The sun., 1894-04-25
American Residents In Hawaii.

The statement In the despatch OF Mr..
GREsHAM to Minister WILLIS regarding tho
rights OF Americans in Hawaii has natural
ly provoked inquiry and criticism. Mr..
GKHsHAM says that "an American citizen
who volunta tarily takes an oath to support
and bear true allegiance to foreign power.
contemplating participation in Its affairs.
probably abandons his right to claim pro-
lection from the United States" The Score
tary OF State does not positively declare
that this country will refuse protection to
those OF Its citizens who may take an oath
Of allegiance to the Provisional Government
OF Hawaii. but the word probably" indi-
Gates the view to which he is inclined.
The FIRST question. however. is whether It
Is true that the general principle In regard
to citizenship applies to the actual condi-
ton OF affairs In Hawaii. Mr.. GRESHAM
well says that "this Government does not
hold to the doctrince OF perpetual alle-
giaIcs:" but while the right OF expatria-
ton has always been upheld by America.
that Is not quite all that is now involved
There has long existed In Hawaii species
OF dual allegiance which does not have q
counterpart In most countries. This dou-
BILE fealty was recognized under the Ha-
waiiAn monarchy.
Two cases In point were referred to during
the Hawaiian debates In the Senate. by Mr.
DAVIS Of Minnesota. An American named
JONES. domiciled In Hawaii. wished to regis
ter his vessel under the flag Of that country.
and found that In order 10 do so he must
take an oath OF allegiance to the kingdom.
He took this oath. and Q question then
arose as TO whether he had thereby re-
nounced his rights or his status as an
American citizen. Mr.. FRELIsoHUYsEN. at
shat time Secretary of State. In answering
IN inquiry on this subject. pointed out that.
whereas an alien who becomes citizen OF
the United States must swear not only
20 support our Constitution and laws,
but to renounce all other allegi-
ance. and especially that to the coun-
try Of which he had previously been
subject or citizen. In the Hawaiian oath
taken by Mr.. JONES there was mo such ex-
press renunciation OF his American citizen
ship, nor do the circumstances manifest
anyintention on his part to expatriate him
self" Mr.. FRELNGHUYsRN admitted that
the question might become one for judicial
investigation. thus showing that 1t was
viewed as one OF some doubt; but mean
while the conduct OF the executive branch
OF tho Government was to be guided. he
said. by the opinion OF the Attorney Gen
erai that ito constitute expatriation there
must be an actual removal. followed by for
eign residence. accompanied by authentic
renunciation OF preexisting citizenship"
He cited one judicial decision as supporting
that view.
Here 1t will be seen that In an analogous
case one OF Ar. GREsHAA's predecessors.
while admitting the doubt gave the benefit
OF that doubt to the American citizen, his
conclusion being expressed as follows:
-IR the absence OF direct judIaAl of
ths question. do nOt feel disposed 20 deay 70 Mr.
SozEs any right 0r privilege pertaining hIs shAEac
ser Of American etzsaship and therefore, while the
department. wtn Hot undertake express an Aathork
tAtVs OPlROa the eject which his course Ia Hawaii
naI ulsimatsly have on his status regard you
are authorized 20 sxtsnd TO hiIn pFOtsston e
mag bs properly das 10 eissa OF abe Uaitsd stAtss
Essd ng In and having acquired a eommsrolAl aoni-
eiIs Ia tOrslEn stAts ThiS pToEssOn mus sG coarse
- bmiIsd And quAlinsd b. the liabilities AAd Sbgar
esss insIdsat - Saeh commercial dsaIsns."
The case there was one OF an oath taken
for business purpose. whereas Mr.. GREsH-
AN speaks OF an oath taken with a view TO
participation In the AFFAIRS Of the Hawaiian
Government. but the oath Is the same for
one purpose as the other. and that distinc-
tion does not seem to be fundamental.
= When the revolution Of 1887 in Hawaii was
carried 70 success. this point was expressly
pCVVidsd for u TIE RsH Constitution which