in Honolulu
which led naturally to the apprehen-
sion that violence or civil commotion
would ensue, in which the peace and
security OF American citizens residing
in that city would be put in peril, as
had been done on three or more separ-
ate occasions previously when changes
occurred or were about to occur in the
government of Hawaii. Whatever
we may conclude were the real causes
of the situation then present in Homo
lulu, the fact is that there was COM
plete paralysis of executive govern
ment in Hawaii. The action of the
Queen in an effort to Overturn the
constitution of 1877, to which she had
sworn obedience and support, had
been accepted and treated by large
and powerful body of the people as a
violation of her constitutional Obiiga-
tiOns, revolutionary in its character
and purposes, and that it amounted to
an act of abdicatiOn on her part, so far
as her powers and the rights of the
people under the constitution of 1887
were concerned. This state of opinion
and this condition of the executive
head of the Hawaiian Government
neutraliZed its power to protect Amer
can citizens and other foreigners in
their treaty rights, and also their
rights under the laws of Hawaii.
There was not in Honolulu at that
time any efficient executive power
which the rights of American
citizens residing there could be pro-
tected in accordance with the local
laws. 1t is evident that the Queens
at that time had no
power to prevent the landing of troops
from any quarter, no power to protect
itself against invasion, no power to
conduct civil government, so far as
the executive was concerned, if the
effort to exert such power was an
by any opposing body of
people in considerable numbers. In
deed, no effort seems to have been
made to exert the civil authority
except through the presence of a small
and inefficient body of policemen.
The authority OF the Queen was not
by the people; it was OPP
posed, and no force appeared to be
used Tor the purpose OF overcoming
the opposition. It yielded to a silent
Dut ominous opposition. Without
reference to the question whether, in
strict law, the action of the Queen in
ner effort to overturn the Constitution
Of 1887, and to substitute one by pro-
,lamation which she had prepared,
vas a revolution in government, or
IN effort at revolution, or amounted
20 an actual abdication, the result was
hat an interregnum existed.
II we give full effect tc the conten-
ion that this interregnum occurred