The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1897-09-07
NATIVE RIGHTS.

MIR. EDITOR:-It has been claimed
by those who are in opposition to the
Hawaiian Annexation Treaty that
no such treaty can be passed lawfully
and legally without the approval or
sanction of the native Hawaiians, by
popular vote through "Plebiscite.
To this claim demur with much re-
greet and sorrow. For myself, native
of Hawaii, Lam as anxious to exercise
that right, as well as those that claim
ed, we Hawaiians have it. For all
know of this right, that l have been
deprived of it by the act of my own
King Kamehameha II.-and his
chiefs, whom l looked upon as my
"Aliis." They have left behind them
as an inheritance to their posterity,
that all natives born here in Hawaii,
and raised in Hawaii, cannot exercise
the right of popular vote in matters
pertaining to the question of Hawaii
being annexed to any Government up
on the face of the globe
The two Houses of the Hawaiian
Legislature in 1851, passed Joint
Resolution" investing the full power
and authority in the King, who was the
Chief Head OF the Government then, to
carry out all measures pertaining TO
secure a complete annexation treaty
between Hawaii and another Power
nd ha al. a. Ia
and that the natives" or his subjects
have not a word to say about it,
whether pro" or con" That resolu-
ton declared in conclusion, that
whatever the King may do or pass
in the premises are binding upon the
people"
l looked upon this Act of the Legis-
lature OF 1851, as very solemned
Act, binding the "Aliis" as we'll as the
common people" (makaainana) from
exercising the right of popular vote.
for approval or non-approval, of any
Annexation Treaty that the Chief Head
of the Government may seen fit to
carry out. If Z the natives" by
means of this Solemn Act of the
Legislature, have been deprived of the
right TO vote on that question, how
can exercise it now? That Resolution
has not been abrogated or repealed
by any subsequent Legislature. 1t may
be said, that IL is dead Act" as ii
has never been put into effect. That
may be; but that will not do away
with the fact, that the natives" have
been deprived of that right since that
time, making no material difference
whether the subject matter to which
the intents and purposes of the Reso-
luton applied, were carried out or
not.
And one Of the principles in that
Resolution is to check off, or cut OFF,
the right of the native voters" to say
mo" or yes" in any transaction per-
tanning to the Annexation scheme pro-
posed by the King; and which prin-
ciple is now firmly planted in the pre-
sent Constitution, thereby placing the
native votersT of today on the same
level with those of the days of Kane
hameha III. and our "Aliis." If my
''forefathers" had been deprived by
our "Aliis'' of this right, how can l
claim that l can exercise 1t?
regret very much this act of the
Native Aliis;" but what can / do?
Is it not foolish or folly for a native,
when his own King and Aliis had de-
prived him of this rdght by solemn
act Of law, to look to the United States
for restoration of this right? And
yet some whites" pretended to teach
me that l can exercise it, when the
history of my country teaches me the
contrary.
With due respect for every ones
opinion to throw more light on this
subject, I humbly submit this to the
public. JOSEPH NJ. POEPOE.
Honolulu, Sept 2, 1897.