The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1898-03-18
CORRESPONDENTS
A Reply to Mr.. t. II. Davies.
Ed. The INDEPENDENT

principles for the remuneration CT
annexation by the supporters of the
present Government, Mr.. Davies
seems to base his change of front,
which to many might seem inexplic-
able, on the probable permanency
of a republican form of government
on these islands and the absolute
improbsbility OF monarchical restor-
alton. He must realize that the
following OF his advice involves sur
render OF principle for requirement
Of suffrage. The drift of his argu-
ment seems to be that as restoration
is among the impossibilities, natives
should abjure their cherished con-
victions, take the oath and thereby
take a hand in the direction of our
ship OF State.
Without any pretensions to lead
ership of either natives or foreign
ers | heartily agree with Mr.. Davies
that the country has progressed be-
yond its use for a monarchy. l also
believe that the rights and progress
of a people are paramount to the
rights and privileges Of sovereign.
What Mr.. Davies accepts with re-
luctance ! hail with satisfaction,
viz, a republican form Of govern
ment-a true republic. In an ideal
and genuine republic the funda-
mental law is renexive OF the popu-
lar will. 1t is broad enough TO cover
all and it will not be necessary for
individuals to shrink to get under
its protection and enjoy its guar
antees.
The clsuse of the Constitution
viewed by Mr.. Davies as objection
able to the natives is Article 10l,
which prohibits encouragement and
assistance, direct or indirect, in the
restoration or establishment of a
monarchy in the Hawaiian Islands.
This clause is principally obnoxious
because it is in the nature of creed.
When a man swears to uphold the
Constitution of the United States
his oath is considered sufficient and
it has not been found necessary to
incorporate in that document a
pledge against monarchies, estab-
lished churches or anything else.
To person sincerely swearing to
uphold the Constitution Of this re-
public it seems an affront to his
good faith and integrity to require
of him a pledge against restoration
or establishment of monarchy. If
he could covertly seek or promote
such restoration or establishment
how is he upholding the Constitu-
ton of a republic. And if he has
such designs he has no right to take
an oath in violation OF his principles
fail to see how the trainers OF
this remarkable Constitution, who,
by the way, in its very framing have
not shown themselves much i'm
pressed by the sanctity Of an oath
have by the insertion Of this pro-
visionary clause contributed to the
perpetuity of republican form Of
government, If distinguished pre-.
cedent counted for anything might
not the reluctant supporters Of this
Constitution at some future time
claim that the government had by
stretching or providing certain o.
its provisions abrogated it, and thai
they were absolved from allegiance
accordingly This supposition il
rational enough when it is recalled
that the former Constitution wa
declared null and void because ;
certain lady desired to take wall
on the front porch of the palace
say something which she didn't say
and attempt something which sh,
concluded not to attempt. Where
fore again insist that the precau
ton Of the monarchical clause is n,
precaution at all. A man VIII,
would swear to uphold the Consti
tuition, if a man OF honor, woulC
never seek the restoration of mon
archy, and if simply discriminating
traitor his oath would be valuelesl
The precaution is founded on IN