The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-01-10


the bench relative go Pearl uuruor and
clause two of the treaty of 1887 has
raised "a point of considerable interest.
The learned judge has looked up the
treaty, but he certainly has not looked
up the diplomatic correspondence con-
nected with it if ne bases United
States riparian rights upon that docu-
ment. His point might be made
through the Lake Front decision, or the
Oakland Water Front cases, the ten
dency of modern legal thought being
towards the inaleinablity of riparian
rights from the suzerain authority
and giving against such decisions as
the Dartmouth College case, which was
argued by Webster which established
the inviolabiHty of contracts, or the
North Western University case where
its lands We're claimed to be exempt
from taxation, and under the Dart
mouth College decision won it's cause.
The treaty of 1887 was an amendment
of the treaty of 1884, which extended the
reciprocity treaty originally made with
the United States in 1875 for a period
. of seven years with the privilege Of
termination after the seven years upon
a twelve months notice. The Pearl
River clause was inserted in 1887, as ar
ticle IT, the original article II becom-
ing article III. The provisions of the
clause are as follows;
His majesty the King Of the Hawai-
ian Islands grants to the Government
of the United States the exclusive
right to enter the harbor of Pearl
IN Ia 81 If 10, a b,
tablish and maintain there cOaling
and repair station for the use of ves-
sells of the United States and to that
end the United States may improve the
entrance to said harbOr and do all otn-
er things needful to the purpose afore-
said"
The subject of this clause required a
good deal of discussion which was car
ried on partly in interviews and finally
in writing. The question in debate
was whether the new clause the one
above quoted would survive the treaty,
a point which Judge Estee seems to
have settled in his own mind. Secre-
tary Bayard on the other hand wrote
10 H. A. P. Carter. the Hawaiian Envoy
and minister PIenipotentiary at
Washington, under date of September
%, 1887:
"The amendment relating to the har-
Dor Of Pearl River was adopted in its
Executive Session by the Senate, and /
have no other means of arriving at its
intent and meaning than the words ma
turaliy import.
NO ambiguity or obscurity in that
mendment is observable and l can
Hawaiian sovereignty over the harboI
to which it relates nor any language
importing a longer duration for the in
terpolated Article II than is provided
for i'm Article I of the Supplementary
Convention
The secretary further goes on to say
that he is unable to perceive any need
of auxiliary Interpretation or ground
for doubt as to the plain meaning" OF
the clause and "can see no cause foI
misapprehensiOn 80 as to the manifest
effect and meaning of the amendment
He adds that it was rendered in simple
good faith"
This throws light upon the clause
and shows how it was viewed by the
United States Government of that day
1t is clear that the rights under that
clause whatever they were, terminated
with the termination Of that treaty. In
another portion of the correspondence
upon this point, Minister Carter wrote:
mo separate single article or part
of a treaty can be held to have a con-
tinuing power apart from the rest of the
treaty unless provided for in specific
terms The supplementary provisions
which they effect, are necessarily merg-
ed into one instrument to be dealt with
throughout as a whole"
All our treaties fell to the grgound
when annexation occurred, With them
naturally fell all treaties and conven-
tions with the United States. If the
treaty of 1887 fell at that time every
clause in it fell. When Section I ceas-
ed to exist, the life of Section II follow
ed. Section II had no separate life from
Section l. and Mr. Bayard distinctly
says so in his letter to the Hawaiian
Minister, Moreover he is strong in his
statement that the amendment was
made in simple good faith"
The Star is not arguing what the
Riparian rights of the Federal govern
ment may be under Federal Laws, that
is totally different question, but it
does combat Judge Estees statement
that the amended treaty of 1887 gave to
the United States rights in Pearl Har-
Dor in perpetuity The whole diploma
tic correspondence is directly against
such view, and it is in direct opposi-
tion to Mr.. Bayards written statement
a statement in which it is known that
tho President thoroughly acquiesced.
NO TARIFF WAR.