The islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1891-1899, 1898-01-27
ALTERNATIVE TO ANNEXATION
we Must Take Hawaii or Leave 1t to
Some Other Nation.

Some Other Nation.
But why, some are asking, is it neces-
sary to annex Hawaii outright to this
country? Why not leave it as it is, an
independent nation, with which We
have favorable treaties, and in whose
harbors our commerce can have all de-
sired facilities without the grave re-
sponsibilities of actual ownership?
This country and Hawaii have been get
ting on together we'll for three-quarters
of century; why disturb those rela-
tions? Why not leave things as they
are?
The answer supplies itself, promptly
and convincingly, says the New York
Tribune. We cannot leave things as
they are, because they will not stay as
they are. Even now they are not as
they have been. Five years ago the
old Hawaiian government broke down.
It had become utterly corrupt, and col
lapsed through its own rOttenness.
The islands were saved from savage
anarchy only by the prompt action Of
a handful of men, mostly of United
States origin, who organized provi-
sional government and appealed to the
United States for help in the form of
annexation. The help being denied,
they undertook the desperate task of
maintaining the government they had
founded, in the face of overwhelming
odds of foes both without and within.
Thus far they have managed to hold
their ground; but it is perfectly evil
dent they cannot do SO permanently.
There must be a radical change in
affairs, and it must come soon. What
is that change to be?
Certainly there can be no restoration
of the old monarchy, with its corrup-
ton and oppression and its chopping-
machine, which her majesty was so
eager to apply to the necks of all who
differed from her views of policy.
Neither can the islands be given up to
the masses of the kanakas. However
traceable these may be and however
we'll they may make progress toward
civilization under proper guidance, they
are manifestly unfit for self -govern-
ment. There can be no more CHASTITY
mockery than to inveigh against the
''half-breed" republics of South and
Central America, and the negro repub-
lies OF another such in Cuba. and at the
same time to favor the creation of the
kanaka republic in the Sandwich
islands. No. To keep these islands
fit for use as port of call for Pacific
commerce, to say nothing of protecting
the capital already invested there and
developing the resources of one of the
most productive regions on the face of
the globe, it is absolutely necessary
that some outside power should exercise
authority there.
Well, then, why should not the vari,
Gus powers that are interested in Pacific
commerce, and, therefore, in the right
administration of Hawaiian affairs,
unite in exercising sufficient moral and
material influence upon the islands to
insure a just and stable government
and to keep them forever neutral, if
not independent? Why, that would
mean exactly such an entangling alli-
ance as it is the traditional policy of
this country to avoid. We have already
specifically refused to make such an
arrangement with Great Britain and
France over these very islands, as we'll
as over Cuba. We were pei suaded to
make such an arrangement with Great
Britain and Germany over Samoa, and
have got little from it but vexation of
spirit. There can be no serious con-
sideration of repeating that experiment
in the case of Hawaii, where, instead
of being in triple league, we should
have to be in partnership of at least
five. Why, it would beas we'll to seek
entrance into the dreib und at nceand
have done with it.
Then, as final resort, why not es-
tablish protectorate over the islands?
That would keep all other nations from
interfering with them, and would give
the Hawaiian government the moral
support of the United States, which
ought to insure it's stability. Why
not try that? 1t is curious to hear such
a proposition as this made by those
who doubt the constitutionality of an
nexing the islands. If there is no
warrant for annexation, there is as
suredly none, either in the constitution
Or elsewhere, for protectorate. Such
an arrangement would be absolutely
foreign to the spirit and practice of
this government-always excepting the
case of Samoa, which may be taken as
a "horrible example," to warn US
against its repetition. So far as merely
moral protectorate or "sphere of in
fiuence" is concerned, that has been
exercised over Hawaii for the last Is
years, and has now reached the end of
it's usefulness. This country has been
warning all others to keep their hands
off tho islands, as they are desired to
come under the proprietorship of the
United States. The time has now
come either to fulfill that destiny or to
abandon it. The government of Ha-
waii-the only government there is in
| the islands, the one which all the
world recognizes as legal-declares
that it does not want that system to
continue longer. 1t wants the United
| States either to annex the islands itself
| or relinquish all claim to them,
as at least three others are ready and
anxious to do so.
That, then, is the case in nutshell.
This country must either take them or
leave them alone. 1t can no longer
play the part of the dog in the manger.
Hawaii means to be annexed to some
other nation. 1t offers itself first to
this one. II this one does not take it,
and take it now, it will offer itself to