New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-01-20
THE DEFENCE OF HAWAII.


THE DEFENCE OF HAWAII.
The United States Is peaceful Nation. II IS
now at peace with all the world, and hopes al
ways to remain so. 1t means never wantonly
TO break the peace, and In any case to accept
war only as n last resort Its general policy Is
therefore to be shaped primarily for peaceful
ends, ard such a measure as the annexation or
Hawaii Is to be considered first OF all with ref
erence to its value in time OF peace. That such
value Of Hawaii would he great TO this country.
that the Islands would greatly serve the indus
trial and commercial interests Of the United
States has been made indisprtatly evident.
But the other side Of the case must also have
some consideration. War Is always dreadful
possibility, and the most peaceful nation owes II
TO itself to make and TO maintain an adequate
state Of preparation for It. That has been the
Iocy Of this Nation from the beginning, and
its wisdom has more than once been amply vim
dicated. When war has been threatened
against us It has been because We were sup
posed to be ill-prepared for It, while on more
than one occasion knowledge OF our preparation
has restrained hostile Powers from proceeding
to extremitles. 1t is only fitting. then, 10 pay
some little attention to Hawaii as n possible
source Of either strength or weakness in time
Of war.
That possession Of 1t would be Of vast adj
vantage to this country In time OF war Is gcu-
orally believed by those best qualified TO Judge
such matters. 1t would furnish an admirable
pert Of refuge IN case of need, and an !nvalua-
bic station for coaling and repairs. It would
also serve as base from which to conduct
operations against the shipping OF any hostile
Power in those waters and for the protection
Of our own shipping. SO well would it serve
this purpose that any naval Power holding it
would be able to drive the commerce of It's
enemy from the Pacific Ocean and to gain for
itself a practical monopoly thereof. As an out
post OF defence Of the California coast, or, IN
hostile possession, of attack thereon its impor-
tance Is equally obvious. A recent writer In
"rhe London Times" called the islands 1.-The
Gibraltar of the Pacific and they well deserve
the name The Power that holds them Is bound
TO have dominance over that ocean In both
peace and war.
But there are some who argue that the pos
session Of the islands would be a source Of
weakness TO this country, because 1t would
have to maintain Notifications and garrisons and
a feet there to protect them, and thus would
have to divide its forces. instead of concen-
trating them all for continental defence. Yes.
1t Is q pity. then, that we ever annexed Califor-
MIA and Oregon since that gave us two coast
lines to defend instead of one. and compelled us
to divide our forces. instead of concentrating
them all upon the Atlantic Coast. Perhaps it
would be well to relinquish the coast altogether
and be content with an exclusively inland do
main. Then we should not have TO maintain
any Navy or any coast defences at ALL In fact,
it might be the part of wisdom to abandon the
.bol 70 ofb "
should not have even to keep up police force.
But somehow or other such reasoning does not
greatly commend itself to the average Amer-
can mind. Perhaps because we are stiff
uecked and perverse generation.
Moreover, those who argue thus contradict
their own words. They say the islands should
be left as they are. No other Power will dare
to seize them while play the amiable part
of dog in fhe manger Very WELL then. If no
Power will run the risk of offending us by SELF
ing them while we merely exercise a protecto-
rate over them, is it TO be supposed one would
attempt 10 seize them when actually owned
and occupied them? Is ii any easier for this
country TO defend the islands now than 1t would
be after annexation? If any Power tried to
seize them now and we sent e.: fleet 10 stop IT,
would not that be a division of forces? Ant
would IL not be more perilous one than the
other which is so strenuously objected to- mas
much as 1t would he sending part OF our forces
not TO distant part OF our own domain but TO
n foreign land? If this country IS able to de
fend Hawaii from foreign aggression under this
nondescrpt protectorate. II would certainly be
able, and far better able 10 protect it under an
Lexation. And If It Is not able 10 protect II
now what is the use Of the protectorate which
these anti-annexationlsts are so desperately
anxious to maintain?
The simple fact is that TO refuse annexation
on any such ground is to proclaimsto the world
that this country is not strong enough or brave
enough to undertake the fulfilment Of lis tradi
tonal policy with regard 10 those islands, that
lis prctence Of n protectorate over them has
Deen nothing but pretence, that when 1t has
warned other nations TO keep their hands of
IL has been merely "buifng" and that if any
nation should disregard its warnings and pro-
coed TO seize Hawaii as France seized NADIA
gascar and Germany seized Kiao-Chau the
United States would not venture upon even so
much as n word of protest. but would be thank.
full the aggressive Power did not annex san
Francisco. too. Perhaps that would be a dlgnI-
fed and worthy attitude for this Nation TO as
sumo II certainly would be the most open and