The herald., 1895-05-17

The action OF the department Of state in
behalf of these cases has been made
known to the friends of the men here,
and the formal letters of Secretary Gres-
ham are now published US indicating the
attitude the state department at Wash
ington has assumed toward the whole
question of citizenship of Americans who
have become at any time attached to
Hawaii. and particularly as showing an
essential difference in the view of this
subject taken by the governments of the
United States and Great Britain, as re-
vealed in the attitude of the latter in the
case OF Walker and Richard, alleged to be
British subjects. The correspondence is
made up of two letters the first touching
the Cranstoun case. being as follows:
DEPARTMENT. OF STATE.
WASHINGTON. Feb. 25, 1895.
A. s. Williams. Esq, Honolulu:
Sir:-I have to acknowledge the receipt OF
your No. 96 of the Sth inst, in relation
to affairs in Hawaii and particularly IN
relation to the forcible depo tation on
the I'd inst. of three men. one OF whom.
J.. Cranstoun. claims to be a citizen of
the United States. l enclose herewith
copies of certain depositi ons made by Mr..
Cranstoun on the 11th and 18th inst, be-
fore Mr.. Peterson, the commercial agent
OF the United States at Vancouver. These
doepostions leave the question of Mr..
Cranstoun's nationality in doubt and
Mr.. Peterson has been instructed to OBJ
tain further statements from him on
that subject.
Under these circumstances the depart
ment does not instruct You to make any
representations to the Hawaiian govern
ment in regard to Mr.. Cranstoun, but it
is proper to express to you for your guild
ance in similar cases. should they arise,
the views here entertained in regard to
the course of action taken in that case.
1 %lx..N I-,
IN Jail nearly month. without any
charges having been made against him,
he was then taken under heavy guard to
the steamer and would. in spite of his
request to see you. have been deported
without having had an opportunity then
to do SO had it not been for the accidental
but timely interposition of the British
commissioner. You state that when you
asked the Encouragement for an ex-
Planation of the proceedings, he replied
that the cabinet had determined 70 de-
port the men in the exercise of the arbi-
trary power conferred by martial law.
As this was the only explanation he gave,
it is assumed it was all he had to offer
and he gave it without suggesting any
ity.
If the position thus assumed be sound
the very proclamation of martial law in
Hawaii renders all foreigners there resid-
ing, including Americans, liable to arrest
and deportation without cause and with
out any reason other than the fact that the
executive power wills it.
They may be taken from their homes
and their business, they may be deprived
of their liberty and be banished; they
may be denied the ordinary as we'll rs the
special treaty rights of residents. without
offense or misconduct on their part,
simply in the exercise of arbitrary power.
Gfaf 70 in m
opinion OF the president. to refute it.
Truly viewed, says an eminent author,
martial law can only change the admin
stration OF laws, give them rapid force
and make their penalties certain and
effectual; not abrogate what was the jus
tice of the community before. The civil
courts are in part fully suspended; but
in reason the new summary tribunals
shoulu'govern themselves IN their pro-
ceedings as far as circumstances admit.
by the established principles OF justice.
the same which had before been recog
nized in the courts bishops criminal
law. section 45.)
in view of what has been stated, your
course in protesting against the position
assumed by the attorney general of Ha-
wall. is approved.
II am, sir, your obedent servant.
W. Q. GRESHAM.
The second letter relates to the Bowler
case and is as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
WASHINGTON. d. G., April 5, 1895.
Albert S. Willis, Esq. Honolulu:
Sir-lt appears from your No. SO Of
February %. that on the 22d of that
month, J. Il. Bowler was convicted by a
military commission. sitting at Honolulu.
for participating or Implication in the
disturbances or uprising in Hawaii early
in January. and sentenced to imprison-
1.l f.
pay fine of $5000 that he now claims pro-
lection as an American citizen and that
the Hawaiiana authorities assert that the
is not entitled to such protection because
he Is naturalized citizen of that govern
ment.
When Mr.. Bowler left his country and
went to Hawaii does not appear, but on
March Is, 1885. he voluntarily took an
oath to support the constitution and laws
of the Hawaiian islands and bear true al
legiance to the king. without expressly
renouncing or giving up his allegiance to
the United States. Section 453. prescrib-
ing this oath Compiled Laws of Hawaii.
1oss4). provides, every foreigner SO
naturalized shall be deemed for all pur
pose native of the islands, subject only
to their laws and entitled to their pro-
lection and no longer amenable to his ma
tive sovereign while residing in the king
dom, nor entitled to resort to his native
country for protection or Intervention.
That for every such resort he shall be
subject to the penalties annexed to rebel
lion and that having been thus natural
ized, he shall be entitled to all the rights
and immunites of Hawaiian subject.
| am informed that the supreme court of
Hawaii has held that the taking of this
oath operates to naturalize .he alien ana
admit him to full citizenship. 1t is not
claimed that since 1885 Mr.. Bowler ever
returned to the United States or resided
elsewhere than on the islands.
This government has never held to the
doctrine of perpetual allegiance; on the
contrary. from its orgariz ization it has
maintained that the right to throw off
ones natural allegiance and assume an
said :AttorneyGe Black, includes
country, but naturalization in the coun-
effect OF naturalization is to place the
adopted citizen in the same relation to
the government as native citizens. The
right of the Hawaiian government with
his consent to adopt MIR. Bowler as fully
as if he had been born upon its soil is as
clear as his right to expatriate himself.
He manifested his intention of abandon
ing his American citizenship by taking
the oath to support the constitution and
laws of Hawaii and bear allegiance to the
king. and SO far as known lie manifested
no contrary intention before his arrest.
That oath is inconsistent with his ale
glance TO the United States. BY taking
it he obligated himself to support the
government of his adoption. even to the
extent of fighting its BATTLES in event of