The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1897-01-22
HON. GODFREY RHODES LETTER.

In another column will be found
letter from our esteemed correspond
ent, Hon. Godfrey Rhodes, criticising
some points in Professor Alexander's
history of the latter years of the Ha-
waiian Monarchy, especially the para
graphs relating to the Reciprocity
Treaty. In SO brief a sketch as is Civ
en- in the first chapter of that work,
the prominence given to different
events is largely determined by their
bearing on its main object, which was
to trace the growth of the evils which
1t may perhaps be criticised for as
Stunning on the part of its readers too
great an acquaintance with the lead
ing facts of Hawaiian history. Thus
the brief reference on the first page
to the appearance of certain fatal ten
denotes during Kamehameha VS. reign
hardly does that Monarch justice. His
strong and manly traits, his patriot
ism and foresight are now admitted by
his former opponents, and his reign
has become illustrious by contrast
with that of Kalakaua. Yet the fact
remains indsputable that the germs
the bacilli, if you, will-of the mortal
disease which destroyed the Monarchy,
may be traced in his reign.
The ''orgies" spoken of undoubtedly
were the nightly hulahulas performed
within the palace enclosure, while the
remains of the Princess Victoria were
lying in state. 1t is stated on good
authority that the King afterwards re-
GREETED having permitted this revival
of a heathenish custom. Of it's de-
moralizing effect on the native popula-
ton there can be no question.
Mr.. Rhodes remarks on the election
of Government officers to seats in the
Legislature apply perfectly to the earl
Ter and simpler days of the Monarchy,
before an Hawaiian King had descend
ed into the arena of party politics, and
used his appointing power to purchase
votes in the Legislature. This abuse
was effectually put an end to by the
Constitution of 1887.
In regard to the contest in the Leg
islature over the Reciprocity Treaty,
Mr.. Rhodes considers, and perhaps
with reason, that justice is not done to
the motives of the opposition by the
brief statement in AleXander's history.
His account of the dispute over the
question whether the Ministry were
bound by the Constitution to submit
the Reciprocity Treaty to the Legisla-
ture for approval, comedies with our
own recollections of it.
But we regret to find that his mem
DRY is somewhat at fault in regard TO
the Pearl River concession. To make
this point clearer, let us recall some Of
the circumstances. Twice had Reel
procity Treaty been negotiated with
the United States and failed of ratif-
cation in the Senate. Hence it was
proposed in the spring of 1874 to offer
the exclusive use of Pearl Harbor to
the Government of the United States
as an additional inducement. Negota-
lions on that basis were commenced,
but were soon broken off on account
of the strength of the popular oppos-
ton to it and the rapid failure of King
Lunalilo's health.
The Reciprocity Treaty which went
into effect September Q, 1876, con-
IL
which cut no figure in the discussion
1t is true, however, that Mr.. w. L.
Green, who was then Minister of For.
eign Affairs, was denounced on the
floor of the House as an "anneXation.
list, charge which he Indignantly
denied.
1t was not til 1887 that it was found
necessary in order to secure the re-
newal of the treaty for ano her tern
of seven years, to conclude a supple
mentary convention proposed by Sen
ator Edmunds of Vermont, which Sc
,,Gured to the United States "the eX
elusive right to enter the harbor d
Pearl River, in the island of Oahu, ant
to establish and maintain there a coal
ing and repair station for the use o
vessels of the United States, and t.
that end the United States may i'm
prove the entrance to said harbor>ant
do all other things needful to the pur
pose aforesaid" This convention wen
into effect November 0, 1887. Prob
ably this was the identical offer mad
to the United States in 1874.
The concluding paragraphs of Mr.
La lie. IL