New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-01-16
NO CONQUEST OF HAWAII.

lent,v sozing the territory Of it's weaker neigh
hor II IL asked If the United States means to
exemnlify its Christian civilization by an unjust
and forcble conquest and an attempt Is ihaue
10 draw n parallel between the annexation Oh
Hawaii and the seizure Of Kiao-Chau Inc only
effect of such arguments is TO array their max
ers by the side Of the lamented PecksniH' NO
doubt this country has slnned against some
weaker neighbOrs, even as the other great row
ers have done. It's treatment OF Mexico ana OF
the Indian nations is lasting reproach 10 II,
and leaves II little room for rallng against
Great Britain and Germany for their land-graD-
bling But in respect to Hawaii AT least l's
hands are clean. The briefest reference to the
most familiar-and most acknowledgements Is
sufficient to prove that The attitude OF the
United States toward Hawaii has invariably
been Just and friendly. No attack upon Ia
waiian independence has ever been made Ahd
In now annexlng the islands this Government
will be accepting the voluntary oifer OF the only
legitimate authority in Hawaii.
The story is a simple one The United states
was, in 1920 by many years the first OF all ma
lions TO recognize Hawaiian independence ms
recognition was more formally repeated IN De-
cember, 1912, when Daniel Webster, united
States Secretary Of State announced that the
President was willing declare. rs the sense or
"the Government Of the United States that the
Government of the Sandwich Islands ought 10
abe respected; that no Power ought either 10
take possession Of the islands as a conquest
cor for the purpose Of co.onization." The same
sentiment was expressed by President Tyler in
his Message Of a few days later date. The fol-
lowing February, 1913, an attempt at the for
chile conquest of the islands was made by the
British under Lord George Paule and n pro
visonal annexation of them was actually MADE
But the appeal Of the Hawaiian Government 10
the British Crown and the clearly expressed
displeasure Of the United States at such con
quest prevailed: and in April 1S43. the British
Government followed the example of the United
States in recognizing the Independence OF Ia
wall Then. for the time, the matter was closed
with the declaration Of Mr.. Legare, United
States Secretary Of State, that I'VE might even
"feel justified in Interfering by force to pre-
event their Ohe Hawaiian Islands, falling (by
"conouesN into the hands Of one of the great
powers of Europe" few years later, how
ever In 1S49 France made an attack upon lia-
wajian independence. This was frustrated by
the prompt and vigorous action Of the United
States In July. 1850. Mr.. Clayton. Secretary
of State announced that this country could
never with Indifference allow Hawaii to pass
under the dominion Of any other Power ana
his successor Daniel Webster in June. lSJl,
informed the French Government that lis sub
tupatiOn OF Hawaii TO its dominion could not
"fail 10 be viewed by the Government and peo-
"nle OF the United States with dissatisfaction
(which would tend seriously to disturb our ex-
listing friendly relations with the French Gov
"ernment': and in December, 1851, President
Fillmore In his Message declared that while
"the Government Of the United States. faithful
"to lis original assurance scrupulously regards
1.-The independence Of the Hawaiian Islands. II
"can never consent to those Islands taken
possession Of by either Of the great CONNER
.'clal Powers Of Europe. nor can 1t consent thar
demands manlfestly unjust and derogatoiy
land inconsistent with bona-fde independence
"shall be enforced against that Government.
The result was that France withdrew, apollo
plyed and dropped its demands against Hawaii
/ Similar declarations were made by subsequent
Secretaries Of State-nOtably by Mr. Marcy in
1853. Mr.. Fish in 1873 and Mr.. Blaine in 1881
| 90 much for this counry's regard for and cham
nionship Of Hawaiian independence-an honor
| able record which is 6ttlngly crowned by
negotiations in which the United States treats
with Hawaii not as an inferior nor as de-
nendent but rs n peer Of this country in indie
pendent sovereignty.
| At the same time the paramount interest OF
tho United States and IT'S reversionary right TO
the sovereignty Of Hawaii have been main
talned with equal consistency and vigor. In
recognizing Hawaiian independence in Decem-
her. 1912. Mr.. Webster said: "The United
Estates are more interested IN the fate Of the
.Yslands and Of their Government than any
"o,ber nation can be-" Mr.. Legare expressed
the same idea in 1S43. President Fillmore in
1851 said: The Hawaiian Islands are ten
"times nearer to the United States than to any
''of the Powers of Europe. Five-sixths of all
their commercial intercourse Is with the United
States and these considerations, together with
"the course which the Government Of the United
| Estates will pursue in regard TO them" Said
Mr. Marcy in 1853: 1T Is Indispensable TO our
"wclfare that the policy which governs them
Should be liberal. and that 1t should continue
free from the control Of any third country"
And in 1881 Mr. Blaine added: "Thc material
connection between the Hawaiian Islands and
1.-The Pacific Coast of the Union was natural and
"inevltable . The United States has ac
"quired legitmatcly dominant influence In the
"sce decreased by the Intrusion therein of any
element Of influence hostile TO It's own. The
situation Of the Hawaiian Islands. giving them
"the strategic control of the North Pacific. brings
their possession within the range Of questions
"of purely American policy" Such has been
the policy and such the attitude of this Nation,
against which no allen Power has made pro-