The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-07-08
A NATTER OF ROYAL RIGHT. .

The Santa Rosa Press" finds fault
with the expression of the Record
Union" concerning the claim of Liluo-
kalani, late Queen of Hawaii, en-
bodied in the words My people" It
asks if indeed she is not the right
full Queen of Hawaiians? If her claim
to them is not level with that of Vic
toria of England, Nicholas of Russia
and Abdul Hamfd of Turkey to their
people. We are asked who gave Eng
and Turkey to the latter. ''Will our
great contemporary question the right
of Nicholas to the throne Of Russia, or
does the power he still yields change
the aspect of the case?'
Always willing to oblige, the Rec
ord-Union" responds to it's illogical
contemporary that careful perusal of
the article it criticises will disclose
the belief of this journal-shared hap
PLY by 100000 Americans-in the
doctrine that right government always
springs from the consent of the gov
erned. The several questions the
Press" asks in the form of COM
parative statements have not the merit
of ingenuity. If we answered the hys-
terical inquiry who gave England to
Victoria and China to Kuang Hsu, it
would cut no figure whatever in the
case of the dusky ex-Queen, since by
whatever right these rule, be it might
or consent of the governed, they still
maintain their power, while the people
of Hawaii have overthrown the throne,
given the bronzed Queen a clearance
card, and maintained in her stead for
now full five years a republic, with all
the dignity and form of State, rec
ognized by all the leading nations of
the earth, receiving their Ministers,
ambassadors and Consul-Generals, and
negotiating and concluding treaties of
peace, commerce and concern with
them.
This quite fully responds to our con-
temporary and answers the rather ex-
travagant statement in which it in
dulges, namely:
The plain fact of the case is that
Liluokalani is the rightful Queen of
the Hawaiian islands to-day Accord
ing to the law of her land as formu-
lated by her own people, and by the
custom of the islands, she is their
rightful sovereign.
The Press evidently is oblivious of
the position in which its expression
places it; that is to say, if the ex-
Queen is rightfully the ruler of the Ha.
waiians. then there can be no other
right possible for her deposition. Two
rights cannot conflict Rights presup-
poses harmony. All rights must be and
are rhythmic and in unison. Right can
not antagonize right and maintain its
title
The Press" indicates its belief, how
ever, that now the dusky Kanaka has
been in fact deposed, it would be wrong
to reinstate her, since republfc-building
is progress, even though erected upon
the ruins of monarchy. It would have
I-ihuokalani compensated, however, for
ner loss, and the people of the United
States should foot the bill. because the
work of deposition was done through
the connivance of the United States.
If that should be conceded. which if
Is not, it would cut no figure in the
matter. If Cuba through recognition
OF the beIigerency of the insurgents by
the United States, should be lost to
spain, we scarcely think that the
Press" would hold its country in honor
hable TO compensate the Queen Regent
for her loss" If through recognition
OF the independence of the Cubans their
triumph should be achieved, we are
unable to entertain the thought that
our contemporary would defend a claim
against the United States by the boy
King of Spain for money damages for
"his loss'
If the logic of the questioning of our
santa Rosa contemporary is applied to
itself we might in turn ask it by what
right was the King of England de-
prived Of this country? Is not Queens