HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0907.003 2010-2012 foot ' (0dArt/
to,, Iv estu_.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD :
CONTAINING
THE PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES
OF THE
FIFTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.
VOLUME XXXI.
•
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. Comm. No. 0 7.3
1898. Ref.To:
Ref. Date NQV 9 1 2012
HeinOnline -- 31 Cong. Rec. i 1898
1898. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE.. 5975
War ships would beset our path and we would be compelled to Representatives on this floor not to enter upon this policy of ag-
send with every coal barge a full complement of our own war gression,fraught,as so many believe.with danger at every step.
ships,and we would,indeed,realize that we must win our way Have regard for the promise given the world but recently,and
through"bloody seas." Again,it is declared to be a defensive hedged about with all the binding force and obligation that offi-
necessity from a war standpoint. cial utterance could lend it,when you said in your declaration of
We are told that we need tho islands as a kind of military break- war against Spain that war was to be waged for freedom's sake,
water against attack on our western coast. Eminent military in the cause of humanity,that no purpose of conquest or gain
authority is offered for this statement. Both land and naval animated the purposes of the United States. On this declaration
officereareproduced to justify this claim. All honor,Mr.Speaker, we won the world's respect and confidence and the approving
to our soldiers on land and sea. I glory in their just fame. Their smile of Him who holds in the hollow of His hand the destiny of
deeds of valor are known wherever civilized man is found. They nations asHe doesof individuals. Itseems,however,the die is cast,
have carried our glorious flag to victory in every land,on every the determination is entered upon,and take these islands we will.
sea where they have fought, from the day they wrested from Mr.Speaker,what do we need them for and what will we do
Great Britain the power to longer enslave us to that Mayday just with them? I suppose we might fit them up in royal style as a
gone when they sent to the bottom of Manila Harbor a Spanish sort of national vaudeville theater or up-to-date"Midway Plai-
fleet with every man on board. sauce,"and by Congressional enactment interdict any cheap and
But,Mr.Speaker,the calm judgment of a free people who be- mere vulgar imitations.that shall take place,but that only the
lieve,aye,know,that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" original and genuine Hulas may appear in all the glory and
realizes,and in the years to come,if not now,will so declare,that splendor of nakedness unadorned, and give to the denizens of
the military arm of the Government can not safely be intrusted this benighted country daily and nightly exhibitions of their in-
with the duty of controlling and shaping its civil policy. The nocent divertisement. Or rather,shall we throw off the mask,
profession,the training,and tendency of military life forbids it. come into the open,and join in the cry,but feebly heard now,
The tendency of the military,whether on land or sea,is toward On to Manila,to Puerto Rico,to the Carolinas,to the Canaries;
aggression and ever toward imperialism. And,again, we are to down with the people; on with the empire? Mr. Speaker, what
be made believe that if the United States does not annex the Ha- sound is it I hear? Is it the coming of the"Man on Horseback"?
waiian Islands some other power will,either with the consent of Mr.DINSMORE. I yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman from
the islands or without it,and by the force of its own army and Texas [Mr.Buz].
navy. Mr.BALL. Mr.Speaker,in the limited time allotted me I can
Does anybody really believe this? Has not this country many not attempt a full or satisfactory discussion of the pending resolu-
times.declared that it would view with alarm and treat as an hos- tion. I would not speak at all did I not in my heart believe that
tile act any such attempt?. It could never be done and would not the question under consideration involves the most crucial period
be attempted by any government of the Old World,unless it was in our national history, not excepting the fratricidal conflict
predetermined and known that it could only be done by conquer- between the States.
mg the resistance of the United States.• If such a determination The glowing picture presented by those who would lightly set
is ever reached, our present annexation and possession of the aside the traditional policy of this Government and enter upon a
islands would not stay the government that so lusts for territory, career of colonial aggrandizement supported by a great army and
for the same power that could overcome our resistance in the first navy,is certainly no more alluring than was Napoleon's dream
instance could wrest our occupation and possession in the last, of universal empire. Let us hope that,once entered upon,the re-
and neither would or could ever be accomplished. snit may not prove equally disastrous.
What do we fear,Mr.Speaker,and whom? Certainly not the Mr. Speaker,in opposing this measure I shall present for the
ghost of dead and forgotten Spain. The throes of internal discord consideration of the House three propositions only. The annexa-
and colonial revolutions have rendered this effete Kingdom pow- tion of Hawaii by joint resolution is unconstitutional,unueces-
erless for harm. Does Germany threaten us? No. Her good sense sary,and unwise. If the first proposition be true,sworn to sup-
will restrain any ambition she otherwise might indulge for con- port the Constitution,we should inquire no further. I challenge
quest. Does France? Most assuredly not. Nor Russsia, nor not the advocates of Hawaiian annexation,but those who advo-
Prussia, nor Italy. No Eastern power threatens our Western cats annexation in the form now presented,to show warrant or
supremacy. In the meantime the British lion licks the hand that authority in our organic law for such acquisition of territory.
twice smote him,and England's Queen sends greeting and begs To do so will be not only to subvert the supreme law of the land
us believe she is willing to join hands with us and march forth on but to strike down every precedent in our history. I know,as was
a mission of conquest and plunder. said by the gentleman from Arkansas[Mr.Dixsatomr],that the
No,Mr.Speaker; no cloud flicks the horizon in token of the mention of the Constitution in this body often invokes a smile,
brewing storm. None will appear unless we,"forgetful, stray and yet it can not be that a majority of this body agree with the
after little lures;"unless we forget that Jefferson told us to have insignificant few "that there is a higher law than the Constitu-
friendly relations with all nations,entangling alliances with none; tion;"or ivith that former member of this House who,in his good
unless we mix up in the politics of the East,none will appear. fellowship, "did not think the Constitution should come between
Finally,Mr.Speaker,we are urged to take Hawaii anyhow;the friends."
islands are offered,and let us take them. Suppose we take them, Why,sir,the very presence of this measure here is the result
what form of government under our system by our Constitution of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be
will we give them? Is it proposed,does anyone believe,would lawfully done. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.TAwr.xv].
any member of this House consent,to go 2,200 miles from our in a very able argument in support of annexation on March 1
shores into the Pacific Ocean and erect a State in the American last,rested his case upon the general power in our Constitution
Union? No one contemplates,none would consent to such a prop- and the express power in the constitution of Hawaii,conferred
osition. Conditions will not warrant the making of a Territory upon the Presidents and Senates of the two countries,to conclude
of these islands,for the Constitution would control in this case a treaty of annexation. Now that,in pursuance of those powers,
as in that of the State. the President has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate
What,then,remains to be done? Nothing is left except a mili- and has been unable to obtain the consent of two-thirds of that
tart' government for them; and surely no American who is not body,we are called upon tooverridetheconstitutionsof bothpar Vies
forgetful of the teachings of our fathers,unmindful of the tradi- to the proposed contract in order that we may do this thing.
lions of the past,and,1 hope,our welfare in the future,will ever When Louisiana was acquired,when Florida was received,when
consent to have any portion of this country in such condition. To Alaska came to us,no statesman connected with the executive
do it we must write a new policy,tear down every safeguard of a or legislative branch of the Government dreamed the territory
free people—a democratic form of government—and declare our sought to be added to our possessions could be received,except by
Republic a sham and a delusion. We must affirm our faith to treaty duly ratified. In their desperation,grasping at shadows
be: The military is of right and ought to be superior to the civil for substance,those who now resort to this subterfuge cite the
arm of the Government. When this time comes, farewell, my admission of the imperial State from which I hail—Texas—as
country; thy honor and thy glory have departed forever; thy warrant and authority for their purpose.
strength proved thy weakness. Mr.Speaker,no one familiar with the history of that transaction
This land has been dedicated to freedom. Here and under our should make such claim. Advocates of the annexation of Texas
system no chains of class or prejudice can fetter the wings of rested their case upon the express power conferred upon Congress
aspiring, ambitions genius. Here in free America true worth, in the Constitution to admit new States. Opponents of the annex-
whether it comes heralded from the palaces of the rich or springs ation of Texas contended that even that express power did not
of its own unaided strength from the hovels of the poor,may hope confer the right to admit States not carved from territory already
to find its just reward. In the twinkling of an eye things have belonging to the United States or some one of the States forming
changed—a military satrapy is set up,a ruling class is constituted. the Federal Union. Whether,therefore,we subscribe to the one
Mr.Speaker,by every memory of the past,by every hope for or the other school of thought in that matter,we can find no prec-
the future; in the name of my country,whose institutions and edent to sustain the method here proposed for admitting foreign
people I love and whose greatness and glory I share,I appeal to its territory.
HeinOnline -- 31 Cong. Rec. 5975 1898
5976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JuNE.I5,
Members need only refer to the extended debates in Senate and Mr.Speaker,I will not further quote from this discussion. The
House of Representatives while the annexation of Texas was being language used by Mr.Choate certainly applies with peculiar force
considered to be assured of the correctness of this conclusion. to the proposition now pending,and the entire debate upon both
The original proposition as offered comtemplated the formation sides of that proposition shows conclusively that the advocates of
of a State from certain prescribed limits within the territory em- this measure have no ground to stand upon so far as the annexa-
braced in the Republic of Texas,while the balance of the area of tion of Texas is concerned.
the Republic was to be ceded as territory to the United States. The The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. PEARSON] and the
treaty having failed of ratification by the Senate,annexation by gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GROSVENOR]seek to aid their conten-
joint resolution was resorted to,and the outcome of the whole tions in favor of this measure by the decision of Chief Justice
matter was that the entire Republic of Texas was admitted as one Marshall. Let us see if they are sustained thereby:
State,with the right to carve therefrom four additional States, The course—
this being done for the purpose alone of coming within the con- Said Judge Marshall-
stitutional power to admit new States and in recognition of the which the argument has taken will require that in deciding this question
fact that territory could only be constitutionally acquired by the court should take info view the relation in which Florida stands to the
treaty. United States. The Constitution confers absolutely upon the Government'
I have not time to review much that was interestingly said the powers of making war and of making treaties;consequently that Gov
ernment possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest or by
about the matter. I shall quote only a few of the opinions ad- treaty. .
vanced during the discussion of that matter. The Senate cow- Thus it will'be seen]Mr.Speaker,that Chief Justice Marshall
mittee on Foreign Affairs consisted of five members,four of whom not only fails to sustain these gentlemen,but bases the acquisi-
gqnestionecl the right to admit new States out of foreign territory, tion of territory, either by conquest or treaty, upon the war-
claiming it could only be done by treaty,the other member of the making and treaty-making powers conferred by the Constitution
committee admitting'that foreign territory could only be acquired upon the Government. Certainly,the treaty having failed to pass,
.by treaty,but contending that Texas could be admitted as a State. no gentleman will contend that we are attempting to take Hawaii
Mr.Walker, of Mississippi,claiming.to be the author of the by conquest or by the power to admit States. They must there-
idea to have Texas admitted under the clause of the Constitution fore stand with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee
authorizing Congress to admit new States,said— [Air.Hlrr],who insists,in substance,that'he National Govern-
That he was rejoiced that the great American question of the roannexa- ment has the inherent right to acquire territory in this manner.
tion of Texas was being presented on all hands on tho grounds on which it The Constitution having pointed out the several ways iu which
was placed originally by him(Mr.Walker]in his Texas letter of the 8th of
January,1811.
territory may be lawfully acquired,I for one decline to accept
He(Mr.Walker]then proposed,more than a year since,to admit Texas this new doctrine by which territory can eventually come.into
as a State of the Union by the action of Congress under that clause of the partnership with the States and have equal rights and represents- -
Constitution which authorizes Congress to admit new States into the Union. t]on on the floor Of Congress and elsewhere without first running
That clause was not confined to our then existing territory,but was without
limitation,and the framers of the Constitution had expressly refused to limit the gantlet of every constitutional safeguard.
the general power contained in this clause to the territory then embraced Mr.Speaker,I shall even venture to differ with those who de-
within the Union. The general power was in express words,and no man had d military this measure to be a milita necessity. Even the array of
a right to interpolate restrictions,especially restrictions which the framers
of the Constitution had rejected. expert testimony they bring to their support is not conclusive. A
. Mr. Buchanan,of Pennsylvania, the dissenting member of the leading member of the bar once defined unreliable testimony as of
Foreign Affairs Committee,advocating the resolution,said: three classes: "Ordinary liars,accomplished liars,and expert wit-
nesses."
the reasoning and ingenuity in the world could not abolish the plain nesses. [Laughter. While-I do not accede to this classifica-
g y tion, I do know that great military and naval authority is not
language of the Constitution.which declared that new States might be ad•
witted by Congress into the Union. agreed at all times. It is also true that only witnesses in the
Mr.Henderson,of Mississippi,Mr.Benton,of Missouri,and matter were called who favored annexation. Even then,as stated
pp+ . + by the gentleman from Missouri[Mr.CLARK],General Schofield,
able advocates of the annexation of Texas urged the same argu- upon cross-examination, admitted that Pearl Harbor, now pos-
ments in support of the measure. sessed by this country,was the only harbor that could be success-
In the House of Representatives Mr.Yancey,of Alabama,sup- fully fortified and defended. I will say in passing that we possess
porting-the resolution,advanced the same line of argument. On this harbor by treaty that can not be abrogated except by the
the other hand,the opposition,insisting that the power to admit consent of this Government. Again,we should bear in mind that,
new States was confined to territory already belonging to the by professional instinct, Army and Navy officers aro naturally
United States,put forward many able advocates. predisposed toward that policy which would make this country a
Mr.Morehead,of Kentucky,speaking for the Foreign Affairs great military and naval power.
Committee of the Senate,contended— Mr.CLARK of Missouri. _Will the gentleman allow me an in-
In the case now under consideration it was not proposed by the joint resolu- terruption?
tion before the Senate that Texas should be acquired according to what he Mr. BALL. Yes; certainly.
considered the constitutional mode of proceeding,by the treaty-making + y
power. The proposition is for Congress to admit her as a State. Now— Mr.CLARK of Missouri. I want to make one statement,and
He asked— it is the gospel truth,that every one of these statements in favor
when this Government was about to add a foreign domain to ours, was of annexation was an ex parte statement,and I believe that any
there any other mode of accomplishing that object except by the inteiposi- ordinary lawyer,just a plain,ordinary,average lawyer,can take
tion of the treaty-making power,composed of the President of the United every one of these men and on cross-examination make him swear
States in conjunction with the Senate? Was it constitutional to annex Texas t0
by tho treaty which was submitted to the Senate last session? the same thin g that General Schofield swore to,that that is the
• Ho believed there were Pow it any,constitutional objections made. If, only harbor that can be fortified.
then,the power to annex foreign territory by treaty does appertain to the Mr.BALL. All right,put that in my speech. Now,against
treaty-making power,he should like to see upon what ground it could be their judgment we have the safest of all guides—experience. For
held that the Congress of the United States possesses concurrent legislative than fifty years the Atlantic Ocean has bounded our eastern,
power upon this subject. If that which it is competent for the treaty-making more ty Y
power alone to accomplish.the majority of a quorum of both Houses of Con- the Gulf and Republic of Mexico our southern,the Pacific our
gross could accomplish. The argument,he apprehended,would be this,that western,and the British possessions our northern borders. Dur-
as a constitutional mode of proceeding we do not deny that foreign territory
can be admitted into this Union by the treaty-making power. But there is ing this period we have made marvelous strides in progress,the
another clause in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to admit development of our resources,and increase of population. We
now States into the Union. He proposed now to consider what was the char- have waged the greatest of all wars in our own borders,placing
actor of that article and upon what conditions it rests. [Mr.Buchanan:That in hostile conflict two armies either of which could have whipped
is the true ground.] His friend from Pennsylvania said that was the ques- pP
tion,and to it ho proposed to call particular attention. the combined legions of Napoleon or Wellington.
Mr. Choate for three hours reviewed the whole question,bring- Since then we have nearly doubled our resources and popula-
ing to bear his knowledge of the Constitution and its formation Lion,and even now we are demonstrating to the world that the
and the history of the country,clothed in redundant adjectives. foreign power which breaks our peace must whip every man within
He denied that the clause in the fourth article in the Constitution our borders from Maine to Texas,from New York to California,
giving the power to Congress of admitting new States into the before they can successfully give us battle. Why,then,extend
Union was given with the most remote idea of its being ever ap- our borders more than 2,000 miles in the Pacific Ocean? To do so
plied to anything but domestic territory. Said he: will be a breach of public and national faith.
No man could believe that by that provision it was intended to confer the December 10,1840,Mr.Webster announced that—
tremendous power of admitting new States in any part of the world.without The Government of the Sandwich Islands ought to be respected;that no
limitation as to habits,customs,language,principles,or anything but the power ought to take possession of the islands,either as a conquest or for pur-
semblance of republicanism. Until it was found the treaty of last session poses of colonization.
bad no chance of passing the Senate, no human being save one,no man, President Tyler,two years afterwards,reiterated the same doe-
woman,or child in the Union or out of the Union,wisp or foolish,drunk or ri
sober,was over heard to breathe one syllable about this power in the Consti-
tne.
tution of admitting new States being applicable to the admission of foreign In 1843 Secretary of State Legere notified our minister to Eng-
nations,governments,or states. It was a new and monstrous heresy on the land—
Constitution,got up not from any well-founded faith in its orthodoxy,but
for the mere purpose of carrying a measure by a bare majority of Congress That we had no wish to acquire or plant colonies abroad,but would,if
that could not be carried by a two-thirds majority of the Senate in accord- necessary,feel justified in using force to prevent their acquisition by one of
auco with the treaty-making power. He inOni me -- 31 Cong.tl reatgpnerf8j urope.
f of ale agi u a L 3 '?a
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD :
CONTAINING --
CD
W
THE PROCEEDINGS AD 'DEBATES •
OF THE
•
FIFTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.
VOLUME XXXI.
•
WASHINGTON:
• GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. •
1898.
HeinOnline -- 31 Cong. Rec. i 1898
6148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JUNE 20, .
No Senator would ever think of interrupting another under or not they have the right,under their constitutional obligations,
those conditions; but yet,strictly speaking,according to parlia- to vote for this resolution,however much they may favor the an-
mentary rule,the Senator yielding the floor had lost it. No Sen- nexation of Hawaii.
ator can call for the regular order when a Senator is on the floor Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator permit me to answer that
discussing any question in the Senate because he is not required now?
under the laws of the Senate to speak germanely to the subject Mr.BACON. I beg that the Senator will hear me before he
under consideration,and he can not be interrupted unless he is answers.
speaking out of order,as suggested,or is committing some impro- Mr.TELLER. I want to say that I will hear the Senator, but
priety or some violation of parliamentary ethics or parliamentary the Senator is not to understand that I have not myself considered
rule; but the fact that he is speaking about something else than the this question very carefully. I will hear the Senator,of course.
bill under consideration does not entitle any Senator to call him Mr.BACON. Mr.President,of course I do not presume that
to order. Every Senator is supposed to have judgment himself the Senator from Colorado had not considered this question,but
tpon all such questions and to discuss whatever he thinks is we are here for the purpose of interchanging views. I have great
proper. The great liberty of debate which here exists has been confidence in the Senator from Colorado,and am gratified by the
one of the things which has also made service in this body pleasant. fact that I seldom differ from him,and I shall be more than grati-
Mr.President,I only mention this for fear there will grow up fled if we can get together upon this question.
a feeling here that a Senator who gets the floor and does not pro- I assume that Senators will not vote for a resolution if they can
ceed to make a speech has any claim to the floor,or that he is be satisfied that it is unconstitutional. I assume that they will
under any obligation to go on and make a speech. He may decline not vote for an unconstitutional resolution which directly impairs
to make a speech after having given notice that he intended to and strikes down one of the highest prerogatives of the Senate;and
make it. It may embarrass others,who are not prepared to go it is to that question that I propose to address myself to-day and
on,and all that,and sometimes retard the business of the body; upon which I am extremely anxious to have the hearing of Sena-,
but'that is one of the rights of a Senator. No one can say,"I tors who favor the annexation of Hawaii.
insist now that the Senator from Georgia go on,"if he does not The proposition which I had stated before the interruption was
wish to go on. this: That a joint resolution for the annexation of foreign terri-
I have said this because I thought it was a good time to do so. tory was necessarily and essentially the subject-matter of a treaty,'
If the Senator from Georgia had been himself pressing,I would and that it could not be accomplished legally and constitutionally
not have said this at all. by a statute or joint resolution. If Hawaii is to be annexed,it
I believe we can go through this debate in Senatorial way. The ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if
question is one of a good deal of importance,about which some by a constitutional method it can not be annexed,no Senator
of us have a great deal of feeling. I myself have. I am so de- ought to desire its annexation sufficiently to induce him to give
cidedly in favor of this joint resolution,and so thoroughly im- his support to an unconstitutional measure.
pressed that the interests of this country require its adoption, I trust,Mr.President,that the time has not come when a Sen-
that I should be willing to vote right now,without a word of ex- ator can not appeal with confidence to his fellow-Senators in op-
planation or any defense of my vote,which I have not had an position to a measure on the ground that it is unconstitutional:
opportunity to make,except in executive session; and yet I would It matters not how important it may be that Hawaii should be
not deny,upon a great question like this,to every Senator who annexed,it matters not how valuable it may be,it will be too
does not agree with me the right to present his views. There can costly if its price is the violation of a great fundamental provision
be no such haste in coming to a conclusion in this case as to justify of the Constitution of the United States.
the American Senate in taking any unusual course and departing Mr.President,it is a painful fact that not only people at large;
from the well-established and well-regulated rules of this Senate— but officials are losing to some extent the reverence which they
not all of which are in a book,but rules which are well under- ought to have for constitutional obligations. It is a matter of a
stood by members of this body who have served here for a good smile with some when you oppose a measure on the ground that
many years and which,I can say,are universally obeyed in the it is unconstitutional,and I confess that I have been pained when
Senate. I have heard,as I have heard in this Chamber,learned and dis-
One of the cardinal rules here has been that every Senator's con- tinguished Senators say that they would approve and applaud the
venience,even though it may lead to delay,shall be consulted. action of the President of the United States if he would seize
Of course if the request for delay is for the purpose of postpone- Hawaii and run up upon it the flag of the United States,and take
meat,for the purpose of preventing a vote,then the Senate has possession of it as the property of the United States as a war
the right to insist upon speedy and prompt action; but it has al- measure.
ways been the custom since I have been a member of the Senate, I say I have been pained when I have heard that,as I have
when a Senator rose in his seat and said he was not prepared to go heard it in this Chamber from very learned and very distinguished
on,to give him time,especially when there is no constitutional Senators,and I have been more than gratified that the President
limit as to the length of the session,as is the case now. of the United States has not suffered himself to be guided by such
I should be delighted,Mr.President,to have a vote this week foolish and such unwise counsels. If he had done so,every lover
. on this proposition; but I should not be willing to vote on this of his country must have been grieved that such a blow had
proposition this week if the members of the Senate who desire to been stricken at the integrity of the Constitution.
discuss it have not had a fair opportunity to do so. Mr.President,it surprises me that I even have to mention such
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that,under a proposition; but if the President of the United States can in
• strict parliamentary law,he understands when a Senator yields time of war,or at any other time,without the action of Congress
the floor to another for a speech,of coarse the Senator originally in the performance of its constitutional functions,take possession
having the floor loses his right to the floor. The custom,how- of the territory of a friendly power,proclaim it as the territory of
ever,has grown up that when a Senator.begins a long speech and the United States,run the flag of the United States up over it ad
yields for collateral matters,he retains the floor,and the Chair the insignia of its power And its dominion—if he can do so in one
has simply respected that custom. The Senator from Washington case,he can do so in any.
[Mr.WILSONJ was taken from the floor not by any order of the if the President of the United States can do it in the case of
Chair,but by his own consent. Hawaii,he can with equal propriety and legality do it in the case
Mr. WHITE. Under duress,as I understand, of Jamaica,and I repeat that I am more than gratified,although
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Sen- my apprehensions were aroused by the source from which those
ator from Georgia Mr.BACON]. intimations came, that the President of the United States has
Mr.WILSON. The Senator thought I was through. Perhaps not seen proper to listen to their unwise counsels.
I should have finished a little bit earlier,but it was no fault of the And yet,Mr.President,if my view of this question is correct,'
Chair or of anybody else that I lost the floor,and I do not care the President of the United States would have as much power to
anything about it. take possession of the Island of Hawaii by a proclamation as would
Mr.BACON. All this very pleasant episode was occasioned by the Congress of the United States have the power to gain posses-
an act of courtesy on my part,which I did not anticipate would sion of it by a joint resolution of the two Houses. The powers of
consume so much time. I simply yielded to the Senator from the executive department and the legislative department are ad
Arkansas[Mr.JoNEs]in order to make the statement that he had distinctly divided the one from the other as are the powers of the
not called for a quorum for the purpose of delay,and I thought judicial department and the legislative department
that would be the end of it. There are two kinds of law which are recognized by the Consti-
Mr.President,the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] says tution of the United States and which are provided for by the Con-
that he would be very glad to vote on this question to-day; that stitution of the United States,and each of these kinds of law is
his mind is made up, The Senator from Colorado is one of the termed in the Constitution of the United States the supreme law
Senators whom I am anxious to speak to to-day,not because I be- of the land. One class of these laws is statute law,and it is pro-
here I can change his mind or his.opinion on the general merits vided that statute law shall be enacted by Congress; that statute
of this question,but because I desire to ask him and all Senators, law shall be made by a majority vote of the House of Represents.
especially those who are lawyers,to consider the question whether tives and of the Senate,with the approval of the President,of
HeinOnline -- 31 Cong. Rec. 6148 1898
•
1898. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE, 6149
that it may be made,in case of the disapproval of the President, to be supposed that they for one moment contemplated that when
by the two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and the the question came up whether a certain measure which involved
two-thirds vote of the Senate,overriding his veto,and that law, a negotiation and agreement between this country and another
when made,is declared by the Constitution of the United States should be accomplished in the way it provided,through a treaty
to be the supreme law of the land. In the same way the Consti- by the President and the Senate,or whether it should be remitted
tntion of the United States declares that there are other laws to Congress,that the question of the form of the measure would
which are also supreme,and those laws are made as treaties. The control?
Constitution of the United'States in the.same section declares Is it to be supposed for a moment that they supposed that that
both of these as the supreme law of the land. which is essentially a treaty,and which they had provided should
The Supreme Court of the United States in construing the ques- be made only by the President and the Senate,would be by any
tion of supremacy has ruled that each is supreme. It has ruled •species of legislative legerdemain converted into the form of a
that a treaty may be nullified by a statute and that a statute may statute,and another power or department of the Government,
be nullified by a treaty,and that where they come in conflict which had had distinct powers conferred upon it and which had
the question of the later is the one invoked to determine which been denied this power,would usurp it and that its usurpation
shall prevail. As to those two classes of law,each one of them would be recognized?
supreme,there is provided in the Constitution an entirely distinct Mr.ELKINS. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me to in-
method by which they may be enacted or made. I have stated terrupt him?
the manner in which the statute law is made. Now,in an en- Mr.BACON. Certainly.
tirely different manner,the Constitution of the United States de- Mr.ELKINS. Does the Senator admit now that Congress can
Glares how a treaty,which is also a supreme law,shall be made. admit a State into the Union?
It declares that a treaty must be made by the President of the Mr.BACON. Undoubtedly.
United States,by and with the advice and consentof two-thirds of Mr.ELKINS. And it admitted Texas? -
the Senate present. I am not quoting literally,but stating it sub- Mr.BACON. Yes; but I will say to the Senator that I am com-
stantially. lug to the distinct discussion of that branch of the case.
I ask the attention of Senators to this most marked provision in Mr.ELKINS. I merely want to put this question—
the Constitution of the United States and the two distinct classes of Mr.BACON. And I would be very glad if the Senator would
law,each of them declared by the Constitution to be supreme,each pretermit the question until I reach that point,and I shall be
of them declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in con- very happy at that time to take it up. I am now discussing an-
struing that provision to be equally supreme with the other,which other line. I am coming to the question of the power to admit
are made and enacted in specific ways in the manner pointed out States,and that will be the time for the question.
in the Constitution,one totally different from the other. Is that Mr.ELKINS. Having it in mind now,I should like to ask why,
provision of the Constitution a vital principle? Does it mean any- if it can admit a State,it can not admit anything less than a State;
thing? Is it possible that the power which is•clothed by the Con- something that is not a State?
stitution with the authority to make one class of laws can make Mr.BACON. I am coming to that,and would be very glad if
the other class of laws? the Senator would repeat his question if I do.not answer it before
Is it possible that the power which is conferred upon the Con- I get through,because I do the Senator the justice to say that I
gress of the United States,the lawmaking power,the Senate and believe if I can possibly satisfy him of the unconstitutionality of
the House,with the approval of the President,can be used to the joint resolution he will not vote for it,however much he may
make that other supreme law which the Constitution says shall desire the annexation of Hawaii. It is true I am very much die-
be made in a different way,to wit,by the President,with the ad- couraged by the fact that the Senator said to me,in private con-
vice and consent of the Senate? If it is possible for the House of versation,when I asked him if he was bound by the Constitution,
Representatives and the Senate and the President, acting in the yes,as he interpreted it.
lawmaking capacity,and known generally in the Constitution as Mr.ELKINS. No; now tell the whole of it. I beg the Sena-
Congress,can make a treaty,and in so making it make it the tor's pardon. I said as the Supreme Court of the United States
supreme law of the land,then this joint resolution is constitu- interpreted it and as I interpreted it.
tional. But if it be true that when the Constitution devolved Mr.BACON. Very well.
upon the President and the Senate the power to make treaties it Mr.ELKINS. And not as the Senator interpreted it. •
denied to the Congress of the United States the right to make Mr.TELLER. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me?
treaties,then the joint resolution is necessarily unconstitutional, Mr.BACON. Let me answer the Senator from West Virginia
as I shall endeavor to show. first. If the Senator from West Virginia will stand to that prop-
Mr.President,the Constitution gives to the President the power osition,I will promise to show him a decision of the Supreme •
to appoint all officers of the United States by and with the advice Court of the United States which says that the United States Gov-
and consent of the Senate. If Congress can by statute make a ernment has no right—I do not go so far as the Supreme Court go
treaty,why may it not by.a statute make an ambassador or a in this particular,and I am merely stating this for the benefit of
chief justice or a general of the Army? the Senator from West Virginia—to annex territory which it does
Mr.President,there are two ways in which the provision in not intend to make into a State,and Senators themselves say they
the Constitution conferring upon the President of the United do not intend to make a State of Hawaii.
States and the Senate the power to make treaties can be absolutely Mr..ELKINS. You can not state what will be the intention of
nullified. One is the manner I havesnggested,by Congressopenly the Government a hundred years from now?
and boldly assuming to make a treaty; and if constitutional re- Mr.BACON. I am not putting it on that ground at all. Now
strictions are not to be respected,if no man is bound by the Con- I yield to the Senator from Colorado.
stitution,if a Senator or a Representative,because forsooth he Mr.TELLER. The position of the Senator from West Virginia
may be in the majority can effect his purpose by overriding the is good Democratic doctrine,a doctrine which old Jackson pressed
Constitution and disregarding it,then that is the simplest way to on the country with great force,that every Senator and every
do it. There is still another way in which this provision in the Representative could construe the Constitution as he understood it.
Constitution can be nullified,and that is by undertaking to put Mr.BACON. Of course.
into the form of a statute that which in reality is a treaty. Now, Mr.TELLER. And it was his duty not to look to the Supreme
one method is just as effective as the other,and either method is Court of the United States,but to hisown judgment and conscience
as absolutely illegal as the other, in these matters.
Before going further in that line-of argument,in order that I Mr. BACON. I am perfectly satisfied if that shall be the rule.
may have the attention of Senators and that they may not think I was discouraged by the fact that the manner of the reply of the
there is an answer which I do not recognize,I desire to say that Senator from West Virginia indicated that he would not be con-
I of course fully understand the argument which is made in reply trolled by what some of the more distinctive lawyer members of
that the State of Texas was admitted in this way. .I can not stop the Senate might consider to be the law. He was going to take it
to interrupt the thread of the argument at the present point to into his own hands.
show that that reply is not a good one. Not to elaborate it fur- But to return,I am coming to a discussion of the question,to
ther,I will merely state that it is the distinction between the an- which I ask the attention of Senators,as to what the framers of
thority of Congress to admit a State,to do which it is given the the Constitution Meant when they said "treaties"and what they
power in words in the Constitution,and the power to acquire for- must necessarily have meant. I asked the question whether it was
eign territory not for the purpose of making it a State,which,as possible that the framers of the Constitution when they put the
I shall endeavor to show,is essentially and necessarily the subject- word"treaties"into the Constitution in this connection under-
matter of treaty between two governments. stood that it simply meant an agreement or a negotiation put in
Mr.President,when the framers of the Constitution put the a certain form,and that if it were not put in that certain form,
word"treaties"into the Constitution.without any other defining it could be refined away and the exercise of the function could be
words or without any limitation,is it to be supposed for a moment usurped by Congress which had been denied the right to make a
that they did not recognize the fact that the term"treaties"had treaty. I had asked that question when the Senator from West
a distinct, legitimate,necessary,well-understood meaning? Is it Virginia interrupted me.
HeinOnline -- 31 Cong. Rec. 6149 1898
6150 'CONGRESSIONAL''RECORD-SENATE:' RINE 20,
Now,Mr.President,has the word"treaty"a definite,well-fixed by putting into the shape of a statute that which in reality is a
meaning? Is a treaty only that which is put in the form of a treaty treaty. Let me illustrate as to the latter,because that is what is
as we usually see it when submitted to the Senate on thepart of the attempted to be done here now. The attempt here is to make a
President,or does a treaty mean a certain thing regardless of the treaty by statute. The treaty,as I understand it,which was pro-
form? I say the latter. The distinction between a statute and a posed and negotiated by the President of the United States with
treaty does not depend on the form. A statute may be in various the authority of Hawaii,and all the reports in connection with it
forms. It may be in the ordinary form of a statute or in the form have been made public, so that I can with propriety speak of
of a joint resolution. One has the same effect as the other. A them here.
treaty depends for the fact that it is a treaty according to the sub- A treaty was negotiated between the President of the United
stance of it and what it proposes to accomplish. States and the Hawaiian Government. Why did the President
Now,a statute is this: A statute is a rule of conduct laid down of the United States and the Hawaiian Government negotiate a
by the legislative department,which has its effect upon all of those treaty for the annexation of those islands? I hope Senators who .
within the jurisdiction. In other words,a statute passed by the are considering this question and who propose to answer it will
Congress of the United States is obligatory upon every person who consider this particular feature of it. 'Why did the President of
is a citizen of the United States or a resident W
ent therein. A statute the United States negotiate with the Hawaiian Government by '
can not go outside the jurisdiction of the United States and be means of a treaty for the annexation of those islands except that
binding upon the subjects of another power. It takes the consent the President of the United States and the authorities of the
of the subjects of the other power,speaking or giving their con- Hawaiian Islands recognized that it was the proper subject-
sent through their duly.authorized government,to be bound by a matter of a treaty?
certain thing which is enacted in this country; and therein comes Why did the Senate of the United States,when the President
the necessity for a treaty. submitted the treaty here,undertake to consider it and to give its
. A treaty is that which is binding upon the people of two coon- consent to the treaty which had been negotiated between the
tries by mutual agreement that it shall be binding upon the two President of the United States and the Hawaiian authorities?
countries. A treaty is binding on two countries because the au- Why was it that it did not return it to'the President and say
thority in each country undertakes that it shall be binding in its "This is not the subject-matter of a treaty,and we should not be
particular country,and that is the essential element and feature asked for our advice or consent?" Simply because of the fact
of a treaty,that it is binding on two countries because the an- that the Senate of the United States,without exception,regard-
thority which makes it binding is the particular authority in each less of what the opinion of any Senator might be on the merits,
country,not having a general authority over both. recognized that it was the proper subject-matter of a treaty.
If it were practicable for a statute to be made obligatory upon Aside from this direct recognition it comes within the general
the citizens of another country,there would be no need of a treaty. definition of that which must be a treaty. It is to accomplish
We could simply enact what we wanted,and the people in the something which can not be accomplished by the unaided act of
other country would have to obey. But as we can not do it,we the United States. It is to accomplish something which requires
have to invoke the consent of the people or the authority in that not only the consent of the United States, but the consent of
other country that they will also be bound by the same law,and Hawaii,and therefore must be in its essence and in its character
that makes a treaty. a treaty. And yet,Mr.President,as I have said,in the joint res-
Now,Mr.President,I repeat possibly,but I desire to state it in o]ntion now before the Senate there is an effort made to nullify
another shape,that the distinction between a treaty and a statute this provision in the Constitution in the second of the methods
is this: The statute affects only the people within the jurisdiction which I suggested,to wit,in the method of putting in the form '
of the authority by which it is enacted. There is no consent re- of a statute that which of necessity can be nothing else but the
quired on the part of those who are subject to such a statute. It subject-matter of a treaty.
is made obligatory upon them by the authority of those who Mr.WHITE. If the Senator from Georgia will permit me,in
enact it. line with the point he is making,it may be that the treaty was
A treaty,on the other hand,is something which involves nego- suggested because of the provision of the Hawaiian constitution,
tiation with another country. It requires the consent of the duly found in the thirty-second article of that instrument,which pro-
authorized department in this Government,and it also requires vides specifically for annexation to the United States by treaty,
that they shall negotiate and obtain the consent of the power in which treaty,of course,has never been made.
the other Government. This is stated with very great clearness Mr. BACON. I understand that. I have no doubt that point
in a report made by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will be fully brought out by the Senators who discuss the merits
in 1844—I have forgotten the number of the Congress—when of the question.
it had ender consideration the Texas resolutions. I will read What is it that the House of Representatives has done? And I
it. This is a definition of a treaty. I read from Senate Doan- say the House of Representatives,not in any spirit of criticism of
ments,volume 3,1844 and 1845. It is broken up so that the pages it particularly,because the Senate,through its Foreign Relations
can not be told,as the documents are bound together,but it is Committee,had previously proposed the same thing. Here was
Document No.79,page 5 thereof; not the page of the volume. the case of a treaty,which was not only recognized by both par-
But let it be remembered— ties as a treaty and acted upon by both parties as a treaty,but
And I ask the attention of Senators now to this definition of a which,in its essence,must of necessity be a treaty,which was
treaty— practically abandoned in the Senate for the reason that in the
on the other hand,that although this treaty only acts for other powers manner and the method pointed out by the Constitution it could
and in the singular sphere of exterior concerns,within this sphere no other not be made law. The framers of the Constitution,in their wis-
power has privilege to intrude;the domain is all its own;in a property ex- dom,had provided that the President of the United States should
elusive. If the affair to be accomplished be exterior and require the inter-
vention make a treaty if two-thirds of the Senators present concurred in it.
of compact to accomplish it,here with the treaty-making power is y
the office,and sole office,to.accomplish it. No other power has privilege to Now,whether wise or unwise,that is the law. If only a ma-
• touch. jority concur,the treaty can not be made. Therefore the effect
I do not know whether or not I make my distinction clear,but of the failure in the Senate to ratify that treaty was the same as
the framers of the Constitution had in view certain actions by the failure of an attempted passage of a statute law. The friends
this Government'when they set up a distinct and separate de- of annexation,seeing that it was impossible to make this treaty in
partment of Government for the making of treaties and when the manner pointed out by the Constitution,attempted then to
they conferred upon that department exclusive power to make nullify the provision in the Constitution by putting that treaty in
treaties; and I suggest and urge as the crucial feature in this con- the form of a statute,and here we have embodied the provisions
sideration that the framers of the Constitution necessarily,when of the treaty in the joint resolution which comes to us from the
they said that the President should have the power to make trea- House. -
ties,with the consent of the Senate,meant to put within that de- I will state the object I have in calling attention to this point.
partment the power to conduct all negotiations between this It is perfectly'within the power of Congress—and when I speak of
country and another country,and to come to any agreement with Congress in this discussion I mean the lawmaking power—if it
that other country as to what should be a rule of conduct between has a majority in each House,if it can pursue the method legally
them. which is sought to be pursued here,it is perfectly within the
If that be true,necessarily everything which is of that nature, power of Congress not only to nullify and destroy that provision
everything which can be that and nothing else,must be the sub- in the Federal Constitution,but to effect by statute any treaty
ject-matter of a treaty. If not,as I have said before,the framers that can not command a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
of the Constitution made a great mistake when they unnecessarily Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator if he thinks
put into'the Constitution this machinery by which the power was there is any treaty that we can not annul by a direct act of Con-
conferred upon the 1?rosident of the United States,by and with the gress?
advice and consent of the Senate,to make treaties. Mr.BACON. I do not. I have so stated already. But I ask
Mr. President,I said that it was within the power of Congress the learned Senator—
to nullify this provision of the Constitution in two ways,either Mr.TELLER.- Then the legislative power can not be inferior
by directly making a treaty with another foreign Government or to the treaty-making power.
HeinOnline -- 31 Cong. Rec. 6150 1898
•
rt(ITY°)1 b& (11"1174
NO
APPENDIX II :r
W
FOREIGN R N, L A T IOX S
OF THE
UNITED STATES
x. 894
AFFAIRS IN HAWAII
4
4� ■ ,
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFPIC]
1895
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 1269
Mr. Willis to Mr. Graham.
[Confidential]
No. 16.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, December 20, 1893.
SIR: On Monday afternoon at 6 p. m., before the report of the
Washington Place interview, referred to in my dispatch, No. 15, of
December 19, had been written from the stenographic notes, Mr. Car-
ter called at the legation and read to me a note to him, just received
from the Queen,in which she unreservedly consented,when restored as
the constitutional sovereign, to grant amnesty and assume,all obliga-
tions of the Provisional Government.
On yesterday (Tuesday) morning at 9 o'clock Mr. Carter brought a
letter from the Queen, a copy of which I inclose, and an agreement
signed by her, binding herself,if restored, to grant full amnesty, a
copy of which I inclose.
Very respectfully,
ALBERT S. WILLIS.
[Incloeare I with No 15.3
WASHINGTON PLACE,
Honolulu, December 18,1893
His Excellency ALBERT WILLIS,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, U. 8.A. :
SIR: Since I had the interview with you this morning I have given the most care
fill and conscientious thought as to my duty,and I now of my own free will give my
conclusions.
I must not feel vengeful to any of my people. If I am restored by the United
States I must forget myself and remember only my dear people and my country. I
must forgive and forget the aat,permitting no proscription or punishment of any
one,but trusting that all wi hereafter work together in peace and friendship for
the good and for the glory of our beautiful and once happy land.
Asking you to bear to the President and to the Government he represents a mes-
sage of gratitude from me and from my people, and promising, with God's grace,to
prove worthy of the confidence and friendship of your people,
I am,etc.,
LILIIIO%A7.ANI.
[Inoloeare 2 with No.IQ.]
I,Lilinokalani,in recognition of the high sense of justice which has actuated the
President of the United States and desiring to put aside all feelings of personal
hatred or revenge and to do what is beat for all the people of these Islands,both
native and foreign born, do hereby and herein solemnly declare and ledge myself
that,if reinstated as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands, that I
will immediately proclaim and declare,unconditionally and without reservation,to
every person who directly or indirectly participated in the revolution of January
17, 1893, a fall pardon and amnesty for their offenses,with restoration of all rights,
privileges, and immunities under the constitution and the laws which have been
made in pursuance thereof,and that I will forbid and prevent the adoption of any
measures of proscription or punishment for what has been done in the past by those
setting up or supporting the Provisional Government.
I further solemnly agree to accept the restoration under the constitution existing
at the time of said revolution and that I will abide by and fully execute that con-
stitution with all the guaranties as to person and property therein contained.
I furthermore solemnly pledge myself and my Government, if restored,to assume
all the obligations created by the Provisional Government, in the proper course of
1270 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
administration,including all expenditures for military or police services, it being
my purpose,if restored,to assume the Government'precisely as it existed on the day
when it was unlawfully overthrown.
Witness my hand this 18th of December, 1893.
LILluoxe.Leni.
Attest:
J. O.C&RTIA.
Mr. Willis to Mr. Gresham.
[Confidential.]
N0. 17.1 LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Honolulu, December 20, 1893.
Sra: On Monday,December 18,the interview with the Queen at her
residence, Washington Place, was held, lasting until 1 p. m.
At 5:30 p. m. of the same day I received a communication from the
Provisional Government, through the Hon. S. B. Dole, minister of for-
eign affairs, referring to my visit to the Queen. Ile asked to be
informed whether I was "acting in any way hostile to this(his)Govern-
ment," and pressed for "an immediate answer." I inclose a copy of
the communication.
As I had two days before notified a member of the cabinet, Hon.W.
O. Smith, attorney-general,that I would be ready in forty-eight hours
to make known to the Provisional Government the President's decision,
and as the tone of the communication—doubtless without intention—
was somewhat mandatory,I thought it best not to make any reply to it.
Moreover, at that hoar I had not received the written pledge and agree-
ment of the Queen, without which I could take no step.
This morning at 9:30 o'clock I received the letter and agreement of
the Queen, as set forth in my No. 16 of this date. I immediately
addressed a note to the minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Dole, inform-
ing him that I had a communication from my Government, which I
desired to submit in person to the president and ministers of his Gov-
ernment at any hour during the day that it might please him to desig-
nate. I inclose a copy of my letter. This note was delivered to the
minister of foreign affairs by Mr. Mills, and the hour of 1:30 p. m.
was verbally designated for the interview.
At the hour appointed I went to the executive building and met
the President and his associate ministers, to whom I submitted the
decision of the President of the United States.
A memorandum of what I said upon the occasion was left with them
after delivery,a copy of which I inclose.
It may be proper at this time briefly to state my course of action
since arriving here on Saturday the 4th day of November last. My
baggage containing credentials did not come to hand until 4 o'clock,
before which time the offices of the Provisional Government were closed.
On Monday morning following,Mr. Mills, our consul-general, bore a
note to the minister of foreign affairs asking that he designate a time
for the presentation of Mr. Blount's letter of recall and my letter of
credence. Mr.Mills was authorized to say, and did say to him,that I
was ready on that day (Monday) to present my credentials. The Pro-
visional Government, however, appointed the following day (Tuesday)
at 11 o'clock, at which time I was formally presented.
As our Government had for fifty years held the friendliest relations
with the people of these islands—native as well'as foreign born—in
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 1283
WILLIE, WASHINGTON, January 12, 1894.
Minister,Honolulu:
Your numbers 14 to 18, inclusive, show that you have rightly com-
prehended the scope of your instructions, and have, as far as was in
your power, discharged the onerous task confided to you.
The President sincerely regrets that the Provisional Government
refuses to acquiesce in the conclusion which his sense of right and duty
and a due regard for our national honor constrained him to reach and
submit as a measure of justice to the people of the Hawaiian Islands
and their deposed sovereign. While it is true that the Provisional
Government was created to exist only until the islands were annexed
to the United States, that the Queen finally, but reluctantly, surren-
dered to an armed force of this Government illegally quartered in
Honolulu, and representatives of the Provisional Government (which
realized its impotency and was anxious to get control of the Queen's
means of defense) assured her that, if she would surrender, her case
would be subsequently considered by the United States, the President
has never claimed that such action constituted him an arbitrator in the
technical sense, or authorized him to act in that capacity between the
Constitutional Government and the Provisional Government. You
made no such claim when you acquainted that Government with the
President's decision.
The solemn assurance liven to the Queen has been referred to, not
as authority for the President to act as arbitrator,but as a fact mate-
rial to a just determination of the President's duty in the premises.
In the note which the minister of foreign affairs addressed to you
on the 23d ultimo it is stated in effect that even if the Constitutional
Government was subverted by the action of the American minister and
an invasion by a military force of the United States, the President's
authority is limited to dealing with our own unfaithful officials, and that
he can take no steps looking to the correction of the wrong done. The
President entertains a different view of his responsibility and duty.
The subversion of the Hawaiian Government by an abuse V the author-
ity of the United States was in plain violation of international law and
required the President to disavow and condemn the act of our offend-
ing officials, and, within the limits of his constitutional power, to
endeavor to restore the lawful authority.
On the 18th ultimo the President sent a special message to Congress
communicating copies of Mr. Blount's reports and the instructions
given to him and to you. On the same day? answering a resolution of
the House of Representatives, he sent copies of all correspondence
since March 4, 1889, on the political affairs and relations of Hawaii,
withholding, for sufficient reasons only Mr. Stevens'No.70 of October
8, 1892, and your No. 3 of November 16, 1893. The President therein
announced that the conditions of restoration suggested by him to the
Queen had not proved acceptable to her, and that since the instruc-
tions sent to you to insist upon those conditions he had not learned
that the Queen was willing to assent to them. The President there-
upon submitted the subject to the more extended powers and wider
discretion of Congress, adding the assurance that he would be grati-
fied to cooperate in any legitimate plan which might be devised for a
solution of the problem consistent with American honor,integrity, and
morality.
Your reports show that on further reflection the Queen gave her
unqualified assent in writing to the conditions suggested, but that the
1284 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
Provisional Government refuses to acquiesce in the President's deci
Sion.
The matter now being in the bands of Congress the President will
keep that body fully advised of the situation, and will lay before it
from time to time the reports received from you, including your No. 3,
heretofore withheld, and all instructions sent to you. In the mean-
time, while keeping the Department fully informed of the course of
events,you will,until further notice,consider that your special instruc-
tions upon this subject have been folly complied with.
G1 ESHA.M.
&&voa,P, r -u_ 333
ritthei
161
APPENDIX II
FOREIGN R HC L A T IONS
OP THE
UNITED STATES
894
AFFAIRS IN HAWAII
,c);
441 41h* 114
7Y
v Y'\ •ti
of
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFfeICE
1895
MESSAGE .
7Th the Senate and House a/Representatives:
In my recent annual message to the Congress I briefly referred to
our relations with Hawaii and expressed the intention of transmit-
ting further information on the subject when additional advices per-
mitted.
Though I am not able now to report a definite change in the
actual situation, I am convinced that the difficulties lately created
both here and in Hawaii and now standing in the way of a solution
through Executive action of the problem presented, render it proper,
and expedient, that the matter should be referred to the broader
authority and discretion of Congress, with a full explanation of the
endeavor thus far made to deal with the entergemy and a statement
of the considerations which have governed my action.
I suppose that right and justice should determine the path to he
followed in treating this subject. If national honesty is to be dis-
regarded and a desire for territorial extension, or dissatisfaction with
a form of government not our own, ought to regulate our conduct,
I have entirely misapprehended the mission and character of our
Government and the behavior which the conscience of our people
demands of their public servants.
When the present Administration entered upon its duties the Sen-
ate had under consideration a treaty providing for the annexation
of the Hawaiian Islands to the territory of the United States.
Surely under our Constitution and laws the enlargement of our lim-
its is a manifestation of the highest attribute of sovereignty, and
if entered upon as an Executive act,all things relating to the trans-
action should be clear and free from suspicion. Additional impor-
tance attached to this particular treaty of annexation, because it
contemplated a departure from unbroken American tradition in pro-
viding or the addition to our territory of islands of the sea more
than two thousand miles removed from our nearest coast.
These considerations might not of themselves call for interference
with the completion of a treaty entered upon by a previous Admin-
istration. But it appeared from the documents accompanying the
,H5
44(3 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
treaty when submitted to the Senate, that the ownership of Hawaii
was tendered to us by a provisional government set up to succeed
the constitutional ruler of the islands, who had been dethroned,
and it did not appear that such provisional government had the
sanction of either popular revolution or suffrage. Two other
remarkable features of the transaction naturally attracted attention.
One was the extraordinary haste—not to say precipitancy—charac-
terizing all the transactions connected with the treaty. It appeared
that a so-called Committee of Safety, ostensibly the source of the
revolt against the constitutional Government of Hawaii, was organ-
ized on Saturday,the 14th day of January; that on Monday,the 16th,
the United States forces were landed at Honolulu from a naval
vessel lying in its harbor; that on the 17th the scheme of a provi-
sional government was perfected, and a proclamation naming its
officers was on the same day prepared and read at the Government
building; that immediately thereupon the United States Minister
recognized the provisional government thus created; that two days
afterwards, on the 19th day of January, commissioners representing
such government sailed for this country in a steamer especially
chartered for the occasion, arriving in San Francisco on the 28th
day of January, and in Washington on the 3d day of February; that
on the next day they had their first interview with the Secretary of
State, and another on the 11th, when the treaty of annexation was
practically agreed upon, and that on the 14th it was formally con-
cluded and on the 15th transmitted to the Senate. Thus between
the initiation of the scheme for a provisional government -n Hawaii
on the 14th day of January and the submission to the Senate of the
treaty of annexation concluded with such government, the entire
interval was thirty-two days, fifteen of which were spent by the
Hawaiian Commissioners in their journey to Washington.
In the next place, upon the face of the papers submitted with
the treaty, it clearly appeared that there was open and undeter-
mined an issue of fact of the most vital importance. The message
of the President accompanying the treaty declared that "the over-
throw of the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this Gov-
ernment," and in a letter to the President from the Secretary of State,
also submitted to the Senate with the treaty, the following passage
occurs: "At the time the provisional government took possession of
the Government buildings no troops or officers of the United States
were present or took any part whatever in the proceedings. No
public recognition was accorded to the provisional government by
the United States Minister until after the Queen's abdication and
when they were in effective possession of the Government buildings,
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 447
the archives, the treasury, the barracks, the police station, and all
the potential machinery of the Government." But a protest also
accompanied said treaty, signed by the Queen and her ministers at
the time she made way for the provisional government, which ex-
plicitly stated that she yielded to the superior force of the United
States,whose Minister had caused United States troops to be landed
at Honolulu and declared that he would support such provisional
government.
The truth or falsity of this protest was surely of the first impor-
tance. If true, nothing but the concealment of its truth could
induce our Government to negotiate with the semblance of a gov-
ernment thus created, nor could a treaty resulting from the acts
stated in the protest have been knowingly deemed worthy of con-
sideration by the Senate. Yet the truth or falsity of the protest
had not been investigated.
I conceived it to be my duty therefore to withdraw the treaty
from the Senate for examination, and meanwhile to cause an accu-
rate, full,and impartial investigation to be made of the facts attend-
ink the subversion of the constitutional Government of Hawaii,
and the installment in its place of the provisional government. I
selected for the work of investigation the Hon.James H. Blount, of
Georgia, whose service of eighteen years as a member of the House
of Representatives, and whose experience as chairman of the Com-
mittee of Foreign Affairs in that body, and his consequent famili-
arity with international topics, joined with his high character and
honorable reputation, seemed to render him peculiarly fitted for the
duties entrusted to him. His report detailing his action under the
instructions given to him and the conclusions derived from his in-
vestigation accompany this message.
These conclusions do not rest for their acceptance entirely upon
Mr. Blount's honesty and ability as a man, nor upon his acumen
and impartiality as an investigator. They are accompanied by the
evidence upon which they are based, which evidence is also here-
with transmitted, and from which it seems to me no other deductions
could possibly be reached than those arrived at by the Commissioner.
The report with its accompanying proofs, and such other evidence
as is now before the Congress or is herewith submitted, justifies in
my opinion the statement that when the President was led to submit
the treaty to the Senate with the declaration that "the overthrow
of the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this Govern-
ment", and when the Senate was induced to receive and discuss it
on that basis, both President and Senate were misled.
The attempt will not be made in this communication to touch
448 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
upon all the facts which throw light upon the progress and consum-
mation of this scheme of annexation. A very brief and imperfect
reference to the facts and evidence at hand will exhibit its character
and the incidents in which it had its birth.
It is unnecessary to set forth the reasons which in January, 1893,
led a considerable proportion of American and other foreign mer-
chants and traders residing at Honolulu to favor the annexation of
Hawaii to the United States. It is sufficient to note the fact and to
observe that the project was one which was zealously promoted by
the Minister representing the United States in that country. He
evidently had an ardent desire that it should become a fact accom-
plished by his agency and during his ministry, and was not incon-
veniently scrupulous asal'to the means employed to that end. On the
19th day of November, 1892, nearly two months before the first overt
act tending towards the subversion of the Hawaiian Government and
the attempted transfer of Hawaiian territory to the United States, he
addressed a long letter to the Secretary of State in which the case
for annexation was elaborately argued, on moral,political, and eco-
nomical grounds. He refers to the loss to the Hawaiian sugar in-
terests from the operation of the McKinley bill, and the tendency
to still further depreciation of sugar property unless some positive
measure of relief is granted. He strongly inveighs against the ex-
isting Hawaiian Government and emphatically declares for annexa-
tion. He says: "In truth the monarchy here is an absurd anachro-
nism. It has nothing on which it logically or legitimately stands.
The feudal basis on which it once stood no longer existing, the mon-
archy now is only an impediment to good government—an obstruc-
tion to the prosperity and progress of the islands."
He further says: "As a crown colony of Great Britain or a Terri-
tory of the United States the government modifications could be
made readily and good administration of the law secured. Destiny
and the vast future interests of the United States in the Pacific clearly
indicate who at no distant day must be responsible for the government
of these islands. Under a territorial government they could be as
easily governed as any of the existing Territories of the United States."
* * * "Hawaii has reached the parting of the ways. She must
now take the road which leads to Asia, or the other which outlets
her in America, gives her an American civilization, and binds her
to the care of American destiny." He also declares: "One of two
courses seems to me absolutely necessary to be followed, either bold
and vigorous measures for annexation or a customs union,' an
ocean cable from the Californian coast to Honolulu, Pearl Harbor
perpetually ceded to the United States, with an implied but not ex-
•
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 449
pressly stipulated American protectorate over the islands. I believe
the former to be the better, that which will prove much the more
advantageous to the islands, and the cheapest and least embarrassing
in the end to the United States. If it was wise for the United States
through Secretary Marcy thirty-eight years ago to offer to expend
$roo,ouo to secure a treaty of annexation, it certainly can not be
chimerical or unwise to expend $loo,000 to secure annexation in the
near future. To-day the United States has five times the wealth she
possessed in 1854, and the reasons now existing for annexation are
much stronger than thee were then. I can not refrain from express-
ing the opinion with emphasis that the golden hour is near at hand,"
These declarations certainly show a disposition and condition of
mind, which may be usefully recalled when interpreting the signifi-
cance of the Minister's conceded acts or when considering the prob-
abilities of such conduct on his part as may not be admitted.
In this view it seems proper to also quote from a letter written by
the Minister to the Secretary of State on the 8th day of March, 1892,
nearly a year prior to the first step taken toward annexation. After
stating the possibility that the existing Government of Hawaii might
be overturned by an orderly and peaceful revolution, INIinister Stevens
writes as follows: "Ordinarily in like circumstances, the rule seems
to be to limit the landing and movement of United States forces in
foreign Heaters and dominion exclusively to the protection of the
United States legation and of the lives and property of American
citizens. But as the relations of the United States to Hawaii are
exceptional, and in former Years the 'Tinted State' officials here
took somewhat exceptional action in circumstances of disorder, I
desire to know how far the present Minister and naval commander
may deviate from established international rules and precedents in
the contingencies indicated in the first part of this dispatch."
To a minister of this temper full of zeal for annexation there
seemed to ariae iii January, t893, the precise opportunity for which
lie was watchfully waiting—an opportunity which by timely "devia-
tion from established international rules and precedents" might be
improved to successfully accomplish the great object in view; and
we are quite prepared for the exultant enthusiasm with which in a
letter to the State Department dated February 1. 1893, lie declares:
"The Hawaiian pear is now fully ripe and this is the golden hour
for the United States to pluck it."
As a further illustration of the activity of this diplomatic repre-
sentative, attention is called to the fact that on the day the above
letter was written, apparently unable longer to restrain his ardor.
he issued a proclamation whereby "in the name of the United
F it 94-----APP li
450 HAWAIIAN tst.ANDs.
States" he assumed the protection of the Hawaiian Islands and
declared that said action was "taken pending and subject to nego-
tiations at Washington.'' Of course this assumption of a protector-
ate was promptly disavowed by our Government, but the American
dug remained over the Government building at Honolulu and the
forces remained on guard until April, and after Mr. Blount's arrival
on the scene, when both were removed.
A brief statement of the occurrences that led to the subversion of
the constitutional Government of Hawaii in the interests of annexa-
tion to the United States will exhibit the true complexion of that
transaction.
On Saturday, January 14, 18o3, the Queen of Hawaii, who had
been contemplating the proclamation of a new constitution, had, in
deference to the wishes and remonstrances of her cabinet, renounced
the project for the present at least. Taking this relinquished pur-
pose as a basis of action, citizens of Honolulu numbering from fifty
to one hundred, mostly resident aliens, met in a private office and se-
lected a so-called Committee of Safety, composed of thirteen persons,
seven of whom were foreign subjects, and consisted of five Ameri-
cans, one Englishman, and one German. This committee, though
its designs were not revealed, had in view nothing less than annex-
ation to the United States, and between Saturday, the 14th, and the
following Monday, the 16th of January—though exactly what action
was taken may not be clearly disclosed—they were certainly in com-
munication with the United States Minister. On Monday morning
the Queen and her cabinet made public proclamation, with a notice
which was specially served upon the representatives of all foreign
governments, that any changes in the constitution would be sought
only in the methods provided by that instrument. Nevertheless, at
the call and under the auspices of the Committee of Safety, a mass
meeting of citizens was held on that day to protest against the
aueen's alleged illegal and unlawful proceedings and purposes.
Fven at this naaaing the Committee of Safety continued to disguise
their real purpose and contented themselves with procuring the
passage of a resolution denouncing the Queen and empowering the
committee to devise ways and means "to secure the permanent main-
tenance of law and order and the protection of life, liberty, and prop-
erty in Hawaii." This meeting adjourned between three and four
o'clock in the afternoon. On the same day, and immediately after
such adj■.m.rmucut, the committee, unwilling to take further steps
without the cooperation of the United States Minister, addressed
itim a note representing that the public safety was menaced and
that lives and property were in danger, and concluded as follows:
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 451
"We are unable to protect ourselves without aid, and therefore pray
for the protection of the United States forces." Whatever may be
thought of the other contents of this note, the absolute truth of this
latter statement is incontestable. When the note was written and
delivered, the committee, so far as it appears, had neither a man
nor a gun at their command, and after its delivery they became
so panic-stricken at their position that they sent some of their
number to interview the Minister and request him not to land the
United States forces till the next morning. But he replied that
the troops had been ordered, and whether the committee were
ready or not the landing should take place. And so it happened
that on the Toth day of January, 1893, between four and five o'clock
in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States
steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, lauded at Honolulu.
The men, upwards of 16o in all, were supplied with double car-
tridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and can-
teens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and
medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of
Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with the
consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of
protecting the imperilled lives and property of citizens of the
United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on
the part of the Government of the Queen, which at that time was
undisputed and was both the de fircto and the de jure government.
In point of fact the existing government instead of requesting the
presence of an armed force protested against it. There is as little
basis for the pretense that such forces were landed for the security
of American life and property. If so, they would have been sta-
tioned in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead
of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government
building and palace. Admiral Skerrett, the officer in command of
our naval force on the Pacific station, has frankly stated that in
his opinion the location of the troops was inadvisable if they were
landed for the protection of American citizens whose residences
and places of business, as well as the legation and consulate, were
in a distant part of the city, but the location selected was a wise one
if the forces were landed for the purpose of supporting the provi-
sional government. If any peril to life and property calling for any
such martial array had existed, Great Britain and other foreign pow-
ers interested would not have been behind the United States in
activity to protect their citizens. But they made no sign in that
direction. When these armed men were landed,the city of Honolulu
was in its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no
452 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
symptom of riot or disturbance in any quarter. Men, women, and
children were about the streets as usual, and nothing varied the
ordinary routine or disturbed the ordinary tranquillity, except the
landing of the Boston's marines and their march through the town
to the quarters assigned them. Indeed, the fact that after having
called for the landing of the United States forces on the plea of
danger to life and property the Committee of Safety themselves
requested the Minister to postpone action, exposed the untruthful-
ness of their representations of present peril to Iife and property.
The peril they saw was an anticipation growing out of guilty inten-
tions on their part and something which, though not then existing,
they knew would certainly follow their attempt to overthrow the
Government of the Queen without the aid of the United States forces.
Thus it appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United
States forces without the consent or wish of the government of the
islands, or of anybody else so far as shown,except the United States
Minister.
Therefore the military occupation of Honolulu by the United
States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification, either
as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dan-
gers threatening American life and property. It must be accounted
for in some other way and on some other ground, and its real mo-
tive and purpose are neither obscure nor far to seek.
The United States forces being now on the scene and favorably
stationed,the committee proceeded to carry out their original scheme.
They met the next morning, Tuesday, the 17th, perfected the plan of
temporary government, and fixed upon its principal officers, ten of
whom were drawn from the thirteen members of the Committee of
Safety. Between one and two o'clock,by squads and by different
routes to avoid notice,and having first taken the precaution of ascer-
taining whether there was any one there to oppose them, they pro-
ceeded to the Government building to proclaim the new government.
No sign of opposition was manifest,and thereupon an American citi-
zen began to read the proclamation from the steps of the Government
building almost entirely without auditors. It is said that before
the reading was finished quite a concourse of persons, variously
estimated at from So to zoo, some armed and some unarmed,
gathered about the committee to give them aid and confidence.
This statement is not important, since the one controlling factor in
the whole affair was unquestionably the United States marines,who,
drawn up under arms and with artillery in readiness only seventy-
six yards distant, dominated the situation.
The provisional government thus proclaimed was by the terms of
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 453
the proclamation "to exist until terms of union with the United
States had been negotiated and agreed upon". The United States
Minister, pursuant to prior agreement, recognized this government
within an hour after the reading of the proclamation, and before
five o'clock, in answer to an inquiry on behalf of the Queen and her
cabinet, announced that he had done so.
When our Minister recognized the provisional government the
only basis upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of
Safety had in the manner above stated declared it to exist. It was
neither a government de facto nor de jure. That it was not in such
possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to
recognition is conclusively proved by a note found in the files of the
legation at Honolulu, addressed by the declared head of the provi-
sional government to Minister Stevens, dated January 17, 1893, in
which he acknowledges with expressions of appreciation the Min-
ister's recognition of the provisional government, and states that it
is not yet in the possession of the station house(the place where a
large number of the Queen's troops were quartered), though the same
had been demanded of the Queen's officers in charge. Nevertheless,
this wrongful recognition by our Minister placed the Government
of the Queen in a position of most perilous perplexity. On the one
hand she had possession of the palace, of the barracks, and of the
police station, and had at her command at least five hundred fully
armed men and several pieces of artillery. Indeed, the whole mili-
tary force of her kingdom was on her side and at her disposal, while
the Committee of Safety, by actual search, had discovered that there
were but very few arms in Honolulu that were not in the service of
the Government. In this state of things if the Queen could have dealt
with the insurgents alone her course would have been plain and the
result unmistakable. But the United States had allied itself with her
enemies, had recognized them as the true Government of Hawaii,
and had put her and her adherents in the position of opposition
against lawful authority. She knew that she could not withstand
the power of the United States, but she believed that she might
safely trust to its justice. Accordingly, some hours after the recog-
nition of the provisional government by the United States Minister,
the palace, the barracks, and the police station, with all the mili•
tare resources of the country, were delivered up by the Queen upon
the representation made to her that her cause would thereafter be
reviewed at Washington, and while protesting that she surrendered
to the superior force of the United States, whose Minister had
caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared
that he would support the provisional government, and that she
454 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
yielded her authority to prevent collision of armed forces and loss
of life and only until such time as the United States, upon the facts
being presented to it, should undo the action of its representative
and reinstate her in the authority she claimed as the constitutional
sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
This protest was delivered to the chief of the provisional govern.
merit, who endorsed thereon his acknowledgment of its receipt.
The terms of the protest were read without dissent by those assum-
ing to constitute tile provisional government, who were certainly
Charged with the knowledge that the Queen instead of finally
abandoning her power had appealed to the justice of the United
States for reinsuitement in her authority; and yet, the provisional
government with this unanswered protest in its hand hastened to
negotiate with the United States for the permanent banishment of
the Queen from power and for a sale of her kingdom.
Our country was in danger of occupying the position of having
actually set up a temporary government on foreign soil for the pur-
pose of acquiring through that agency territory which we had wrong-
fully put in its possession. The control of both sides of a bargain
acquired in such a manner is called by a familiar and unpleasant
name when found in private transactions. We are not without a
precedent showing how seen pulonsly we avoided such accusations in
former days. After the people of Texas had declared their inde-
pendence of Mexico they resolved that on the acknowledgment of
their independence bv the United States they would seek admission
into the Union. Several in mths after the battle of San Jacinto, bv
which Texan independence was practically assured and established,
President Jackson declined to recognize it, alleging as one of his
reasons that in the circumstances it became ns to beware of a too
early movement, as it might subject us, however unjustly, to the
imputation of seeking to establish the claim of our neighbors to a
territory with a view to its subsequent acquisition by ourselves".
This is in marked contrast with the hasty recognition of a govern-
ment openly and cone(idedly set up for the purpose of tendering to
us territorial annexation.
I believe that a candid and thorough examination of the facts will
force the conviction that the provisional government owes its exist-
ence to an armed invasjui by the United States. Fair-minded people
with the evidence before them will hardly claim that the Hawaiian
Government was overthrown by the people of the islands or that the
provisional government had ever existed with their consent. I do
not understand that any member of this government claims that the
HAWAIIAN ISLAND.',... 455
people Ilphold it lv their suffrages if they were allowed tf.vote
the iplestion.
While naturally syint•itithizing, with every effort to establish a
;4,,r,'":711:11'.."11,t, it has been the settled policy of the
[ niter! State to ■.ionetide to people or toreign countries the same
freedom and inenilenci in the management of their domestic
affairs that we have always claimed for ourselves; and it has been
practice to recoii:nize revolutionary goveimments as soon as it
became apparent that they were supported be the people. Fur
illustration of this tuft! I need only to refer to the revolution in
l■razil in when t)117" Minister WAS instructed to recognize the
as a najurity of the people of 1h.czll should have
signified their iisscut to its establishment and maintenance"; to the
revolution in Chile in when omit Minister was directed to
recognize
do' new g'0Vcr11111clit if it was accepted by the people";
and to the re\olution in Venezuela in iSu2, when our recognition
was accorded on condition that the new government was "fully
eslc‘blished, in possession of the power of the nation, and accepted
by the people."
As I apprehend the situation, we are brought lace to face with
the following conditions:
The t;oyerninent of Hawaii was overthrown Without the
draNyiu a a :word In the firing- En a shot by t process every step
ol which, it nice satalv be asserted, is directly traceable to and
dependent .iOr suk.ayss iiii■)11 the iiitency of the United States
Tang through its diplomatic and naval representatives.
I-hat Cur the mini.,job., the United States Minister
air annexation, the Committee of Si.fet which should be called the
Committee of Annexation, would nevel have existed.
Itiat for the landing of the ITnito.1 States forces upon false pre•
texts respecting the danger to life ,a.itch icropera the euminittec
weinlil never have exposed themselves 1 the pains and penalties of
treason by undeit.ikiiii4 the sub\ersion of the Meen's Government.
But for the presence ot" the United States forces in the immediate
vicinity and it: ; sit: :; a ribrd lit needed protection and suinport
the committee",,amld not have proclaimed the provisional govern-
ment ho;;; the -;;;'1.:,. (0 the cvc'rnu;;eut
And finally, but or the lawless occupation of ITionoluin under
false pretexts by rilitad States flirces, and brit for Minister
Stevens's :ecr of the provisional government when the
United States foxes ere its sit' support and constituted its only
military strew4;11, the Hneemi and her(',over-wile:it would never have
yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the
4ro; HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the
United States.
Believing, therefore, that the United States could not, under the
circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly incurring
the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable methods, I shall
not again submit the treaty of annexation to the Senate for its con-
sideration, and in the instructions to Minister Willis, a copy of
which accompanies this message, I have directed him to so inform
the provisional government.
But in the present instance our duty does not, in my opinion, end
with refusimi g. to consummate this questionable transaction. It has
been the boast of our Government that it seeks to do justice in all
things without regard to the strength or weakness of those with
whom it deals. I mistake the American people if they favor the
00icms doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality,
that there is one Iow for a strong nation and another for a weak one,
and that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity
despoil a weak one of its territory.
By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplo-
matic representative of the United States and without authority of
Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding
peop;e has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been
done which a due regard for our national character as well as the
rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.
The provisional government has not assumed a republican or other
constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council or
oligarchy, set up without the assent of the people. It has not
sought to find a Im.inanent basis of popular support and has given
no evidence of an intention to do so. Indeed, the representatives of
that government assert that the people of Hawaii are unfit for popu-
lar government and frankly avow that they can be best ruled by
arbitrary or despotic p,wer•
The law of nations is founded upon reason and justice, and the
rules of confine', (,,verning individual relations between citizens
or subjects of a civilized state are equally applicable as between
enlightened nations. The considerations that international law is
without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its com-
mands practically depends upon good faith, instead of upon the
mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the
law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as
a wrong but as a disgrace. A man of true honor protects the
unwritten word which binds his conscience more scrupulously, if
possible, than he dues the bond a breach of which subjects him to
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 457
legal liabilities ; and the United States in aiming to maintain itself
as one of the most enlightened of nations would do its citizens
gross injustice if it applied to its international relations any other
than a high standard of honor-and morality. On that: ground the
United States can not properly be put in the position of counte-
nancing a wrong after its commission any more than in that of
consenting to it in advance. On that ground it can not allow itself
to refuse to redress an injury inflicted through an abuse of power by
officers clothed with its authority and wearing its uniform; and on
the same ground, if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being
robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the
name and power of the United States, the United States can not
fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort
to make all possible reparation.
These principles apply to the present case with irresistible force
when the special conditions of the Queen's surrender of her sover-
eignty are recalled. She surrendered not to the provisional govern-
ment, but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely
and permanently,but temporarily and conditionally until such time
as the facts could be considered by the United States. Further-
more, the provisional government acquiesced in her surrender in
that manner and on those terms, not only by tacit consent, but
through the positive acts of some members of that government who
urged her peaceable submission, not merely to avoid bloodshed, but
because she could place implicit reliance upon the justice of the
United States, and that the whole subject would be finally con-
sidered at Washington.
I have not, however, overlooked an incident of this unfortunate
affair which remains to be mentioned. The members of the pro-
visional government and their supporters, though not entitled to
extreme sympathy, have been led to their present predicament of
revolt against the Government of the Queen by the indefensible
encouragement and assistance of our diplomatic representative. This
fact may entitle them to claim that in our effort to rectify the wrong
committed some regard should be had for their safety. This senti-
ment is strongly seconded by my anxiety to do nothing which would
invite either harsh retaliation on the part of the Queen or violence
and bloodshed in any quarter. In the belief that the Queen, as well
as her enemies, would be willing to adopt such a.course as would meet
these conditions, and in view of the fact that both the Queen and
the provisional government had at one time apparently acquiesced
in a reference of'the entire case to the United States Government,
and considering the further fact that in any event the provisional
158 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
government by its own declared limitation was only "to exist until
terms of union \yitli the United States of America have been nego-
tiated and agreed upon,'' I hoped that after the assurance to the
members of that government that such union could not lie consum-
mated I might compass a peaceful adjustment of the difficulty.
Actuated by these desires and purposes, and not unmindful of the
inherent perplexities of the situation nor of the limitations upon my
power, I instructed Minister Willis to advise the Queen and her sup-
porters of my desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing
before the lawless lauding- of the United States forces at Honolulu
on the loth of January last, if such restoration could be effected upon
terins providing for clemency as well as justice to all parties con-
cerned. The conditions sioggested, as the instructions show, con-
template a general amnesty to those concerned in setting up the
provisional government and a recognition of all its bunafide acts
and oNigations. In short, they reipiire that the past should be
1)I1Tied, and that the restored Government should reassume its au-,
thority as if its continuity had not been interrupted. These condi-
tions have not puoved acceptable to the ( ieen, and though she has
been informed that they will he insisted upon, and that, unless
acceded to, the efforts of the President to aid in the restoration of
her Government will cease, I have not thus far learned that she is
willing to yield them her inviieseence. The check which my plans
have thus encountered has prevented their presentation to the mem-
bers of the pn"ivisional government, while unfortunate public mis-
representations of the situation and exaggerated statements of the
sentiments of our people have obviously injured the prospects of
successful Executive mediation.
I therefore subunit this communication with its accompanying
exhibits, embracing- Mr. Blount's report, the evidence and state-
ments taken IV ii mm at Honolulu, the instructions given to both
Mr. Blount and Minister Willis, and correspondence connected with
the affair in hand.
in commending this subject to the extended powers and wide dis-
cretion of the Congress. I desire to add the assurance that I shall be
much gratified to cooperate in any legislative plan which may be
devised for the solution of the problem before us which is consistent
with American honor, integrity, and morality.
t:RoVER CLEVELAND.
Ex Ect-rivr MANsios,
P 1,i'1 S,
DEPARTMENT T OIL STATE,
14'itshinglon, October 18, 1893.
The Punsit >ENT:
The full and impartial reports submitted by the Hon. James H.
Blount,your special commissioner to the IIawaiianIslands,established
the fi.tllowing facts:
Queen hiliuetica l:ini announced her intention on Saturday. January
14, 1893, to proelaim a new constitution. but the opposition of her
ministers and others induced her to speedily change her purpose and
make public a anon manumit of that fact:.
At a meeting in Ilonolule, late on the afternoon of that day, a
so-called committee of public safety,consisting of thirteen men,being all
or nearly all iti lto were present. was appointed "to consider the sham-
tien and devise ways and ineatrs for the maintenance of the public peace
and the protection of life and property."tv." and at a meeting of this cotn-
naittee on the 13th. or the thrcnoon of the ,16th of January. it was
resolved amongst ot=her things that a provisional government be created
"to exist until terms of union with the 'United States of America have
been negotiated and agreed upon." At a amass meeting which assem-
bled at p. in. on the last-named clay, the Queen and her supporters
were condeaitned and denounced, and the committee was continued and
all its acts approved.
Later the same afternoon the committee addressed a letter to John
L. Stevens, the American minister at Honolulu, slat that the lives
and property of the people were in peril and appealing to him and the
1lnited States threes at his command for assistance. This eommunica-
tiun concluded "we are linable to protect ourselves without aid, and
tiicreture hope h,r the protection of the United States forces." Uu
receipt of this letter Mr. Stevens requested Capt. Wittse. commander
of the iT. S. S. Boston, to land a force "for the protection of the United
States legation. hinted Stales consulate, and to secure the safety of
Ann lite and property." The well armed troops,accompanied by
two gatling guns. were promptly landed and marched through the
quiet streets of lttntolulu to a public hall, previously secured by Mr.
Stevens for their accommodation. This hall was.just across the street
trout the Government building. and in plain view of the Queen's palace.
The reason for thus locating the military will presently appear. The
governor of the Island immediately addressed to Mr. Stevens a com-
inntticat-ion prot esting against the act as an unwarranted invasion of
llawaiian soil and reminding hint that the proper ant horities had never
denied permission to the naval forces of the United States to land for
drill or any other proper purpose.
d:,9
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
About the same time the Queen's minister of foreign affairs sent a
note to Mr. Stevens asking why the troops had been landed and
informing him that the proper authorities were able and willing to
afford full protection to the American legation and all American inter-
ests in Honolulu. Only evasive replies were sent to these communica-
tions.
While there were no manifestations of excitement or alarm in the
city, and the people were ignorant of the contemplated movement, the
committee entered the Government building, after first ascertaining
that it was unguarded, and read a proclamation declaring that the
existing Government was overthrown and a Provisional Government
established in its place, 1Cto exist until terms of union with the United
States of America have been negotiated and agreed upon?' No
audience was present when the proclamation was read, but during
the reading 40 or 50 men, some of them intlillerently armed, entered.
the room. The executive and advisory councils mentioned in the
proclamation at once addressed a communication to Mr. Stevens,
informing him that the monarchy had been abrogated and a provi-
sional government established. This communication concluded:
Such Provisional Government has been proclaimed,is now in possession of the
Gown-tumult departmental buildings,the archives,and the treasury,and is in control
of the City, We hereby request that you will,on behalf of the United States,recog-
nize it as the existing de facto Government of the Hawaiian Islands and afford to it
the moral support of your Government,and,if necessary,the support of American
troops to assist in preserving the public peace. -
On receipt of this communication, Mr. Stevens immediately recog
nized the new Government, and, in a letter addressed to Sanford B.
Dole, its President, inffirmed him that he had done so. Mr. Dole
replied:
GovEuNUENT BUILDING,
Honolulu,January 17,1893.
Sin: I acknowledge reecippt of your valued communication of this day,recognizing
the Hawaiian Provisional Government,and express deep appreciation of the same.
We have conferred with the ministers of the late Government, and have made
demand upon the marshal to surrender the station house. We are not actually yet
in posession of the station house, but as night is approaching and our forces may be
insufficient to maintain order, we request the immediate support of the United
States forces, and would request that, the commander of the United States forces
take command of our military forces,so that they may act together for the protec-
tion of the city.
Respectfully,yours,
SANFORD B.DOLE,
Chairman Executive Council.
His Excellency JOnN L. STEVENS,
Unittd states Minister Resident.
Note of Mr.Sterne at the end of the above communication.
The above request not complied with.
STEVENS.
The station house was occupied by a well-armed force, under the
command of a resolute capable,officer. The same afternoon the Queen,
her ministers, representatives of the Provisional Government, and
others held a conference at the palace. Refusing to recognize the new
authority or surrender to it, she was informed that the Provisional
Government had the support of the American minister, and, if neces-
sary,would be maintained by the military force of the United States
then present; that any demonstration on her part would precipitate a
conflict with that force; that she could not,with hope of success,engage
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 461
in war with the 1'nitt l Stales. and that reii-staunch Nccitltl it;sntt in t:
useless sacrifice of lift'. ilr. Damon. one of the chief leaders of the
ntovcinent, and afterwards vice-president of the Provisional Govern-
ment. informed the Queen that site could surrender under protest and
her case would he considered later at Washington. Believing.that,
under the circumstal.ces, submission was a ditty, and that her ease
mould be fairly tcnttsideted by the President of the United States, the
Queen filially yielded and sent to the. Provisional Government the
paper, which reads:
t, l.iln tnitsni,by the qr:w,of God and under the eonstitattion of the Hawaiian
Kingdom, t?cee t=, ,i..in i,ht mole eddy protest against snit and all act;;dome against
nt;.t.-lt" sail. the e-uuatitutineil eiio e-runuea of the Hainan
Fit .•.lon by certain
persons el imit::, , tebli-hi e i'rry tonal Government of
and for this
kingdom.
rem I yield to the or of the t'nited States of:ltoerica,whose minister
17+nit„t.nr,:ere, ins e s: �llru+ .mi-dt 1. '^it't uns, haz csmed Unite 1 late)t-,tates troops to
ho, landed rat Iloti bnio in rh-a 1,,r(-4 that.ht,would.ipport the provisional Govern_
went.
Now, to aye,id and-e olli,,inn of armed f erce' and perhaps the loss of life. I do,
under this t.n.te'4t.and impelled by said 101,4,, yb-i l Illy nnthority until swill time tts
tiie I.o,ernnu-snt vl the• t it-.,;ati np,t the fa,t'.loots,pre:vented to it.undo
the action of it,re-pr∎• it live:+net reinstate ito,and the:authority which I ilium as
the coustit.etttottal;my etMein of t,h., Haevinan Islands.
pelt this paix,r owls prepared at the conclusion of the conference,
and signed by the Queen and her ministers. a number of persons,
including; one or store representatives of the l'rovi.sional Government,
who were still present and understood its contents, by their silence, at
least. aneluicsned in its t,ttetueuts. anal. When it was carried to Presi-
eleilt Bole. he indorsed upon it. Received from the hands of the late
cabinet this 17th day of January. 1sc,13." without challenging the truth
f any oh'it, usvertiuns. Illdied. it was not claimed on the lath day of
January, or fur sonic titue thereafter, by iuty of the designated officers
of the Pro; i.I.ional Government or any annexationist that the Queen
surrendered otherwise thus as stated in her protest.
In his dispatch to Mr. )?usher of January 1 5. describing the so-called
revolution, Mi•, Sti'Veus saws.:
i'ht ronnuittee-otton it I it Ii Iii toib p. veissima iithe(torcat•ttmentimild-
.rtz.:rr.Lis e..and :,>-.-ut—, and :le:tailed the prod sional Government at the head of
nor d l aft ed-iti,. 'this tieing an ascot ',h-t fact,I promptly recognized
Hie Provisional Ihi' -rani.-tot a.. tree.d. la,ite govetau:ent of the I'Iaw.rian Islands.
In Sect el itry F oster's communication of February 15 to t he President,
hat bcltrre hint the treaty of annexation. with the view to obtaining
theadviee and c.ttr:,.int of the Senate Ihctretu. he siiVS:
At the time the foot ivioo;l II,:ve=rruu,•nt took pcs■ssion of the Government build-
in.rue tro,e,p.:nr ,ttt,-.,r,Of'.i:<,1 sued States were prevent or took any part whatever
in II," roco:<nitiuw Was ttce orclett ht the Provisional Govern-
nant hr• nnui,ter until after the Iq uce'nv a Ili i.kation, and When
tio-v worn in otl"ectir.- pns'essiot of rho I■orertmtent bnileiiw„ rho archives, the
Ii--taurc, -the ttarraok•i, the, atotito station, and .u;l the potential machinery of the
i iiieern went,
Iingaage is fituud in an official letter addressed to Secretar3,
poster on Foln•n;tt;v :t by the special commissioners sent to Washing-
ton by the Provisional I.ovcrntttcttt to negotiate a treaty of annexa-
tion.
These statements arc utterly at variance with flue cvidenee, docu-
mentary and oral, contained in .fir. Rhinut's reports. 'Titer are contra-
dicted by declarations and letters of President Bole and other anrtexa-
tiottLsts and by Mr. Stevens's own verbal admissions to Mr. Blount.
I -1 11 I', 1,1n)%
'111, 1'royisil,,l;,1 Itio I riu,It;•1I :c;i> Ii „t',I yvhill It 1.1a11 little ,11114•t
111;1;1 ;1 l ;i' : 1'S;•1e'11re•. :uid V.11011 ill ' 'W-..2.01;11:1(1' guverunu'ut IIas IIl
i1;11 toesse-sinll lultln! of ill, 1)aifirl tlitr au11 Lill' polite
alit( tlu' tlircateIliug pet=,
"Hoc 1)1'the fnrri= i;ui,lt•,I 1 I�,I11 the f ,.t±,;it' '.,a1 :ill 11111 e,.n1111 thou 11:11'1'
('.:,,,•i1e11 serious .11• ,i'chc'u,i n Ill the lltiielk •l1 tilt' Q11110.11, Iles' utlirers,
:I l,el 1ftl;ii su,,ln,1t t'i't:,
It 11 halt' 1,I ,11y that ;I;0e1111'11i$ we', I,;I,;I'II upon
11)1,0 111;)T1);), ,,tilt1, lit' Lid reut-iV-t ,1 'root 111, Strveus aui1 11w speeinl
eutIitiiF li,htt'I'.,. ;,III 1 :ill( Illiai,ll' Iii • 'i' hit WtIt' lletl'iviui. Tho•
lI'tarli.� A1i'tt' 1.03;i1,-ti, lint 1,1 I,t„Ir•I ,Anli'ti,all 1111' alit( 1,1't,111'rtV, 1,111 Ili
11111 n 101 1'1 1.1.1/W llm ey r ill, roytrrullie:I , Their 'cry 11rea'uce
11111,11(.11 ii,tet't'l\'t' ille;t,lir/•�. .1 ;1111,1 it. C
1 u a 1-t x t t'i u l-I 1: , j.t'tl Iti 11r. liit,ul,t,its .ALhuiral SI<c•rrt'tt, ther;ulitiug
tilt Ill 1)i1]c1't 'lt 1.1,11inlll)
I l tiie lr.".1... c c t.;,• Liu f �,aav ,,� (,rot_,[. .\n, tit�iiu citi7,',ir.:lntl iii 'r ,'i i, they
w,'te 1,3(1:;, -iii ii-l ill-1rt.„i F 1,1!_ `0u1 :I t,li.. litiOi, slit( the I'r,tvitiiii,:11
re ti ,
11:11l N%-as su t'itItII 11 tlla[ ilia• troops in it eeasily rnuinlattileti
the (evirllna'nt I,11;hliu,, ;roll Ilit' 11rn1'latuatiurl ts'as real( Inlllcr the
tu`nteetiun of Anu'rit;ul ,un,, :At :ell e,lrit sta e 1tt' the tneverntnt, it
Bert ;lt the iti'iinllui . 111, :-..:tevt'li, ilrtiniist•il the :ulnexlltiunist., that
;In 1(1(111. as tlu'v '11(111 1it•II 1),,ss,sse,11 1.11 I.he (iUYI'1'1i111eiit Iillillllug awl
I here• real( a pruilalllat inn ul' the t'll;tractor ;ti)ive• rcti'.rrill to,he N°unitl
:t1 inlet 1.1.'ru ill/e F)li'i11 ;et ii tit° Ill /it guAtl'Ii111e11t, 41111 'tIlli1,Urt theta 1ty
I;ul,tiur ;l f„gee bill(( (,ur '\ilr sill!, then in the haShur,tllll1 he kept that
lrr,llui.:e. fhl, a.,lulanee lia,, the LII5piri1titlu of till' unl\GUnint,, anti
Si Ili/Mot, it I lit' atinexatiurtisl l Actrlliil Utti; have e Xit t(nil I IIemIIselves le
tuu.Ht;llnt'tiec'tit'luilurl', l'hec relict! iii 1(11 no nlilit;lr\ turr'ltuf their
mill, for Ilse•V` hind non, V1ol'l IIC it illy milli', The I'rovisi inal (;•,A'erll
nient was i'I it lislietl I1\ Lhr aetinu of the .lweri(':tii minister and the
Itt't',t'nec et' the lrnui the and its t'utltiuneel exist
curt' is (lilt• to the' L lief ell ill Il;nvai1:k 1 butt It (het' Iliad(' Iii ttl'n'l
tit uv`t'rrtlt ti .. the armed Freers it the (;lintel
1.44:11cs.
Chi=eartie:,t 1 , ihi Aiwa-wan minister for militat'yhrutt't'iirlii
by tail• ,,(lu`t'e- 1.1 t11:11 tr,',l'r llllit'Ilt, .titl'I` It II;1i1 llrell ]'erugiiti,t,t L, 1111 r',i
i he lilt,•! lilt=nniil} „1 tie,' I'1,11111 i Ii;It it vs;l n,st,uillishntI h a slttt't',sfell
It•vn111111tit 1■1'tltr Ili•„lilt'„fIit Islanlh,. 1'lnrle;iliiit'llI l\crt+:1 tarnfrllit,u
1,1 tl:e nl,'ti IV`1!it 111,1111.rio ili,rt (h■ll'lyrnh i"..-;i1i(i 111111111ty, ('Otll;lg•tln.-
u: 'u, ell „tip, lit' !iii -.H..11_;:1 li .1 WI Ills' Irl<ilr,t .11 f lit':' 1'311,'r, 11u nut
thus :let.. Ii i; licit, loot rl;iinit'(I t-hat, a 111ltnrItV u1 the peuirh'. h:lying
,
t 1,' dill t(. vutr lilt,u'r .lit• ,t,n,tltlrtu)ti „t' et et' t;i v!,i°eel the t�.:sa.
in,antii,u itV Ol':coo,x l =,,1t; To tlii_, r:ulv ,traler i•r,itntrv. I'E1t' t:lt°nt .tiv
1e<ire Fliii ill(' 2.„It11 lr lit their t;11t,1,1. ;hail lit' ri',t,irid awl its
int11'ht'ielttli-e 1`i"x'lnv-lrtl.
Mr. 1l1t1iliit : l ll;lr tt 111(','l a
;111 I11`Sali,iIii�t '.1litl the ,1llt',liltl1 iit 11
Vtlti'. ()ft lie.)I? e. II„1'111,1 11.' t;iil; tV 11111 Ill.'toll lh;il ,llhlev't W1.14)11111 rtnl
1n"l'tt that. i;•t!I, Iii:„tt,l I+"rr, arl.e>,,'(1 .;trill t ,11 ,li1tt lu' n 1'1,1 (41
II, Ft. gill, t'ilt,li,ti+`t '.F lt,lt ill!,'! ,ill 11111tt'1,
;Illlle'<at „il:,=t:` ,i.,A`1• i'HI.,.l:t'1111 tli;ulr ±iltll t'z :si.etrlllt'tltl 111 till' 1111111'1
`,I
Flit' (.iilv't'illilli'tlI 1,f I1att,I;I :111 re'hi lt'rt`,1 :I :liltll,t'.'ity meter a threat
to vvar liltlil such ten ,. !hi' F;t vi'rniur'u( „I the 1'1100,1 t;lt1's•
lllh!II tilt( I I,'IS Heil( 11I't�eiitt'(I t■, it, lhi'tuustilultil111a.1
I-':111':111:1\ T�t,Atil! '. lti i
sovereign. and the 1'rUylslenal ( tireriunet was created “to exist until
teiatis ut Ittlion ith the l`ititetl State<ul .Auleric:t hays been ricg,utiated
;111(1 iigtcctf upon."' :A ■•t11et11l consideration of the facts frill. I think.
c(nlrince you that the irr:tl■ wlliell w':i.s lvitidr;t■'n trout the Sensate, for
further consideration shnuld not he resulimil led for its action there(in.
Should not the great wrung (blue to :( feeble but iudclrcuduut Stttte
by an :ilnise of the uutluirity of the l"nittvl Mates hn undone by restor-
ing the legitimate government? .Anything short of that will not, 1
ri•spcettillt) submit. .atisfV the cictirami.s ut.justice.
('an the l tiited States consistently insist that stiller nation, shall
c:.p('ct tit«• independence(it littwitii while not respecting i[ themselves!
(■uF \ray the tir.;t to reef■Lrnjle Ihe indep(•u(lence of the
islands and it should he the last to at•quite sovereignty over them by
lures anll fraud.
Respectfully submitted.
NV. Q. G1tt,:sae t.
Mr. (art.r!atly fit :111..
No. 4.1 LI:a'3It'iM1:\T of STATE.
11.(lshirtfito71, Uuhp/rt'
ilttu Sulapltinenting thegeuerai instructions which you Itave received
with regard Io your ()llinial duties, it is necessary to l ttlitltlillllil•ate. to
you, in confidence. Speci:ll insIritrtinuy for your guitlative in so tar as
concern, the eelutioil of the Government of tlic 1'tiitetl States tow-arits
the iL,= eef, Government of the Ilavvaiian Islands.
The l'resitletit dpruletl it his duty to withdraw foul' the Senate the
treatV it ;ttlueN:lt.t in ,vhirii has been signed by the Secretary of Stu[t•
and (tiC it the I'iiil laitill:d(ioret•Iliuuellt,:itiil toduSpntt'11:1 tl'llSii?(1
read rctieu t;t ti�`i•. to li:iwai: to impartially ins t•sti gate the causes of the.
nn-calle(1 revolution ;Intl a eel'tain aJttl teptil't the.title SItit atl()11 111 those
\shuts. '1''his iti►urnlittiuu Is-as !ceded Y:he better to enable the I'reSi
dent to discll n e a lelieate and iiilp0Ft:flit, public duty.
The iu:•tructil uis riven to Ur. Mount.of which you Are trirnislicd with
a cUpy. point out a line of i iinti lI t to bG Oii,el`yeI 1i■ llltil iii his Oi11etL11
and personal relations oil the i;I;ultis, hti w hula viii vrill be guided so
tar as iti ■ arc yMlle il.do and nut iut'unNI<tent w Olt what is herein
i itllt:illl(:(l.
l t relnaJliS in iii ltll;tllu- t fill wltIi the 1'i't' :tlelit S t'diilt'lllSl(111. 01 1)11 t-lte
I�tct r•lubuilil•,! its Mr. Iticiunt's reports :11111 to direct, your eouiSe. iu
ai+nordanee there tsilli.
'flie I'rtn i,iun; 1 (urernnit•hit w-as not established ht the 11 in 11iiltl
people. or with their eou;elit of accluieseence. nor has it .since,e5i 4tsd
t i"n t h spelt e t l l l i:e l I t. The t‘t i l t t'.n refused t o.,,uu u'elltll'J' llel' plity l'I'S tip the
l ulat 151111;;11 (iwVi l:11101il 111Lt11 (1,11\Hired i hats the inini,te1•iii the 1;nttetl
Stites hail ri rugtiiied :1 a the i/r fiic(n :u;thurih. ;IUII would support
utlil d •ti'iid it a Lth tn' uiilit;u's- farce if hi' . :Old that
resistanee would precipwite a bloody 11/11111,1 N%it niree. she was
atiytsect :lnd :i=,hired by her ministers :old lit le:iilers of the move-
ntrnt for the overihrii v iii' liiat riiia•ulinn?tlt. that if she sturendeted
luitl •r protest Lur case would ;iftcrwar■ts be hi it - coti iilercit by the
i'rcsident of the United taies. The (,well finally w'ISely yielded to
the armed forces of the h nited States then 1ll(arteretl in Iinnollllii,
reh lug upon the good taith alrl hiuuur of the 1'residetit; when iLd'ormcd
461 IIAvVAtlflNIZt,:yfl
of 111'1.1: had necnrrttl. 1(1 undo I In, action 1ri the nliui:;tl'r :Intl IliiliStattl
her and the autlll,ril t vcllirh she t'la!tne<l as lent jnniti v rei ri
1t tht:. 1I.1vt;uiau to;iu41�.
Alter a patient I`S:llilliatlull 1'1 "It'. report,:lt:, 11111'l•(';:Itletll:1:
;•:Iii'Iii tl that 1I;,+ ii tt\t'lllt'lll :I H.iiii I tlil•. ( III•ru, it nt;t 111 '11 :its 1. Vta�
4`IItt1111liiLtil :i11,1 SIlltlturl 1,,1. Ii', 1.Ile i'e.1til$t'ntall\L' rii• I hl•■ 1.iny■l•111111•llt
t Ilnnulnlu; tll:ll h, iit',t!ni•s,•,I i1' :Itivanlc to :till 111'1" 1'111.11111'~ ill all
i•Ilnl-l- Ii, i, i'rtlu,115' lilt' iltluniiau (;nVtTIliii alit auii tt•i 1111 irk' 11101'1 a
,11A`I'1 Illlli'lii ill AS 10;1,1': :Mil tital It I.1'lll titi t 1,1`UIII!TI' iry i•ans
Iug a tI ii i iinlellt tt tr,lulls. to 11, ;111111'11 11111'1 the R„sr„ri In the lt;tll
"f ,Ittllnar'•`• and 11\' ret•li;4lli/.ill',.{ (Ile l'r(1\itiil111a1 1;11\l+r111111t11 1111\ next.
11x1 1v'11'.11 it wa. I,i ■ 11•1•ll14 to Ileti ut1 its1'11 Mid the ctltl,:ritlititinal g1'v.
erllillellt 1Sa, :11110 it' surrl' .,I•n111 111i11111;1111 Its allihufltt :1l':iiuu tt :ttlt-
IIireii hint, 1'1101",• iii it'r II1:i1) that of the 1;11111.11 SI:IIes 11hra11ti' ;►n(tetl.
1'hr t'r, :i,ll1'i hati Iitt•rt'I'tu'i' lh•ternliul11 Islet lit. will I111t send hail:
to 1111' I`Il;lle 1110 Its action Ihi•I't'tllt slit• I re,iI \1Hill 11,' ttii hill Wit ir,tii
(hilt 111)111` 11'1' 1111'1111'1' i•Iill`1111'I':It11111 MI tilt !II II ,l:tti ,it `ll;ilt•1l it'I.
tin your :iii :ii :it II ti, luiu 1,111 •■i11 I:il i' advantage or 1i11
,i llltt,rt tilillt 101' i.IIiit ih frlItti ltatlnll, ina1,111 lilllrwll
It, her tilt' I'lt-l Ir•nt•s . incerl” 0'•11,1 lino the r,•l,rt•ill•n.;jl,i,• Litllllllt•t tit
the Am/irk-Ail minister aiitl the nirintlinrir,•,i presence nil 1111,1 n('It
t:try lial't•, nt the I [Cited `t:ltes ul)lig, tl. 1.1,'r tit surrender 11,11'>iiVI;rt•t;;lit,\,
I'm' ;lie 111111? I11'I II . ::1111 1'4'11 ell 1111° .JIi'li 'i• ill IIii (iut l•rit111t'Itt fir 1111111'
1 111;0
11111. 11U\tC1er. .tt tiler -ant, Liru inf'1,I II flit' (II1f1'n that, When
rt•lll t:itt•it. Iii' 1'l, . tltlit r•-Cllrrls that -ht' will lrnr nl' 1 nt:l milinilun;
rtutt•ae trt. ;;ranlin; lull 1111'1'.•=.it' t.it ail what participated j1' the iirite-
lacnt .tr:linNt.Li:,r, including pers ils \Ow art•, nr havi hei•n, ulliei:lll}' nr
1'l
1lel')V'i:se.t.t,tltti'1•It•tl tt 1111 1.III. 1'IY)\1S11IIrt1 („It''llili11'111,,11'1101\'IIt 1 111.111
1'l nn llrlll nr li11111I i• N11I1°11 they i`11i1'■-+•tl 111'1,•1'1' the s1' 1':1l11',1 I'i•■Ullt-
tit•u. silt .tltli flit'— rrl'ate,l ht- tli • 1'r,lvI...i„ual (iutt'1'lunent ill till,
(71-i11111l:lli-1I:II 1 ,II shullltl ill' ;1.S.'lllll,•Il.
lit t. •I•r111*,11 I III` (tlllel•I1'.: A flte11it III li 111Ir;ill) 111i:4 1V'i,ll atitl
huuulue 1it,lict', \titu h it is helii 'i',I you tr 111111111. 11111 will
111'11 I1t1\is", till 1•S1'1'1111Vr 1't I lil I'1'nvishtli iI 01'1'„1...it( awl hjs 111111 '--
it'r ..t th,• l'I P�.Iilel'I':.l hi'lt-u Initial loll 01 1111. ,hit's;Utl1 t'.'Illt'h illi.'II' action
;Ilitl illlil 111 111c 1.,11,411 lit'.\ultl'11 1111111'. 111111. Cl ll.,i t li;rt tl11•t :14"t' 1.\Iil•I'I∎•t1
11' 11rtlltllil ll' 1'1.1;1111111,11 it her her ,"1thitititut!11II:11 :lllth'•l'lt■
Should the (t)•11-,'11 ih`t'line. I1' 1rllr,11l. Llit iliu•r;ll ,'t ilrit all;$l ti'I, til'
ill, llitl I.l;i' lull\t.}lull{Il (iUSi'I'111111'nt 01`111-t• i t A1)Iilt,. I,\' IIii l'ri'.ltl1'tit'.s
1'1•,'l it,n. ti 1'u will rt•i,1)1 r th, I•a''1,-• stud :tit ii 1.11111it-i 1111.1 r1u,n .
1.11 earl?,to g ,tut.. I IIe$C ;;1'11,!'1'111 111i-tl'lll•.t tills 1'1111 \t Ill 1,1'1I11111'1i l•ll'„t,'l '
11tV it good joiLisiiient III il1`;11111 N li ii the (11'111':111• '',11 Hal jell.
I lily (-1''. 11111r '1hi'tlient servant,
11 . 1,. l1,l:1 11A)1.
:110. ( r,.tlttrur i,■ air.
tl'ul ' I ,u iii l I I s 11:;111' Ir11'1311.1
1).1".r.‘1, iEA'I' IIF STATE,
The 1 it t,i, ••0111'. :u t• ernh:ul l ,�ir1,.
1',:i;1 IN 111,1,1 11101111 ;.(ti 111•-I\ ;111,1 rt•t'4i;'11111'11 lit' I.tillj•':l..tin11;, 111
I i, J li!Ila.l (i,n\u-i'Illnelii ri. lul'al:loll. MI
illilitt1i4S will iii t'1) 1t 't1 ht' Inionlllt Art 14,11.
IV. (1,l, (i l l>s11 151.
w ( _,-„. 3
fr
gil CO*
.n'�i�`�'►�m"•°iyr_ DR.DAVID KEANU SAI,PH.D.
yd „tr. M`'` Ambassador-at-large for the Hawaiian Kingdom
--4, D' P.O.Box 2194
: Honolulu,H1 96805-2194
1 � � =r z�1 I�u�a'� Tel:(808)383-6100
.,.t``i A,. 4 E-mail:interior @hawaiiankingdom.org
t^t Website:http://hawaiiankingdom.org/
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
I hereby acknowledge the receipt of the following documents from the
Ambassador-at-large for the Hawaiian Kingdom deposited with the President of the
United Nations General Assembly pursuant to Article 35(2) of the United Nations
Charter:
1. Protest and Demand dated 9 August 2012; and
2. CD of PDF files of Annexes to the Protest and Demand.
° - (d iv., - ( -',
(Signature) .
1 ku `_J- -
(Date) J
i Ai,i, Hanifa Mezoui, PhD
-4_\I" '' Special
hi d(Commit Committee and Civil Society
"N---- Office of the President of the Sixty-Sixth
Session of the General Assembly
T (+1-212)963-3573
United Nations C (+1-917)238-2714
Room:NL-2082 T F (+1-212)963-3301
New York, NY 10017 E mezouih @un.org
Exhibit "5"
VN- DR.DAVID KEANU SAI PH.D.
•, Ambassador-at-large for the Hawaiian Kingdom
kphA I P.O.Box 2194
it I Honolulu,HI 96805-2194
� �
Tel (808)383-6100
�i,�1�� II!r
E-mail:interior @hawaiiankingdom.org
Website:http://hawaiiankingdom.org/
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
I hereby acknowledge the receipt of the followingdocuments from the
Ambassador-at-large for the Hawaiian Kingdomdeposited with the Executive Secretary
of the Group of 77 at the United Nations:
1. Protest and Demand dated 9 August 2012 deposited with the President of the
United Nations General Assembly pursuant to Article 35(2) of the United Nations
Charter; and
2. CD of PDF files of Annexes to the Protest and Demand.
•
(Signa
b8 /-4o f 2oi2
(Date)
Exhibit "6"
��. ► DR.DAVID KEANU SAI,PH.D.
i _ o-\ Ambassador-at-large for the Hawaiian Kingdom
ia' i�c P.O.Box 2194
kl:riL—A,— ti•. HenoIulu,HI 96805-2194
�1
'` Tel:(808)383-6100
R E-mail:interior@hawaiiankingdom.org
:• X7_7- �
'`tiv v�yi=_z Website:http://hawaiiankingdom.org/
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
I hereby acknowledge the receipt of the followingdocuments from the
Ambassador-at-large for the Hawaiian Kingdomdeposited with the Executive Secretary
of the Council of Presidentsof the United Nations:
1. Protest and Demand dated 9 August 2012 deposited with the President of the
United Nations General Assembly pursuant to Article 35(2)of the United Nations
Charter; and
2. CD of PDF files of Annexes to the Protest and Demand.
Z.e)
(Signature)
/ b 1)o 1 / Z
(Date)
Exhibit "7"
+.. � Nk DAVID KEANU SAI,PH.D.
`o. Ambassador-at-large for the Hawaiian Kingdom
j P.O.Box 2194
a.. . � „a Honolulu,HI 96805-2194
ire hi:915--- __H:-=-111 �� TeL(808)383-6100
,7 - ' E-mail:interior(whawaiiankingdom.org
smc Website:http://hawaiiankingdom.org/
August 9,2012
Excellency:
In accordance with Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter, I have the honor
on behalf of the acting government, to bring to the attention of the United Nations
General Assembly,by its President,a Protest and Demand of the prolonged occupation of
the Hawaiian Kingdom,being a non-Member State of the United Nations,attached herein
together with a CD of PDF files of Annexes to the Protest and Demand and other
pertinent documents. The Hawaiian Kingdom achieved the recognition of its
independence as a sovereign State on November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation from
Great Britain and France and by 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom maintained over ninety
legations and consulates throughout the world and has been a Member State of the
Universal Postal Union since January 1, 1882.
Unable to procure a treaty of cession from the Hawaiian Kingdom acquiring the
Hawaiian Islands as required by international law, the United States Congress enacted a
Joint Resolution To provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,
which was signed into law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898 during the Spanish-
American War as a war measure. The Hawaiian Kingdom came under military
occupation on August 12, 1898 at the height of the Spanish-American War, and the
occupation was justified by the United States as a military necessity in order to reinforce
and supply the troops that have been occupying the Spanish colonies of Guam and the
Philippines since May 1, 1898. Following the close of the Spanish-American War by the
1898 Treaty of Paris, U.S. troops remained in the Hawaiian Islands and continued its
illegal occupation to date in violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and
Agreement restoration, being international compacts established through exchange of
notes,the 1907 Hague Convention,IV,and the 1949 Geneva Convention,IV.
Furthering the illegal occupation, United States President McKinley signed into
United States law An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai`i on April
30, 1900; and on March 18, 1959,United States President Eisenhower signed into United
States law An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai`i into the Union.
These laws, which include the 1898 joint resolution of annexation, have no
extraterritorial effect and stand in direct violation of international law and the 1893
Lili'uokalani assignment and Agreement restoration. Actions taken against the Hawaiian
Kingdom by the United States constitutes serious international wrongful acts pursuant to
the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (2001).
I had the honor of serving as Agent for the acting Government of the Hawaiian
Kingdom in arbitral proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Larsen v.
Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 International Law Reports 566 (2001).' The Arbitral Tribunal in
the Larsen arbitration comprised of Professor James Crawford, SC, Presiding Arbitrator,
who at the same time was a member of the United Nations International Law
Commission and Special Rapporteur on State Responsibility (1997-2001); Professor
Christopher Greenwood, QC, Associate Arbitrator, who now serves as a Judge on the
International Court of Justice since February 6, 2009; and Gavan Griffith, QC, Associate
Arbitrator, who served as former Solicitor General for Australia. The jurisdictional basis
of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom was a dispute
between a State and a private person. I also served as Agent for the acting Government
when I filed a Complaint against the United States of America with the United Nations
Security Council on July 5,2001, under the Presidency of China.2
The Hawaiian Kingdom will withdraw States from this Protest and Demand,with
the exception of the United States of America, when said States shall declare, whether
individually or collectively, that they will not recognize as lawful the United States of
America's presence and authority within the territory,territorial seas,exclusive economic
zone and airspace of the Hawaiian Kingdom according to Article 41(2),Responsibility of
States for International Wrongful Acts (2001), excepting the United States' temporary
and limited authority vested by virtue of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment, Article 43 of
the 1907 Hague Convention,IV,and international law.
The Hawaiian Kingdom will be providing individual packets for the Permanent
Representatives of the named States that contain a cover letter with accompanying CD of
PDF files of the Protest and Demand and Annexes.
Please accept,Excellency,the assurances of my highest consideration,
David Keanu Sai
Bederman&Hilbert,"Arbitration—UNCITRAL Rules—justiciability and indispensable third parties—
legal status of Hawai`i,"95 American Journal of International Law 927-933(2001).
2 Patrick Dumberry,"The Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration Case and the Unsettled Question of the Hawaiian
Kingdom's Claim to Continue as an Independent State under International Law,"2(1)Chinese Journal of
International Law 655-684(2002);and David Keanu Sai,"A Slippery Path towards Hawaiian Indigeneity:
An Analysis and Comparison between Hawaiian State Sovereignty and Hawaiian Indigeneity and its Use
and Practice in Hawai'i today," 10 Journal of Law and Social Challenges 68-133(Fall 2008).
PROTEST and DEMAND
BY
THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM
FOR SERIOUS BREACHES OF
OBLIGATIONS UNDER PEREMPTORY
NORMS OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL
LAW COMMITTED BY:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AND INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL
ACTS COMMITTED BY:
AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANGOLA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA,
ARGENTINA, ARMENIA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN,
BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS,
BELGIUM, BELIZE, BENIN, BHUTAN, BOLIVIA (PLURINATIONAL
STATE OF), BOTSWANA, BRAZIL, BRUNEI DARUSSALAM,
BULGARIA, BURKINA FASO, BURUNDI, CAPE VERDE, CENTRAL
AFRICAN REPUBLIC, CHAD, CHILE, COLOMBIA, COMOROS,
CONGO, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CUBA, CYPRUS, CZECH
REPUBLIC, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA,
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI,
DOMINICA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, EGYPT, EL
SALVADOR, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, FIJI, FINLAND, FRANCE,
GABON, GAMBIA, GEORGIA, GERMANY, GHANA, GREECE,
GRENADA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUINEA-BISSAU, GUYANA,
HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, INDIA, INDONESIA,
IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF), IRAQ, IRELAND, ITALY, JAMAICA,
JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKHSTAN, KENYA, KIRIBATI, KUWAIT,
KYRGYZSTAN, LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, LATVIA,
LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, LITHUANIA,
LUXEMBOURG, MADAGASCAR, MALAWI, MALAYSIA,
MALDIVES, MALI, MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITANIA,
MAURITIUS, MEXICO, MICRONESIA (FEDERATED STATES OF),
MONTENEGRO, MOROCCO, MOZAMBIQUE, MYANMAR,
NAMIBIA, NAURU, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA,
NIGER, NIGERIA, NORWAY, PAKISTAN, PALAU, PAPUA NEW
GUINEA, PARAGUAY, PERU, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL,
QATAR, REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON, REPUBLIC OF KOREA,
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA, ROMANIA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION,
RWANDA, SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT
VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES, SAMOA, SAN MARINO, SAO
TOME AND PRINCIPE, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SEYCHELLES, SIERRA
LEONE, SINGAPORE, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS,
SOMALIA, SOUTH SUDAN, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SRI LANKA,
SUDAN, SURINAME, SWAZILAND, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND,
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, TAJIKISTAN, THAILAND, TIMOR-
LESTE, TOGO, TONGA, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TUNISIA,
TURKEY, TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU, UGANDA, UKRAINE,
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT
BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, UNITED REPUBLIC OF
TANZANIA, URUGUAY, UZBEKISTAN, VANUATU, VENEZUELA
(BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF), VIET NAM, ZAMBIA, AND
ZIMBABWE
2
PROTEST and DEMAND
9 August 2012
BY: THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,
which appoints as Agent for purposes of this Protest and Demand His Excellency Dr.
David Keanu Sai,Ph.D.,its Ambassador-at-large.
AGAINST: One hundred seventy-three (173) member States of the United Nations,
being the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANGOLA,
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, ARGENTINA, ARMENIA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA,
AZERBAIJAN, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS,
BELGIUM, BELIZE, BENIN, BHUTAN, BOLIVIA (PLURINATIONAL STATE OF),
BOTSWANA, BRAZIL, BRUNEI DARUSSALAM, BULGARIA, BURKINA FASO,
BURUNDI, CAPE VERDE, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, CHAD, CHILE,
COLOMBIA,COMOROS,CONGO,COSTA RICA,COTE D'IVOIRE,CUBA,CYPRUS,
CZECH REPUBLIC,DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA,DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICA, DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, EGYPT, EL SALVADOR, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, FIJI,
FINLAND, FRANCE, GABON, GAMBIA, GEORGIA, GERMANY, GHANA, GREECE,
GRENADA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUINEA-BISSAU, GUYANA, HAITI,
HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN (ISLAMIC
REPUBLIC OF), IRAQ, IRELAND, IRAQ, ITALY, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN,
KAZAKHSTAN, KENYA, KIRIBATI, KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAO PEOPLE'S
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, LATVIA, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA,
LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MADAGASCAR, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MALDIVES,
MALI, MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITANIA, MAURITIUS, MEXICO,
MICRONESIA (FEDERATED STATES OF), MONTENEGRO, MOROCCO,
MOZAMBIQUE,MYANMAR, NAMIBIA,NAURU,NETHERLANDS,NEW ZEALAND,
NICARAGUA, NIGER, NIGERIA, NORWAY, PAKISTAN, PALAU, PAPUA NEW
GUINEA, PARAGUAY, PERU, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL, QATAR,
REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA,
ROMANIA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, RWANDA, SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, SAINT
LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES, SAMOA, SAN MARINO, SAO
TOME AND PRINCIPE, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SEYCHELLES, SIERRA LEONE,
SINGAPORE, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOMALIA, SOUTH
SUDAN, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SRI LANKA, SUDAN, SURINAME, SWAZILAND,
SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, TAJIKISTAN, THAILAND,
TIMOR-LESTE, TOGO, TONGA, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TUNISIA, TURKEY,
3
TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU,UGANDA,UKRAINE,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, UNITED
REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA, URUGUAY, UZBEKISTAN, VANUATU, VENEZUELA
(BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF),VIET NAM,ZAMBIA,ZIMBABWE.
I. LEGAL GROUNDS
(1) "A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention
of the...General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for
the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present
Charter," Article 35(2), U.N. Charter. The Hawaiian Kingdom accepts the obligations of
pacific settlement (Annex 1).
(2) Violations of the principle that a State may not exercise its authority on the
territory of another State and of the principle of sovereign equality among all States
whether members on non-members of the United Nations.
(3) "There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that
State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its
origin or character," Article 12, Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts
(2001).
(4) "The State responsible for the internationally wrongful act is under an obligation
(a) to cease that act, if it is continuing; (b) to offer appropriate assurances and guarantees
of non-repetition, if circumstances so require," Article 30, Responsibility of States for
International Wrongful Acts (2001).
(5) "The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury
caused by the international wrongful act," Article 31(1), Responsibility of States for
International Wrongful Acts (2001).
(6) "Injury includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the
internationally wrongful act of a State," Article 31(2), Responsibility of States for
International Wrongful Acts (2001).
(7) "The responsible State may not rely on the provisions of its internal law as
justification for failure to comply with the obligations," Article 32, Responsibility of
States for International Wrongful Acts (2001).
(8) "Full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take
the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination,"
Article 34,Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (2001).
(9) "A breach of such an obligation is serious if it involves a gross or systematic
failure by the responsible State to fulfill the obligation," Article 40(2), Responsibility of
States for International Wrongful Acts (2001).
4
(10) "States shall cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious
breach within the meaning of article 40," Article 41(1), Responsibility of States for
International Wrongful Acts (2001).
(11) "No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within
the meaning of article 40, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation,"
Article 41(2),Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (2001).
II. NATURE OF THE CLAIM
This case arises out of the prolonged and illegal occupation of the entire territory of
the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States of America since the Spanish-American War
on August 12, 1898, and the failure on the part of the United States of America to
establish a direct system of administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. There are
currently 119 United States military sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands encompassing
230,622 acres of land under the command and control of the United States Pacific
Command whose headquarters is situated on the Island of O`ahu. These military sites
have been illegally established within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and have
consequently placed the Hawaiian State and its population in grave danger from military
attack by foreign States, e.g. Japan's military attack of United States military sites on the
Island of O`ahu on December 7, 1941, and the threat of missile attacks from China, the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea,and the Russian Federation.
The United States disguised its occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom as if a treaty of
cession annexed the Hawaiian Islands. There is no treaty. For the past 114 years, the
United States of America has committed a serious international wrongful act and
deliberately misled the international community that the Hawaiian Islands had been
incorporated into the territory of the United States. It has unlawfully imposed its internal
laws over Hawaiian territory, which includes its territorial seas, its exclusive economic
zone, and its airspace, in violation of its treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the 1907
Hague Convention,IV,the 1949 Geneva Convention,IV,and international law.
The Hawaiian Kingdom herein files this Protest and Demand as a non-member State
pursuant to Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter against the aforementioned
member States for the violation of treaties and international law and calls upon the United
Nations General Assembly:
1. To ensure the United States of America comply with the 1893
Lili`uokalani assignment&Agreement of restoration, 1899 Hague
Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and international law,
as hereinafter described;
2. To ensure that the United States of America establishes a military
government, to include tribunals,to administer and enforce the civil and
penal laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom pursuant to the 1893 Lili`uokalani
5
assignment and Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, as
hereinafter described;
3. To ensure that all member States of the United Nations shall not recognize
as lawful the United States of America's presence and authority within the
territory, territorial seas, exclusive economic zone and airspace of the
Hawaiian Kingdom, except for its temporary and limited authority vested
under the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and Article 43 of the 1907 Hague
Convention, IV, as hereinafter described;
4. To ensure full reparation for the injury caused by the serious breach of
obligations and internationally wrongful acts in the form of restitution,
compensation and satisfaction,whether singly or in combination.
III. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Hawaiian Kingdom received the recognition of its independence and sovereignty
by joint proclamation from the United Kingdom and France on November 28, 1843
(Annex 2),and by the United States of America on July 6, 1844 (Annex 3).At the time of
the recognition of Hawaiian independence, the Hawaiian Kingdom's government was a
constitutional monarchy that developed a complete system of laws, both civil and
criminal, and have treaty relations of a most favored nation status with the major powers
of the world,including the United States of America.
A. PERMANENT POPULATION
According to Professor Crawford, "If States are territorial entities, they are also
aggregates of individuals. A permanent population is thus necessary for statehood,
though,as in the case of territory,no minimum limit is apparently prescribed."` Professor
Giorgetti explains, "Once recognized, States continue to exist and be part of the
international community even if their population changes. As such,changes in one of the
fundamental requirements of statehood do not alter the identity of the State once
recognized."'
The population of the Hawaiian Islands can but be
studied by one unfamiliar with the native tongue from its
several census reports. A census is taken every six years.
The last report is for the year 1890. From this it appears
that the whole population numbers 89,990. This number
includes natives, or, to use another designation, Kanakas,
half-castes (persons containing an admixture of other than
native blood in any proportion with it), Hawaiian-born
foreigners of all races or nationalities other than natives,
' James Crawford,The Creation of States in International Law,2"d ed.(Oxford,2006),52.
Chiara Giorgetti,A Principled Approach to State Failure(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2010),55
6
Americans, British, Germans, French, Portuguese,
Norwegians,Chinese,Polynesians,and other nationalities.
Americans number 1,928; natives and half-castes,
40,612; Chinese, 15,301; Japanese, 12,360; Portuguese,
8,602; British, 1,344; Germans, 1,034; French, 70;
Norwegians, 227; Polynesians, 588; and other foreigners
419.
It is well at this point to say that of the 7,495 Hawaiian-
born foreigners 4,117 are Portuguese, 1,701 Chinese and
Japanese, 1,617 other white foreigners, and 60 of other
nationalities?
The permanent population has exceedingly increased since the 1890 census and
according to the last census in 2011 by the United States that number is now at
1,374,810.4 International law, however, protects the status quo of the national population
of an occupied State during occupation. According to Professor von Glahn, "the
nationality of the inhabitants of occupied areas does not ordinarily change through the
mere fact that temporary rule of a foreign government has been instituted, inasmuch as
military occupation does not confer de jure sovereignty upon an occupant.Thus under the
laws of most countries, children born in territory under enemy occupation possess the
nationality of their parents,that is,that of the legitimate sovereign of the occupied area."5
Any individual today who is a direct descendent of a person who lawfully acquired
Hawaiian citizenship prior to the U.S. occupation that began at noon on August 12, 1898,
is a Hawaiian subject. Hawaiian law recognizes all others who possess the nationality of
their parents as part of the alien population.
B. DEFINED TERRITORY
According to Judge Huber, "Territorial sovereignty...involves the exclusive right to
display the activities of a State.'Crawford also states, "Territorial sovereignty is not
ownership of but governing power with respect to territory.'
The laws are obligatory upon all persons, whether subjects
of this kingdom,or citizens or subjects of any foreign State,
while within the limits of this kingdom, except so far as
exception is made by the laws of nations in respect to
Ambassadors or others. The property of all such persons,
United States House of Representatives,53rd Congress,Executive Documents on Affairs in Hawaii: 1894-
95,(Government Printing Office, 1895),539
2011 Population Estimates.United States Census Bureau,Population Division.
Gehard von Glahn,The Occupation of Enemy Territory:A Commentary on the Law and Practice of
Belligerent Occupation(University of Minnesota Press 1957),60.
'Island of Palmas Case, 1 RIAA 829,839(Arbitrator Huber)4 ILR 3(1928), 103, 108, 110, 111,113,114,
418,479,482,487.492.
Crawford,56.
7
while such property is within the territorial jurisdiction of
this kingdom,is also subject to the laws.'
The Islands constituting the defined territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17,
1893,together with its territorial seas whereby the channels between adjacent Islands are
contiguous,its exclusive economic zone of two hundred miles,and its air space,include:
Island: Location: Square Miles/Acreage:
Hawaii 19°30' N 155°30' W 4,028.2/2,578,048
Maui 20°45' N 156°20'W 727.3 /465472
Oahu 21° 30' N 158°00' W 597.1 / 382,144
Kauai 22°03' N 159°30' W 552.3 /353,472
Molokai 21°08' N 157°00' W 260.0/ 166,400
Lana`i 20°50' N 156°55' W 140.6/ 89,984
Ni`ihau 21° 55' N 160° 10' W 69.5 /44,480
Kaho`olawe 20°33' N 156°35' W 44.6/28,544
Nihoa 23°06' N 161"58' W 0.3 / 192
Molokini 20"38' N 156°30'W 0.04/25.6
Lehua 22°01' N 160°06' W 0.4/256
Ka`ula 21°40' N 160°32' W 0.2/ 128
Laysan 25°50' N 171°50'W 1.6/ 1,024
Lisiansky 26°02' N 174°00' W 0.6/384
Palmyra 05°52' N 162°05' W 4.6/2,944
Ocean 28°25' N 178°25' W 0.4/256
TOTAL: 6,427.74/4,113,753.6
C. GOVERNMENT
According to Crawford, "Governmental authority is the basis for normal inter-State
relations; what is an act of a State is defined primarily by reference to its organs of
government,legislative,executive or judicial."9 Since 1864,the Hawaiian Kingdom fully
adopted the separation of powers doctrine in its constitution, being the cornerstone of
constitutional governance.
Article 20. The Supreme Power of the Kingdom in its
exercise, is divided into the Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial; these shall always be preserved distinct, and no
Judge of a Court of Record shall ever be a member of the
Legislative Assembly.
Article 31. To the [Queen] belongs the executive power.
Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom(1884),§6.
Crawford,56.
8
Article 45. The Legislative power of the Three Estates
of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative
Assembly; which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles
appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the
People,sitting together.
Article 66. The Judicial Power shall be divided among
the Supreme Court and the several Inferior Courts of the
Kingdom, in such manner as the Legislature may, from
time to time, prescribe, and the tenure of office in the
Inferior Courts of the Kingdom shall be such as may be
defined by the law creating them. (Annex 4).
1. Power to Declare and Wage War& to Conclude Peace
The power to declare war and to conclude peace is constitutionally vested in the
office of the Monarch pursuant to Article 26,Hawaiian Constitution,"The [Queen] is the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and for all other Military Forces of the
Kingdom, by sea and land; and has full power by [Her]self, or by any officer or officers
[She] may judge best for the defence and safety of the Kingdom. But [she] shall never
proclaim war without the consent of the Legislative Assembly." (Annex 4).
2. To Maintain Diplomatic Ties with Other Sovereigns
Maintaining diplomatic ties with other States is vested in the office of the Monarch
pursuant to Article 30, Hawaiian Constitution, "It is the [Queen's] Prerogative to receive
and acknowledge Public Ministers..." (Annex 4). The officer responsible for maintaining
diplomatic ties with other States is the Minister of Foreign Affairs whose duty is "to
conduct the correspondence of [the Hawaiian] Government, with the diplomatic and
consular agents of all foreign nations, accredited to this Government, and with the public
ministers, consuls, and other agents of the Hawaiian Islands, in foreign countries, in
conformity with the law of nations, and as the [Queen] shall from time to time,order and
instruct." §437, Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. (Annex 5). The Minister of
Foreign Affairs shall also "have the custody of all public treaties concluded and ratified
by the Government; and it shall be his duty to promulgate the same by publication in the
government newspaper. When so promulgated, all officers of this government shall be
presumed to have knowledge of the same." §441, Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian
Kingdom. (Annex 5).
3. To Acquire Territory by Discovery or Occupation
Between 1822 and 1886, the Hawaiian Kingdom exercised the power of discovery
and occupation that added five additional islands to the Hawaiian Domain. By direction
of Ka'ahumanu in 1822,Captain William Sumner took possession of the Island of Nihoa.
On May 1, 1857; Laysan Island was taken possession by Captain John Paty for the
Hawaiian Kingdom; on May 10, 1857 Captain Paty also took possession of Lysiansky
9
Island; Palmyra Island was taken possession of by Captain Zenas Bent on April 15, 1862;
and Ocean Island was acquired September 20, 1886, by proclamation of Colonel J.H.
Boyd.
4. To Make International Agreements and Treaties and
Maintain Diplomatic Relations with other States
Article 29, Hawaiian Constitution, provides, "The [Queen] has the power to make
Treaties. Treaties involving changes in the Tariff or in any law of the Kingdom shall be
referred for approval to the Legislative Assembly." (Annex 4). As a result of the United
States of America's recognition of Hawaiian independence, the Hawaiian Kingdom
entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Dec. 20th 1849 (Annex
6); Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Jan. 13, 1875 (Annex 7); Postal Convention
Concerning Money Orders,Sep. 11, 1883 (Annex 8); and a Supplementary Convention to
the 1875 Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity,Dec. 6, 1884 (Annex 9).
The Hawaiian Kingdom also entered into treaties with Austria-Hungary, June 18,
1875; Belgium, October 4, 1862; Bremen (succeeded by Germany), March 27, 1854;
Denmark, October 19, 1846; France, September 8, 1858; French Tahitit, November 24,
1853; Germany, March 25, 1879; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland) March 26, 1846; New South Wales (now Australia), March 10, 1874 (Annex
17): Hamburg (succeeded by Germany), January 8, 1848) (Annex 18); Italy, July 22,
1863; Japan, August 19, 1871, January 28, 1886; Netherlands, October 16, 1862;
Portugal,May 5, 1882; Russia,June 19, 1869; Samoa,March 20, 1887; Spain,October 9,
1863; Sweden-Norway (now separate States), April 5, 1855; and Switzerland, July 20,
1864.
Foreign Legations accredited to the Court of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the city of
Honolulu included the United States of America, Portugal, Great Britain, France and
Japan.
Foreign Consulates in the Hawaiian Kingdom included the United States of America,
Italy, Chile, Germany, Sweden-Norway, Denmark, Peru, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain,
Austria-Hungary,Russia,Great Britain,Mexico and China.
Hawaiian Legations accredited to foreign States included the United States of
America in the city of Washington, D.C.; Great Britain in the city of London; France in
the city of Paris, Russia in the city of Saint Petersburg; Peru in the city of Lima; and
Chile in the city of Valparaiso.
Hawaiian Consulates in foreign States included the United States of America in the
cities of New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, San Diego, Boston, Portland, Port
Townsend and Seattle; Mexico in Mexico city and the city of Manzanillo; Guatemala;
Peru in the city of Callao; Chile in the city of Valparaiso; Uruguay in the city of Monte
Video; Philippines (former Spanish territory) in the city of Iloilo and Manila; Great
Britain in the cities of London, Bristol, Hull, Newcastle on Tyne, Falmouth, Dover,
10
Cardiff and Swansea, Edinburgh and Leith, Glasgow, Dundee, Queenstown, Belfast;
Ireland (former British territory) in the cities of Liverpool, and Dublin; Canada (former
British territory) in the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Bellville, Kingston Rimouski, St.
John's,Varmouth,Victoria,and Vancouver; Australia in the cities of Sydney,Melbourne,
Brisbane, Hobart, and Launceston; New Zealand (former British territory) in the cities of
Auckland and Dunedin; China in the cities of Hong Kong and Shanghai; France in the
cities of Paris,Marseilles, Bordeaux, Dijon,Libourne and Papeete; Germany in the cities
of Bremen, Hamburg, Frankfort, Dresden and Karlsruhe; Austria in the city of Vienna;
Spain in the cities of Barcelona, Cadiz, Valencia Malaga, Cartegena, Las Palmas, Santa
Cruz and Arrecife de Lanzarote; Portugal in the cities of Lisbon,Oporto Madeira,and St.
Michaels; Cape Verde (former Portuguese territory) in the city of St.Vincent; Italy in the
cities of Rome, Genoa, and Palermo; Netherland in the cities of Amsterdam and
Dordrecht; Belgium in the cities of Antwerp, Ghent, Liege and Bruges; Sweden in the
cities of Stockholm, Lyskil, and Gothemburg; Norway in the city of Oslo (formerly
known as Kristiania); Denmark in the city of Copenhagen; and Japan in the city of Tokyo.
IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
A. THE LILI`UOKALANI ASSIGNMENT OF EXECUTIVE POWER&THE
AGREEMENT OF RESTORATION OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM
GOVERNMENT
"Governmental authority," states Crawford, "is the basis for normal inter-State
relations; what is an act of a State is defined primarily by reference to its organs of
government, legislative, executive or judicial." 10 On January 17, 1893, Queen
Lili`uokalani, who was constitutionally vested with the "executive power" under Article
31 of the Hawaiian Constitution, was unable to apprehend certain insurgents calling
themselves the provisional government without armed conflict between U.S. troops and
the Hawaiian police force headed by Marshal Charles Wilson. She was forced to
temporarily assign her executive power to the President of the United States under threat
of war under the following protest.
I, Liliuokalani, by the grace of God and under the
constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby
solemnly protest against any and all acts done against
myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian
Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a
provisional government of and for this Kingdom.
That I yield to the superior force of the United States of
America, whose minister plenipotentiary, His Excellency
John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be
landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the
said provisional government.
Crawford,56.
11
Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and
perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and
impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time
as the Government of the United States shall,upon the facts
being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives
and reinstate me in the [executive] authority which I claim
as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
(Annex 10,at 461).
1. Presidential Investigation initiated by President Cleveland
United States President Cleveland's investigation found that the United States
Legation accredited to the Hawaiian Kingdom, together with United States Marines and
Naval personnel, were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian
government with the ultimate goal of transferring the Hawaiian Islands to the United
States from an installed government." U.S. Special Commissioner Blount reported that,
"in pursuance of a prearranged plan, the Government thus established hastened off
commissioners to Washington to make a treaty for the purpose of annexing the Hawaiian
Islands to the United States."12 The report also detailed the culpability of the United
States government in violating international laws, as well as Hawaiian State territorial
sovereignty.
President Cleveland described the United States' action as an "act of war, committed
with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without
authority of Congress.""Thus he acknowledged that through such acts the government of
a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown. Cleveland further stated that a
"substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as
well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair."'4.
According Professor Marek:
It is a well-known rule of customary international law that
third States are under a clear duty of non-intervention and
non-interference in civil strife within a State. Any such
interference is an unlawful act, even if, far from taking the
form of military assistance to one of the parties,it is merely
confined to premature recognition of the rebel
government.'s
11 United States House of Representatives,53`d Congress,Executive Documents on Affairs in Hawaii:
1894-95,(Government Printing Office 1895),567, [hereafter Executive Documents].Reprinted at 1
Hawaiian Journal of Law&Politics 136(Summer 2004).
12 Id., 587.
13 Id.,456.Reprinted at 1 Hawaiian Journal of Law&Politics 201 (Summer 2004).
14 Id.
15 Krystyna Marek,Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law,2nd ed.,(Librairie Droz
1968),64.
12
In a dispatch to United States Minister Plenipotentiary Albert Willis, assigned to the
Hawaiian Kingdom, on October 18, 1893, U.S. Secretary of State Gresham apprised
Willis of the findings of the Presidential investigation.
The Provisional Government was not established by the
Hawaiian people,or with their consent or acquiescence,nor
has it since existed with their consent. The Queen refused
to surrender her powers to the Provisional Government
until convinced that the minister of the United States had
recognized it as the de facto authority, and would support
and defend it with the military force of the United States,
and that resistance would precipitate a bloody conflict with
that force. She was advised and assured by her ministers
and by leaders of the movement for the overthrow of her
government, that if she surrendered under protest her case
would afterwards be fairly considered by the President of
the United States. The Queen finally wisely yielded to the
armed forces of the United States then quartered in
Honolulu, relying upon the good faith and honor of the
President, when informed of what had occurred, to undo
the action of the minister and reinstate her and the authority
which she claimed as the constitutional sovereign of the
Hawaiian Islands.
After a patient examination of Mr. Blount's reports the
President is satisfied that the movement against the Queen,
if not instigated, was encouraged and supported by the
representative of this Government at Honolulu; that he
promised in advance to aid her enemies in an effort to
overthrow the Hawaiian Government and set up by force a
new government in its place; and that he kept this promise
by causing a detachment of troops to be landed from the
Boston on the 16`h of January, and by recognizing the
Provisional Government the next day when it was too
feeble to defend itself and the constitutional government
was able to successfully maintain its authority against any
threatening force other than that of the United States
already landed.
The President has therefore determined that he will not
send back to the Senate for its action thereon the treaty
which he withdrew from that body for further consideration
on the 9th day of March last. On your arrival at Honolulu
you will take advantage of an early opportunity to inform
the Queen of this determination, making known to her the
President's sincere regret that the reprehensible conduct of
13
the American minister and the unauthorized presence on
land of a military force of the United States obliged her to
surrender her sovereignty, for the time being, and rely on
the justice of this Government to undo the flagrant wrong.
You will, however, at the same time inform the Queen
that, when reinstated, the President expects that she will
pursue a magnanimous course by granting full amnesty to
all who participated in the movement against her,including
persons who are, or have been, officially or otherwise,
connected with the Provisional Government, depriving
them of no right or privilege which they enjoyed before the
so-called revolution. All obligations created by the
Provisional Government in due course of administration
should be assumed. (Annex 10,at 463-464).
In the initial meeting with U.S. Minister Willis on November 13, 1893, at the U.S.
Legation in Honolulu, Queen Lili`uokalani refused to grant amnesty and cited Chapter
VI—Treason,Hawaiian Penal Code.
1. Treason is hereby defined to be any plotting or
attempt to dethrone or destroy the King, or the levying of
war against the King's government, or the adhering to the
enemies thereof giving them aid and comfort, the same
being done by a person owing allegiance to this kingdom.
9. Whoever shall commit the crime of treason, shall
suffer the punishment of death; and all his property shall be
confiscated to the government. (Annex 11).
But after one month of continued negotiation with U.S. Minister Willis, Queen
Lili`uokalani, on December 18, 1893, signed the following declaration agreeing to grant
amnesty after the government is restored.
I, Liliuokalani, in recognition of the high sense of
justice which has actuated the President of the United
States, and desiring to put aside all feelings of personal
hatred or revenge and to do what is best for all the people
of these Islands. both native and foreign born, do hereby
and herein solemnly declare and pledge myself that, if
reinstated as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian
Islands, that I will immediately proclaim and declare,
unconditionally and without reservation, to every person
who directly or indirectly participated in the revolution of
January 17, 1893, a full pardon and amnesty for their
offenses, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and
14
immunities under the constitution and the laws which have
been made in pursuance thereof, and that I will forbid and
prevent the adoption of any measures of proscription or
punishment for what has been done in the past by those
setting up or supporting the Provisional Government. I
further solemnly agree to accept the restoration under the
constitution existing at the time of said revolution and that I
will abide by and fully execute that constitution with all the
guaranties as to person and property therein contained. I
furthermore solemnly pledge myself and my Government,
if restored, to assume all the obligations created by the
Provisional Government, in the proper course of
administration, including all expenditures for military or
police services, it being my purpose, if restored, to assume
the Government precisely as it existed on the day when it
was unlawfully overthrown. (Annex 12,at 1269).
On December 20, 1893,Willis dispatched the Queen's acceptance of the condition of
restoration to Gresham in Washington, D.C. In a dispatch to Willis on January 13, 1893,
Gresham acknowledged receipt of the Queen's declaration.
On the 18`h ultimo the President sent a special message
to Congress communicating copies of the Mr. Blount's
reports and the instructions given to him and you. On the
same day, answering a resolution of the House of
Representatives, he sent copies of all correspondence since
March 4, 1889, on the political affairs and relations of
Hawaii, withholding, for sufficient reasons, only Mr.
Stevens' No. 70 of October 8, 1892, and your No. 3 of
November 16, 1893. The President therein announced that
the conditions of restoration suggested by him to the Queen
had not proved acceptable to her, and that since the
instructions sent to you to insist upon those conditions he
had not learned that the Queen was willing to assent to
them. The President thereupon submitted the subject to the
more extended powers and wider discretion of Congress,
adding the assurance that he would be gratified to
cooperate in any legitimate plan which might be devised
for a solution of the problem consistent with American
honor,integrity,and morality.
Your reports show that on further reflection the Queen
gave her unqualified assent in writing to the conditions
suggested, but that the Provisional Government refuses to
acquiesce in the President's decision.
15
The matter now being in the hands of Congress the
President will keep that body fully advised of the situation,
and will lay before it from time to time the reports received
from you, including your No. 3, heretofore withheld, and
all instructions sent to you. In the meantime, while keeping
the Department fully informed of the course of events, you
will, until further notice, consider your special instructions
upon this subject have been fully complied with. (Annex 12,
at 1283-1284).
2. Settlement by Executive Agreements through Exchange
of Notes
According to Professor Garner. "Agreements in the form of an exchange of notes
between certain high officials acting on behalf of States, usually their Ministers of
Foreign Affairs or diplomatic representatives are numerous... They are employed for a
variety of purposes and,like instruments which are designated as 'treaties',they may deal
with any matter which is a proper subject of international regulation. One of their most
common objects is to record the understandings of the parties to a treaty which they have
previously entered into; but they may record an entirely new agreement, sometimes one
which has been reached as a result of negotiation. While the purpose of an agreement
effected by any exchange of notes may not differ from that of instruments designated by
other names, it is strikingly different in its form from a `treaty' or a `convention.' Unlike
a treaty,the relations which it establishes or seeks to establish is recorded,not in a single
highly formalized instrument, but in two or more letters usually called `notes,' signed by
Ministers or other officials."16 Dr. Myers explains, "Exchange of notes is the most
flexible form of a treaty... The exchange consists of an offer and an acceptance... The
offering instrument contains a text of the proposed agreement and the acceptance
invariably repeats it verbatim,with assent.""
The purpose of President Cleveland submitting the matter to Congress was to seek the
authorization of force to be employed against the insurgents. It was not to seek authority
for the agreements with Queen Lili`uokalani. After President Cleveland notified
Congress by Presidential message on January 13, 1894 of the Agreement of restoration
made with Queen Lili`uokalani, newspapers reported the settlement and the defiance of
the insurgency to step down. New York Tribune, January 14, 1894 (Annex 13); St. Paul
Sunday Globe newspaper,January 14, 1894 (Annex 14); The Princeton Union newspaper,
January 18, 1894 (Annex 15); and Hawai`i Holomua newspaper, January 24, 1894
(Annex 16).
Under and by virtue of the Lili'uokalani assignment, executive power of the
Hawaiian Kingdom remains vested in the President of the United States to faithfully
administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, until the Hawaiian Kingdom government is restored
I'29 American Journal of International Law Supplement 698(1935).
1'Denys P.Myers,The Names and Scope of Treaties,51 American Journal of International Law 590
(1957).
16
pursuant to the Agreement of restoration, whereby the executive power is reassigned and
thereafter the Monarch to grant amnesty. The failure of Congress to authorize the
President to use force did not diminish the validity of the executive agreements,being the
Lili`uokalani assignment and the Agreement of restoration. Despite over a century of
non-compliance, these executive agreements remain binding upon the office of President
of the United States to date. According to Professor Wright, the President binds "himself
and his successors in office by executive agreements.'
President Cleveland failed to follow through in his commitment to administer
Hawaiian law and re-instate the constitutional government as a result of partisan
wrangling in the U.S. Congress.'9In a deliberate move to further isolate the Hawaiian
Kingdom from any assistance by other States and treaty partners and to reinforce and
protect the puppet government installed by U.S. officials, the Senate and House of
Representatives each passed similar resolutions in 1894 strongly warning other countries
"that any intervention in the political affairs of these islands by any other Government
will be regarded as an act unfriendly to the United States.i2"
The Hawaiian Kingdom was thrown into civil unrest as a result. Five years passed
before Cleveland's presidential successor, William McKinley, entered into a second
treaty of cession with the same individuals who participated in the illegal overthrow with
the U.S. legation in 1893, and were now calling themselves the Republic of Hawai'i.
This second treaty was signed on June 16, 1897 in Washington, D.C., but would "be
taken up immediately upon the convening of Congress next December."21
3. Protests Prevent Second Attempt to Annex Hawaiian
Islands by Treaty
Queen Lili'uokalani was in the United States at the time of the signing of the treaty
and protested the second annexation attempt of the country. While in Washington, D.C.,
the Queen filed a diplomatic protest with the United States Department of State on June
17,1897.The Queen stated,in part:
I, Lili'uokalani of Hawaii, by the will of God named
heir apparent on the tenth day of April, A.D. 1877, and by
the grace of God Queen of the Hawaiian Islands on the
seventeenth day of January, A.D. 1893, do hereby protest
against the ratification of a certain treaty, which, so I am
informed, has been signed at Washington by Messrs. Hatch,
Thurston, and Kinney, purporting to cede those Islands to
the territory and dominion of the United States. I declare
I'Quincy Wright,The Control of American Foreign Relations,(The MacMillan Co., 1922),235.
19 Ralf Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1874-1893, The Kalakaua Dynasty, vol.III(Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press 1967),647.
20 Senate Resolution,May 31, 1894,53`d Congress,2nd Session,vol.26.
21"Hawaiian Treaty to Wait—Senator Morgan Suggests that It Be Taken Up at This Session Without
Result." The New York Times,3(July 25, 1897).
17
such a treaty to be an act of wrong toward the native and
part-native people of Hawaii, an invasion of the rights of
the ruling chiefs, in violation of international rights both
toward my people and toward friendly nations with whom
they have made treaties, the perpetuation of the fraud
whereby the constitutional government was overthrown,
and,finally,an act of gross injustice to me 22 (Annex 17)
Hawaiian political organizations in the Islands filed additional protests with the
Department of State in Washington, D.C. These organizations were the Men and
Women's Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha `Aina), and the Hawaiian Political
Association (Hui Kalai'aina).23 (Annex 18) In addition,a petition of 21,269 signatures of
Hawaiian subjects and resident aliens protesting annexation was filed with the Senate
when it convened in December 1897.24 (Annex 19) The Senate was unable to garner
enough votes to ratify the so-called treaty, but events would quickly change as war
loomed between the United States of America and Spain.
The legal significance of these protests creates a fundamental bar to any future claim
the United States may assert over the Hawaiian Islands by acquisitive prescription.
"Prescription," according to Professor Gehard von Glahn, "means that a foreign state
occupies a portion of territory claimed by a state, encounters no protest by the `owner,'
and exercises rights of sovereignty over a long period of time."25
4. Illegal Seizure and Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands
by the United States of America during the Spanish-
American War
Unable to procure a treaty of cession from the Hawaiian Kingdom government
acquiring the Hawaiian Islands as required by international law,Congress enacted a Joint
Resolution To provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, which was
signed into law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898 during the Spanish-American
War (Annex 20) as a war measure. The Hawaiian Kingdom came under military
occupation on August 12, 1898 at the height of the Spanish-American War, and the
occupation was justified as a military necessity in order to reinforce and supply the troops
that have been occupying the Spanish colonies of Guam and the Philippines since May 1,
1898. The justification as a war measure was clearly displayed in a secret session of the
United States Senate on May 31, 1898 (Annex 21). Following the close of the Spanish-
American War by the Treaty of Paris signed December 10, 1898,26 U.S. troops remained
22 Liliuokalani,Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen(Charles E.Tuttle Co.,Inc. 1964),354.Reprinted at 1
Hawaiian Journal of Law&Politics 227(Summer 2004).
23 Tom Coffman,Nation Within: The Story of America's Annexation of the Nation of Hawai'i(Tom
Coffman/Epicenter 1999),268.
24 Noenoe Silva,Aloha Betrayed:Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism(Duke University
Press 2004), 145-159.See also Coffman,273-287.
25 Gerhard von Glahn's,Law Among Nations,6th ed.,(Macmillan Publishing Company 1992),371.
'630 U.S.Stat. 1754
18
in the Hawaiian Islands and continued its occupation to date in violation of international
law and the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Agreement of restoration.
Furthering the illegal occupation, President McKinley signed into United States law
An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai`i on April 30, 1900 (Annex
22); and on March 18, 1959, President Eisenhower signed into United States law An Act
To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai`i into the Union (Annex 23). These
laws,which include the 1898 joint resolution of annexation,have no extraterritorial effect
and stand in direct violation of the Lili`uokalani assignment and Agreement restoration,
being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,IV.
5. United States Misrepresents Hawaii before the United
Nations General Assembly
In 1946, prior to the passage of the Statehood Act, the United States further
misrepresented its relationship with Hawai'i when the United States ambassador to the
United Nations identified Hawai'i as a non-self-governing territory under the
administration of the United States since 1898. In accordance with Article 73(e) of the
U.N. Charter, the United States ambassador reported Hawai'i as a non-self-governing
territory.'The fundamental flaw is that Hawai'i should have never been placed on the
list in the first place, because it already achieved self-governance as a sovereign
independent State beginning in 1843 and acknowledged by the Arbitral Tribunal in
Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, Permanent Court of Arbitration, in 2001. In Larsen, the
Tribunal determined, "in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an
independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United
Kingdom,and various other States."(Annex 24,p. 581).
Hawai'i was deliberately treated as a non-self-governing territory or colonial
possession in order to conceal the United States' prolonged occupation of an independent
and sovereign State for military purposes. The reporting of Hawai'i as a non-self-
governing territory also coincided with the United States establishment of the military
headquarters for the Pacific Command (PACOM) on the Island of O'ahu. If the United
Nations had been aware of Hawai'i's continued legal status as an occupied and neutral
State,member States of the United Nations would have prevented the United States from
maintaining their military presence.
The initial Article 73(e) list comprised of non-sovereign territories under the control
of sovereign States such as Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands, New
Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. In addition to Hawai'i, the U.S. also
reported its territories of Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Panama Canal Zone, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands. The U.N. General Assembly, in a resolution entitled
"Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation
exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 (e) of the Charter," defined
27 Transmission of Information under Article 73e of the Charter,December 14, 1946,United Nations
General Assembly Resolution 66(I).
19
self-governance in three forms: a sovereign independent State; free association with an
independent State; or integration with an independent State 28 None of the territories on
the list of non-self-governing territories, with the exception of Hawai'i, were recognized
sovereign States.
Despite past misrepresentations of Hawai'i before the United Nations by the United
States, there are two facts that still remain. First, inclusion of Hawai'i on the United
Nations list of non-self-governing territories was an inaccurate depiction of a sovereign
State whose rights had been violated; and, second, Hawai'i remains a sovereign and
independent State despite the illegal overthrow of its government in 1893 and the
prolonged occupation of its territory for military purposes since 1898.
B. ESTABLISHING THE ACTING GOVERNMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN
KINGDOM
On December 10, 1995, a general partnership was formed in compliance with an Act
to Provide for the Registration of Co-partnership Firms, 1880. (Annex 25). The
partnership was named the Perfect Title Company (PTC), and functioned as a land title
abstracting company. (Annex 26). Since the enactment of the 1880 Co-partnership Act,
members of co-partnership firms within the Kingdom registered their articles of
agreements in the Bureau of Conveyances, being a part of the Interior department of the
Hawaiian Kingdom. This same Bureau of Conveyances continues to exist and is
presently administered by the United States of American,by its political subdivision,the
State of Hawaii. The law requires a notary public to acknowledge all documents before
being registered with the Bureau,'y but there have been no lawful notaries public in the
Islands since 1893. All State of Hawai'i notaries public are commissioned under and by
virtue of United States law. Therefore, in order for the partners of PTC to get their
articles of agreement registered in the Bureau of Conveyances in compliance with the
1880 co-partnership statute, the following protest was incorporated and made a part of
PTC's articles of agreement,which stated:
Each partner also agrees that the business is to be
operated in strict compliance to the business laws of the
Hawaiian Kingdom as noted in the "Compiled Laws of
1884" and the "session laws of 1884 and 1886." Both
partners are native Hawaiian subjects by birth and therefore
are bound and subject to the laws above mentioned. And it
is further agreed by both partners that due to the filing
requirements of the Bureau of Conveyances to go before a
Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit
the information called for under Article 73(e)of the Charter,December 15, 1960,United Nations
Resolution 1541 (XV).
''Hawai'i Revised Statutes,§502-41.
20
foreign notary public within the Hawaiian Kingdom, they
do this involuntarily and against their will.'
PTC commenced on December 10, 1995, but there was no military government to
ensure PTC's compliance with the co-partnership statute from that date. The registration
of co-partnerships creates a contract between co-partnerships on the one hand, and the
Minister of the Interior,representing the government,on the other. It is obligatory for co-
partnerships to register their articles of agreement with the Minister of the Interior, and
for the Minister of the Interior, it is his duty to ensure that co-partnerships maintain their
compliance with the statute.This is a contractual relationship,whereby:
there must be a promise binding the person[s] subject to the
obligation; and in order to give a binding force to the
promise the obligation must come within the sphere of
Agreement. There must be an acceptance of the promise by
the person to whom it is made, so that by their mutual
consent the one is bound to the other. A Contract then
springs from the offer of a promise and its acceptance.31
The registration of co-partnerships is the offer of the promise by its members to abide
by the obligation imposed by the statute, and the acceptance of this offer by the Interior
department creates a contractual relationship whereby "one is bound to the other."
Section 7 of the 1880 Co-partnership Act clearly outlines the obligation imposed upon
the members of co-partnerships in the Kingdom,which states:
The members of every co-partnership who shall neglect
or fail to comply with the provisions of this law, shall
severally and individually be liable for all the debts and
liabilities of such co-partnership and may be severally sued
therefore, without the necessity of joining the other
members of the co-partnership in any action or suit, and
shall also be severally liable upon conviction, to a penalty
not exceeding five dollars for each and every day while
such default shall continue; which penalties may be
recovered in any Police or District Court.32
The partners of PTC desired to establish a legitimate co-partnership pursuant to
Hawaiian Kingdom law and in order for the title company to exist as a legal co-
partnership firm, the government had to be reestablished in an acting capacity in order to
serve as a necessary party to the contractual relationship created under and by virtue of
the statute. An acting official is "not an appointed incumbent,but merely a locum tenens,
Co-partnership Agreement establishing Perfect Title Company,December 10,1995,document no.95-
153346,Hawai'i Bureau of Conveyances.
Sir William R.Anson,Principles of the Law of Contract(Callaghan and Company, 1880), 11.
32 Compiled Laws,649.
21
who is performing the duties of an office to which he himself does not claim title."33 It is
an official that temporarily assumes the duties and authority of government.
The last legitimate Hawaiian Legislative Assembly of 1886 was prevented from
reconvening as a result of the 1887 revolution. The subsequent Legislative Assembly of
1887 was based on an illegal constitution,which altered existing voting rights, and led to
the illegal election of the 1887 Legislature. As a result,there existed no legitimate Nobles
in the Legislative Assembly when Queen Lili'uokalani ascended to the Office of
Monarch in 1891, and therefore, the Queen was unable to obtain confirmation for her
named successors from those Nobles of the 1886 Legislative Assembly as required by the
1864 Constitution. Tragically, when the Queen died on November 11, 1917, there were
no lawful successors to the Throne. In the absence of a confirmed successor to the Throne
by the Nobles of the Legislative Assembly, Article 33 of the Constitution of 1864
provides:
"should a Sovereign decease...and having made no last
Will and Testament, the Cabinet Council at the time of
such decease shall be a Council of Regency, until the
Legislative Assembly, which shall be called immediately,
may be assembled, and the Legislative Assembly
immediately that it is assembled shall proceed to choose by
ballot, a Regent or Council of Regency, who shall
administer the Government in the name of the King, and
exercise all the Powers which are Constitutionally vested in
the King." (Annex 4)
Hawaiian law did not assume that the whole of the Hawaiian government would
be made vacant, and, consequently, the law did not formalize provisions for the
reactivation of the government in extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, a deliberate
course of action was taken to re-activate the Hawaiian government by and through its
executive branch as officers de facto. In view of such an extreme emergency, Proffessor
Oppenheimer states that, "a temporary deviation from the wording of the constitution is
justifiable if this is necessary to conserve the sovereignty and independence of the
country."34
When properly interpreted, the 1864 Constitution provides that the Cabinet
Council shall be a Council of Regency until a proper Legislative Assembly can be
convened to"elect by ballot some native Ali`i [Chief] of the Kingdom as Successor to the
Throne." (Annex 4) It further provides that the Regent or Council of Regency "shall
administer the Government in the name of the King, and exercise all the Powers which
are Constitutionally vested in the King." (Annex 4) The Constitution also provides that
the Cabinet Council "shall consist of the Minister of Foreign Affairs,the Minister of the
Interior, the Minister of Finance, and the Attorney General of the Kingdom, and these
"Black's Law,6th ed.(West Publishing Company 1990),26.
F.E.Oppenheimer,"Governments and Authorities in Exile,"36 American Journal of International Law
581 (1942).
22
shall be His Majesty's Special Advisers in the Executive affairs of the Kingdom." (Annex
4)
Interpretation of these constitutional provisions allows for the Minister of Interior to
assume the powers vested in the Cabinet Council in the absence of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General, and consequently
serve as Regent. This is a similar scenario that took place in 1940 when German forces
invaded Belgium and captured King Leopold. As a result, the Belgian cabinet became a
government in exile and, as a council of Regency, assumed all powers constitutionally
vested in the King. Oppenheimer explains:
As far as Belgium is concerned, the capture of the king
did not create any serious constitutional problems.
According to Article 82 of the Constitution of February 7,
1821, as amended, the cabinet of ministers have to assume
supreme executive power if the King is unable to govern.
True, the ministers are bound to convene the House of
Representatives and the Senate and to leave it to the
decision of the united legislative chambers to provide for a
regency; but in view of the belligerent occupation it is
impossible for the two houses to function. While this
emergency obtains,the powers of the King are vested in the
Belgian Prime Minister and the other members of the
cabinet.'
The 1880 Co-partnership Act requires members of co-partnerships to register their
articles of agreement in the Bureau of Conveyances, which is within the Interior
department.'The Minister of the Interior holds a seat of government as a member of the
cabinet council, together with the other ministers. Article 43 of the Constitution provides
that,"Each member of the King's Cabinet shall keep an office at the seat of Government,
and shall be accountable for the conduct of his deputies and clerks." Necessity dictated
that in the absence of any "deputies or clerks" of the Interior department,the partners of a
registered co-partnership could assume the duty of the same because of the current state
of affairs. Therefore, it was reasonable that partners of a registered co-partnership could
assume the powers vested in the Registrar of the Bureau of Conveyances in the absence
of the same; then assume the powers vested in the Minister of Interior in the absence of
the same; then assume the powers constitutionally vested in the Cabinet Council in the
absence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Finance and the Attorney
General; and, finally assume the power constitutionally vested in the Cabinet as a
Regency. A regency is defined as "the man or body of men intrusted with the vicarious
government of a kingdom during the minority,absence,insanity,or other disability of the
[monarch]..""
35 Oppenheimer,569.
Compiled Laws,§1249.
"Black's Law, 1282.
23
With the specific intent of assuming the "seat of Government," the partners of PTC
formed a second partnership called the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company (HKTC) on
December 15, 1995. (Annex 27). The partners intended that this registered partnership
would serve as a provisional surrogate for the Council of Regency.Therefore,and in light
of the ascension process explained above,HKTC could then serve as officers de facto for
the Registrar of the Bureau of Conveyances,the Minister of Interior,the Cabinet Council,
and ultimately as the Council of Regency. Article 1 of HKTC 's deed of general
partnership provided:
"The above mentioned parties have agreed to form a
general partnership under the firm name of Hawaiian
Kingdom Trust Company in the business of administering,
investigating, determining and the issuing of land titles,
whether in fee, or for life, or for years, in such manner as
Hawaiian law prescribes... The company will serve in the
capacity of acting for and on behalf of the Hawaiian
Kingdom government. The company has adopted the
Hawaiian Constitution of 1864 and the laws lawfully
established in the administration of the same. The company
is to commence on the 15th day of December, A.D. 1995,
and shall remain in existence until the absentee government
is re-established and fully operational, upon which all
records and monies of the same will be transferred and
conveyed over to the office of the Minister of Interior, to
have and to hold under the authority and jurisdiction of the
Hawaiian Kingdom."
Thirty-eight deeds of trusts conveyed by Hawaiian subjects to HKTC acknowledged
the trust as a company acting for and on behalf of the Hawaiian government and outlined
the role of the trust company and its fiduciary duty it had to its beneficiaries.38 (Annex
28). HKTC was not only competent to serve as the acting cabinet council, but also
possessed a fiduciary duty toward its beneficiaries to serve in that capacity until the
government is re-established de jure in accordance with the terms of the 1893 Cleveland-
Lili'uokalani agreement. According to Pomeroy:
"Active or special trusts are those in which,either from
the express direction of the language creating the trust, or
from the very nature of the trust itself, the trustees are
charged with the performance of active and substantial
duties with respect to the control, management, and
See Deeds of Trust to the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company,a general partnership,Doc.no.'s 96-
004246,96-006277,96-014116,96-026387,96-026388,96-028714,96-024845,96-032930,96-044551,
96-044550,96-047382,96-047380,96-047379,96-047381,96-056981,96-052727,96-060519,96-032728,
96-057667,96-057668,96-060520,96-061209,96-061207,96-056980,96-052729,96-063384,96-063385,
96-063382,96-057664,96-019923,96-046712.96-063386,96-063382,96-063383,96-066996,96-061208
and 96-046711,State of Hawai'i Bureau of Conveyances.
24
disposition of the trust property for the benefit of the cestui
que trustent [beneficiary of a trust]. They may, except
when restricted by statute,be created for every purpose not
unlawful, and, as a general rule, may extend to every kind
of property,real and personal.i39
The purpose of HKTC was two fold; first, to ensure PTC complies with the co-
partnership statute, and, second, provisionally serve as the government of the Hawaiian
Kingdom. What became apparent was the seeming impression of a conflict of interest,
whereby the duty to comply and the duty to ensure compliance was vested in the same
two partners of the two companies. Therefore, in order to avoid this apparent conflict of
interest, the partners of both PTC and HKTC,reasoned that an acting Regent,having no
interests in either company, should be appointed to serve as representative of the
Hawaiian government. Since HKTC assumed to represent the interests of the Hawaiian
government in an acting capacity, the trustees would therefore make the appointment.
The trustees looked to Article XXXI, Chapter XI, Title 3 of the Hawaiian Civil Code
(Annex 29), whereby the acting Regency would be constitutionally authorized to direct
the executive branch of the government in the formation and execution of the
reconvening of the Legislative Assembly, so that the government could procedurally
move from provisional to de jure.4°
1. Acting Government Proclaimed on February 28,1997
It was agreed that David Keanu Sai, now the present Ambassador-at-large of the
acting Government and Agent for this Protest and Demand, would be appointed to serve
as acting Regent, but could not retain an interest in the two companies prior to the
appointment. In that meeting, it was agreed upon and decided that Nai'a-Ulumaimalu
would replace the aforementioned as trustee of HKTC and partner of PTC. The plan was
to maintain the standing of the two partnerships under the co-partnership statute, and not
have them lapse into sole-proprietorships. To accomplish this, the Agent would
relinquish his entire one-half interest by deed of conveyance in both companies to Lewis
(Annex 30); after which Lewis would convey a redistribution of interest to Nai'a-
Ulumaimalu (Annex 31), whereby the former would hold a ninety-nine percent interest in
the two companies and the latter a one percent interest in the same. In order to have these
two transactions take place simultaneously without affecting the standing of the two
partnerships, both deeds of conveyance would happen on the same day but won't take
effect until the following day, February 28,1996. These conveyances were registered in
the Bureau of Conveyances in conformity with the 1880 Co-partnership Act.
With the transactions completed, the Trustees then appointed the Agent as acting
Regent on March 1, 1996, and thereafter filed a notice of this appointment with the
Bureau of Conveyances. (Annex 32). Thereafter, HKTC resumed its role as a general
partnership within the meaning of the 1880 Co-partnership Act, and no longer served as
John Norton Pomeroy,A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence as Administered in the United States of
America(Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1907),553.
�0 Compiled Laws,214-234.
25
"a company acting for and on behalf of the Hawaiian Kingdom government" and
prepared for the dissolution of the company. On May 15, 1996,the Trustees conveyed by
deed all of its right, title and interest acquired by thirty-eight deeds of trust to the acting
Regent, and stipulated that the company would be dissolved in accordance with the
provisions of its deed of general partnership on June 30, 1996. (Annex 33).
The transfer and subsequent dissolution, was made in accordance with section 3 of
the 1880 Co-partnership Act, which provides that "whenever any change shall take place
in the constitution of any such firm...a statement of such change or dissolution shall also
be filed in the said office of the Minister of the Interior, within one month from
such...dissolution."41 On February 28, 1997, a Proclamation by the acting Regent
announcing the restoration of the Hawaiian government was printed in the March 9, 1997
issue of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser newspaper. The proclamation stated, in part,
that the:
"Hawaiian Monarchical system of Government is
hereby re-established, [and the] Civil Code of the Hawaiian
Islands as noted in the Compiled Laws of 1884, together
with the session laws of 1884 and 1886 and the Hawaiian
Penal Code are in full force. All Hawaiian Laws and
Constitutional principles not consistent herewith are void
and without effect."4` (Annex 34).
Since the appointment of the acting Regent, there have been twenty-six commissions
that filled vacancies of the executive and judicial departments. These governmental
positions, as statutorily provided, comprise officers de facto of the Hawaiian government
while under American occupation. Governmental positions that are necessary for the
reconvening of the Legislative Assembly in accordance with Title III of the Civil Code
would be filled by commissioned officers de facto.
In September 1999, the acting Regent commissioned Peter Umialiloa Sai as acting
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kau`i P. Sai-Dudoit, formerly known as Kau'i P. Goodhue,
as acting Minister of Finance, and Gary V. Dubin, Esquire, as acting Attorney General.
At a meeting of the Cabinet Council on September 10, 1999, it was determined by
resolution "that the office of the Minister of Interior shall be resumed by David Keanu
Sai,thereby absolving the office of the Regent,pro tempore,and the same to be replaced
by the Cabinet Council as a Council of Regency, pro tempore, within the meaning of
Article 33 of the Constitution of the Country." (Annex 35). The Agent serves as Prime
Minister and chairman of the acting Council of Regency.'
41 Compiled Laws,649.
Proclamation of Acting Regent declaring the Hawaiian Monarchical form of Government is re-
established,February 28. 1997,published in the March 9, 1997 issue of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser.
Also recorded in its entirety in the Bureau of Conveyances as document no.97-027541.
After the office of Premier(Prime Minister)was repealed by the 1864 Constitution,the term Prime
Minister referred to the person who organized government in the Cabinet Council,whether that person was
to be the Minister of the Interior,Minister of Foreign Affairs,Minister of Finance or the Attorney General.
26
Democratic principles are suspended during occupations. Military government is
imposed "either by reason of military necessity as a right under international law,or as an
obligation under international law," but regulated by The Hague and Geneva
Conventions.14 The acting Regency was not established out of democratic principles, but
out of necessity in order to serve as the provisional organ of the Hawaiian Kingdom and
represent its interest during the occupation. It serves as a component of a military
government yet to be established, and not the sole organ of the occupied State. The
legitimacy of the acting Regency is derived strictly from law and legal principles of the
Hawaiian Kingdom and functions under the limited legal doctrine of necessity. The right
of Hawaiian nationals to reinstate their government, by its statutory provisions, is clear
and unequivocal under the international principle of the continuity of the occupied State
and its legal order.
The Hawaiian government did not foresee the possibility of its territory subjected to
prolonged occupation, where indoctrination and the manipulation of its political history
affected the psyche of its national population. Therefore, it did not provide a process for
reinstating the government, being the organ of the State, either in exile or within its own
territory. But at the same time, it did not place any constitutional or statutory limitations
upon the restoration of its government that could serve as a bar to its reinstatement—save
for the legal parameters of necessity. The legal basis for the reassertion of Hawaiian
governance, by and through a Hawaiian general partnership statute, is clearly
extraordinary, but the exigencies of the time demanded it. In the absence of any
Hawaiian subjects adhering to the statutory laws of the country as provided for by the
country's constitutional limitations, the abovementioned process was established for the
establishment of an acting Regency, pending the reconvening of the Legislative
Assembly to elect by ballot a Regent or Regency de jure as provided for under Article 22
of the Constitution. Professor Marek emphasizes that:
"it is always the legal order of the State which constitutes
the legal basis for the existence of its government, whether
such government continues to function in its own country
or goes into exile; but never the delegation of the territorial
State nor any rule of international law other than the one
safeguarding the continuity of an occupied State. The
relation between the legal order of the territorial State and
that of the occupied State...is not one of delegation, but of
co-existence."'
14"United States Army and Navy Manual of Military Government and Civil Affairs," U.S.Army Field
Manual 27-5,2(December 22. 1843).
45 Krystyna Marek,Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law,2'd ed.,(Librairie Droz,
1968),91.
27
2. The Doctrine of Necessity Underlies the Legal Basis of
the acting Government
Dr.Wolff states,"in so far as conditions provided for in the constitutional law cannot
be complied with owing to the occupation of the country by the enemy, a dispossessed
government can act without being compelled to fulfill those conditions."46 Also
commenting on exiled governments, Marek explains that, "while the requirement of
internal legality must in principle be fulfilled for an exiled government to possess the
character of a State organ, minor flaws in such legality are easily cured by the overriding
principle of its actual uninterrupted continuity."47 Oppenheimer also explains "such
government is the only de jure sovereign power of the country the territory of which is
under belligerent occupation."48 It follows, a fortiori, that when an "occupant fails to
share power with the lawful government under the auspices of international law,the latter
is not precluded from taking whatever countermeasures it can in order to protect its
interests during and after the occupation."49
Bateman states the "duty correlative of the right of political existence, is obviously
that of political self-preservation; a duty the performance of which consists in constant
efforts to preserve the principles of the political constitution."50 Political self-preservation
is adherence to the legal order of the State, whereas national self-preservation is where
the principles of the constitution are no longer acknowledged, i.e. revolution.51 The
establishment of an acting Regent—an officer de facto, would be a political act of self-
preservation, not revolution, and be grounded upon the legal doctrine of limited necessity.
According to Professor de Smith, a British constitutional scholar, deviations from a
State's constitutional order "can be justified on grounds of necessity."52 He continues to
explain that "State necessity has been judicially accepted in recent years as a legal
justification for ostensibly unconstitutional action to fill a vacuum arising within the
constitutional order [and to] this extent it has been recognized as an implied exception to
the letter of the constitution."53 Lord Pearce also states that there are certain limitations to
the principle of necessity, "namely (a) so far as they are directed to and reasonably
required for ordinary orderly running of the State,and (b) so far as they do not impair the
rights of citizens under the lawful...Constitution,and(c) so far as they are not intended to
and do not run contrary to the policy of the lawful sovereign."54
Ernst Wolff,"The International Position of Dispossessed Governments at Present in England,"6 Modern
Law Review 215(1942-1943).
47 Marek,98.
48 Oppenheimer,568.
49 Eyal Benvenisti,The International Law of Occupation(Princeton University Press, 1993),212.
5p William O.Bateman,Political and Constitutional Law of the United States of America(G.I.Jones and
Company, 1876),22.
5 Id.
52 Stanley A.de Smith,Constitutional and Administrative Law(Penguin Books,Ltd., 1986),80.
Id.
5'Madzimbamuto v.Lardner-Burke(1969), 1 A.C.645,732.
28
In Chandrika Persaud v.Republic of Fiji,Judge Gates took up the matter of the legal
doctrine of necessity and drew from the decision in the Mitchell case,55 which provided
that the requisite conditions for the principle of necessity consists of:
1. An imperative necessity must arise because of the existence of exceptional
circumstances not provided for in the Constitution, for immediate action to be
taken to protect or preserve some vital function of the State;
2. There must be no other course of action reasonably available;
3. Any such action must be reasonably necessary in the interest of peace, order,
and good government; but it must not do more than is necessary or legislate
beyond that;
4. It must not impair the just rights of citizens under the Constitution; and
5. It must not be one the sole effect and intention of which is to consolidate or
strengthen the revolution as such.
Professor Brookfield summarized the principle of necessity as the "power of a Head
of State under a written Constitution extends by implication to executive acts, and also
legislative acts taken temporarily (that is, until confirmed, varied or disallowed by the
lawful Legislature) to preserve or restore the Constitution, even though the Constitution
itself contains no express warrant for them.i'Brookfield also explains "such powers are
not dependent on the words of a particular Constitution, except in so far as that
Constitution designates the authority in whom the implied powers would be found to
reside.i57
The assumption by private citizens up the chain of constitutional authority in
government to the office of Regent,as enumerated under Article 33 of the Constitution,is
a de facto process born out of necessity. Judge Cooley defines a officer de facto "to be
one who has the reputation of being the officer he assumes to be, and yet is not a good
officer in point of law," but rather"comes in by claim and color of right."58 According to
Chief Justice Steere,the "doctrine of a de facto officer is said to have originated as a rule
of public necessity to prevent public mischief and protect the rights of innocent third
parties who may be interested in the acts of an assumed officer apparently clothed with
authority and the courts have sometimes gone far with delicate reasoning to sustain the
rule where threatened rights of third parties were concerned."59 Officers de facto are
distinguished from a de facto government. The former is born out of a de jure
government under and by virtue of the principle of necessity, while the latter is
revolutionary.
s,Mitchell v.Director of Public Prosecutions(1986),L.R.C.(Const)35,88-89.
F.M.Brookefield,"The Fiji Revolutions of 1987,"New Zealand Law Journal 250,251 (July 1988).
i7 Id.
sx Thomas M.Cooley,A Treatise on the Law of Taxation(Callaghan and Company, 1876), 185.
'`'Carpenter v.Clark,217 Michigan 63,71 (1921).
29
V. STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PROTEST AND
DEMAND TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS BASED
The acting Government is not seeking de facto recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom,
but rather is operating on the de jure recognition already afforded the Hawaiian Kingdom
since the 19`h century. The acting Government, as officers de facto, is an extension of the
original de jure government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The acting Government has represented the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitral
proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom,
119 International Law Reports 566 (2001) (Annex 24)60 The Arbitral Tribunal in the
Larsen arbitration comprised of Professor James Crawford,SC,Presiding Arbitrator,who
at the same time was a member of the United Nations International Law Commission and
Special Rapporteur on State Responsibility (1997-2001); Professor Christopher
Greenwood, QC, Associate Arbitrator, who now serves as a Judge on the International
Court of Justice since February 6, 2009; and Gavan Griffith, QC, Associate Arbitrator,
who served as former Solicitor General for Australia. The jurisdictional basis of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration in Larsen v.Hawaiian Kingdom was a dispute between a
State and a private person. The acting Government also filed a Complaint against the
United States of America with the United Nations Security Council on July 5,2001.6'
On December 12, 2000, the day after oral hearings were held at the Permanent Court
of Arbitration, a meeting took place in Brussels between Dr. Jacques Bihozagara,
Ambassador for the Republic of Rwanda assigned to Belgium, and the Agent and two
deputy agents representing the acting Government in the Larsen case.62 Ambassador
Bihozagara attended a hearing before the International Court of Justice on December 8,
2000, (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), where he was made aware of the
Hawaiian arbitration case that was also taking place across the hall in the Peace Palace.63
After inquiring into the case, he called for the meeting and wished to convey that his
government was prepared to bring to the attention of the United Nations General
Assembly the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States.
Recalling his country's experience of genocide and the length of time it took for the
international community to finally intervene as a matter of international law,Ambassador
Bihozagara conveyed to the Agent that the illegal and prolonged occupation of the
Hawaii was unacceptable and should not be allowed to continue. Despite the excitement
of the offer, apprehension soon took its hold and the acting government could not, in
b1 Bederman&Hilbert,"Arbitration—UNCITRAL Rules—justiciability and indispensable third parties—
legal status of Hawai`i,"95 American Journal of International Law 927-933(2001).
Patrick Dumberry,"The Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration Case and the Unsettled Question of the
Hawaiian Kingdom's Claim to Continue as an Independent State under International Law,"2(1)Chinese
Journal of International Law 655-684(2002):and David Keanu Sai,"A Slippery Path towards Hawaiian
Indigeneity:An Analysis and Comparison between Hawaiian State Sovereignty and Hawaiian Indigeneity
and its Use and Practice in Hawai'i today," 10 Journal of Law and Social Challenges 68-133(Fall 2008).
Sai,A Slippery Path, 130-131.
"Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000(Democratic Republic of the Congo v.Belgium),Provisional Measures,
Order of 8 December 2000,I.C.J.Reports 2000,p. 182.
30
good conscience, accept the offer and put Rwanda in a position of reintroducing
Hawai`i's State continuity before the United Nations, when Hawai`i's community, itself,
remained ignorant of Hawai`i's profound legal position. The Agent thanked Ambassador
Bihozagara for his government's offer, but the timing was premature. The Agent
conveyed to the ambassador that the gracious offer could not be accepted without placing
Rwanda in a vulnerable position of possible political retaliation by the United States of
America, but that the acting government should instead focus its attention on continued
exposure and education of the occupation both at the national and international levels.
In line with exposure on the international level, the acting Government was
successful in filing a complaint,as a non-member State,with the United Nations Security
Council under the Presidency of China on July 5, 2001.64 Professor Dumberry, who's
article in the Chinese Journal of International Law addressed the complaint, stated,
"Article 35(2) of the only grants the right for States which are not members of the United
Nations to bring disputes and situations `to the attention' of the Security Council; it does
not oblige the Security Council to actually `consider' the matter brought to its
attention."65 Despite the Security Council's failure to consider the matter, the complaint,
nevertheless, was not challenged nor quashed by the United States of America, but
instead, according to Dumberry, "the United States, which is a permanent member of the
Security Council, ahs most certainly strongly objected to the inclusion of this Complaint
on the agenda, and is likely to have lobbied other States to act in a similar fashion."66 As
the Hawaiian complaint remained procedurally unabated, Russian Ambassador Vitaly
Churkin, who served as President of the Security Council, was notified by letter dated
March 1, 2008 of the acting Government's intent to amend the Hawaiian complaint
pursuant to the 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts.
(Annex 36).
It is in this capacity,the acting Government files this Protest and Demand to bring to
the attention of the United Nations General Assembly the prolonged and illegal
occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
A. CONCERNING THE VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT A STATE
MAY NOT EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY ON THE TERRITORY OF
ANOTHER STATE
The Permanent Court of International Justice acknowledged, "the first and foremost
restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that — failing the existence of a
permissive rule to the contrary — it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory
of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by
a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from
international custom or from a convention."67 By virtue of the 1893 Lili`uokalani
assignment of executive power, the President of the United States was temporarily
va Dumberry,671-672.
as Id..671.
66 Id.,672.
67 S.S.Lotus(Fr.v.Turk.), 1927 P.C.I.J.(ser.A)No. 10(Sept.7),p. 19.
31
assigned, under threat of war, the authority to administer Hawaiian law until the
government is restored in accordance with the Agreement of restoration. After the
government has been restored and the executive power reassigned, the Queen, or her
successor in office,would thereafter grant amnesty to the insurgents.
While Hawai'i was clearly not a participant in the hostilities of the Spanish-American
War, the United States occupied the Hawaiian Islands for the purpose of waging the war
against Spain on August 12, 1898, as well as to fortify the islands as a military outpost
for the defense of the United States in future conflicts.
The "power exercising effective control within another's sovereign territory has only
temporary managerial powers," and during "that limited period,the occupant administers
the territory on behalf of the sovereign."6s The actions taken by the McKinley
administration, with the consent of the Congress by joint resolution, clearly intended to
mask the violation of international law as if the annexation took place by treaty. As
Marek states, "a disguised annexation aimed at destroying the independence of the
occupied State, represents a clear violation of the rule preserving the continuity of the
occupied State.""
Article 6, Lieber Code (1863), regulated U.S. troops during the occupation of the
Hawaiian Islands in 1898 and mandated the Commander of U.S. troops to administer the
laws of the occupied country, being the civil and penal laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Article 6 was superseded by Article 43, 1899 Hague Convention,II (32 U.S. Stat. 1803),
and then superseded by Article 43, 1907 Hague Convention,IV (Annex 37). Article 43 of
the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, reinforces the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment that
mandates the President to provisionally administer the civil and penal laws of the
Hawaiian Kingdom. On August 12, 1949, the United States signed and ratified the
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,IV, of
12 August 1949 (Annex 38). In July 1956, the U.S. Department of the Army published
Field Manual 27-10—The Law of Land Warfare.
Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, delimits the power of the occupant and
serves as a fundamental bar on its free agency within an occupied neutral State.70
Although the United States signed and ratified both Hague Regulations, which post-date
the occupation of the Hawaiian Islands, the "text of Article 43," according to Professor
Benvenisti, "was accepted by scholars as mere reiteration of the older law, and
subsequently the article was generally recognized as expressing customary international
law."71 Professor Graber also states "nothing distinguishes the writing of the period
"Benvenisti,6.
69 Marek, 110.
70 The United States signed the 1899 Hague Regulations respecting Laws and Customs of War on Land at
The Hague on July 29,1899 and ratified by the Senate March 14, 1902;see 32(1)U.S.Stat. 1803.The
1907 Hague Regulations respecting Laws and Customs of War on Land was signed at The Hague October
18, 1907 and ratified by the Senate March 10th 1908;see 36 U.S.Stat.2277.The United States also signed
the 1907 Hague Regulations respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers at The Hague on October
18. 1907 and ratified by the Senate on March 10th 1908;see 36 U.S.Stat.2310.
Benvenisti,8.
32
following the 1899 Hague code from the writing prior to that code.72 Consistent with this
understanding of the international law of occupation during the Spanish-American war,
Professor Smith reported that the "military governments established in the territories
occupied by the armies of the United States were instructed to apply, as far as possible,
the local laws and to utilize, as far as seemed wise, the services of the local Spanish
officials.i73 This instruction to U.S. troops during the Spanish-American war to apply the
local laws of the occupied State was made pursuant to Article 6 of the Lieber Code.
With specific regard to occupying neutral territory, the Arbitral Tribunal, in
Coenca Brothers vs. Germany (1927), concluded "the occupation of Salonika by the
Allies in the autumn of 1915 constituted a violation of Greek neutrality."74 Later, in the
Chevreau case (1931), the Arbitrator concluded that the status of the British forces while
occupying Persia (Iran)—a neutral State in the First World War—was analogous to
"belligerent forces occupying enemy territory.i75 Professor Oppenheim observes that an
occupant State on neutral territory "does not possess such a wide range of rights with
regard to the occupied country and its inhabitants as he possesses in occupied enemy
territory."76 Although the Hague Regulations apply only to territory belonging to an
enemy, Professor Feilchenfeld states. "it is, nevertheless, usually held that the rules on
belligerent occupation will also apply where a belligerent, in the course of the war,
occupies neutral territory, even if the neutral power should have failed to protest against
the occupation."77 While Hawai'i was a neutral state at the time of its occupation during
the Spanish American war,the law of occupation ought to be not only applied with equal
force and effect,but that the occupier would be shorn of its belligerent rights in Hawaiian
territory as a result of Hawai'i's neutrality and the obligations incurred under the 1893
Lili`uokalani assignment and the Agreement of restoration.
B. CONCERNING THE VIOLATIONS OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL
LAW
The Hawaiian Kingdom is a member State of the Universal Postal Union since
January 1, 1882, has forty-six (46) State treaty partners, and, to a limited degree, one
hundred twenty-seven (127) successor State quasi-treaty partners. In this Protest and
Demand, the Hawaiian Kingdom's identification of successor States collectively includes
former colonial, mandate or trust territories. This identification is made without any
prejudice to the particular rights of each successor States in relation to the mode of
exercising self-determination when they achieved their independence.
72 Doris Graber,The Development of the Law of Belligerent Occupation:1863-1914,(Columbia University
Press 1949), 143.
7'Munroe Smith."Record of Political Events." 13(4)Political Science Quarterly 748(Dec. 1898).
74 Coenca Brothers v.Germany,(Greco-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal,December Is' 1927,case no.389).
Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1927& 1928,(Longmans,Green and Co., 1931),571.
7'"Chevreau case(In the Matter of the Claim Madame Chevreau Against the United Kingdom),"27
American Journal of International Law 160(1933).
7'Lassa Oppenheim,International Law,7'ed.,(David McKay Co. 1948-52),241.
77 Ernst Feilchenfeld,The International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation(Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace 1942),8.
33
According to Professor Oppenheim, "there is room for the view that in case of
separation resulting in the emergence of a new State the latter is bound by—or at least
entitled to accede to—general treaties of a law-making' nature, especially those of a
humanitarian character."'x Beato explains, "contrary to conventional law's clean slate
doctrine,relatively few newly independent states renounce all of their predecessor state's
treaties. Instead, new states tend to adopt a pragmatic approach which balances issues of
self-determination and sovereignty in foreign affairs against the need to foster stability in
international relations."'Professor Hershey states that it "is generally agreed that the
purely local or personal rights and obligations of the [predecessor State]...remain with
the [successor State]."s"Treaty obligations to private individuals survive the succession
and bind the successor State.'
Provisions of these treaties not only protect the private rights and obligations of the
citizenry of the predecessor States and their successor States while within the territory of
the Hawaiian Kingdom,but also protect the private rights and obligations of the citizenry
of the Hawaiian Kingdom while within the territories of the predecessor States and their
successor States. This rule stems from the principle of international law that change in
sovereignty does not affect the private rights of individuals.
Currently, forty-six (46) member States stand in violation of treaties with the
Hawaiian Kingdom and international law,and one hundred twenty-seven (127) successor
States stand in violation, to a lesser degree, to certain provisions of their predecessor
States' treaties that are private in nature and not public.
1. Austria/Hungary—Treaty of Friendship,Commerce and
Navigation
On June 18, 1875, a Treaty was signed between Austria-Hungary and the Hawaiian
Kingdom in London and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 39). Article IV
of this treaty provides:
"the Citizens of each high contracting Parties when resident
in the territory of the other shall enjoy the most constant
and complete protection for their persons and property, and
for this purpose they shall have free and easy access to the
Courts of Justice, provided by law, in pursuit and defense
of their rights. They shall be at liberty to employ lawyers,
advocates or Agents to prosecute or defend their rights
before such Courts of Justice. In fact they shall enjoy in
See Oppenheim,International Law(1955).vol. 1,p. 167.See also Fenwick,International Law,p. 153.
'y Andrew M.Beato,"Newly Independent and Separating States' Succession to Treaties,"9(2)American
University Journal of International Law&Policy(1994): 525-558,544.
80 Amos.S.Hershey,"The Succession of States."5(2)American Journal of International Law 285-297,
289(Apr., 1911).
8' Thos.Baty,"Division of States:Its Effect on Obligations,"Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol.9,
Problems of Peace and War,Papers Read before the Society in the year 1923(1923),119-129, 125.
34
this respect all the rights and privileges which are granted
to natives,and shall be subject to the same conditions."
Following the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary into two separate States of Austria
and Hungary following the first Word War, Hungary also became a State party with
Austria to the 1875 Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Neither Austria nor Hungary nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of
its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XIX of the
1875 Treaty. Therefore this treaty is still in full force, continues to have legal effect to
date. Former Austro-Hungarian territories, which acquired their independence from
Austria-Hungary, are successor States to, at the very least, Article IV of the Hawaiian-
Austro/Hungarian Treaty.Former Austro-Hungarian territories are:
a. Czech Republic.Independence: October 28, 1918.
b. Poland.Independence: November 11, 1918.
c. Slovakia. Independence: Independence: October 28,
1918.
2. Belgium—Treaty of Amity,Commerce and Navigation
On October 4, 1862, a Treaty was signed between Belgium and the Hawaiian
Kingdom in Brussels and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 40). Article IV
of this treaty provides:
"the respective citizens of the two countries shall enjoy the
most constant and complete protection for their persons and
property. Consequently they shall have free and easy
access to the court of justice in the pursuit and defense of
their rights in every instance and degree of jurisdiction
established by the laws."
Neither Belgium nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention
to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XXVII of the 1862 Treaty.
Therefore this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former
Belgian territories, which acquired their independence from Belgium, are successor
States to, at the very least, Article IV of the Hawaiian-Belgian Treaty with regard to the
citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor
State in the treaty.Former Belgian territories are:
a. Democratic Republic of the Congo. Independence:
June 30, 1960.
b. Burundi. Independence from Belgian Trusteeship
on July 1, 1962
c. Rwanda. Independence from Belgian Trusteeship
on July 1, 1962
35
3. Denmark—Treaty of Friendship,Commerce and
Navigation
On October 19, 1846, a Treaty was signed between Denmark and the Hawaiian
Kingdom in Honolulu and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 41). Article II
of this treaty provides:
"the subjects of His Majesty the King of Denmark,residing
within the dominions of the King of the Hawaiian Islands,
shall enjoy the same protection in regard to their civil rights
as well as to their persons and properties, as native
subjects; and the King of the Hawaiian Islands engages to
grant to Danish subjects the same rights and privileges
which now are, or may hereafter be, granted to or enjoyed
by any other foreigners, subjects of the most favored
nation."
Neither Denmark nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention
to terminate this treaty in accordance with the principles of customary international law.
Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.
Former Danish territories, which acquired their independence from Denmark, are
successor States to,at the very least,Article II of the Hawaiian-Danish Treaty with regard
to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the
predecessor State in the treaty. A former Danish territory is:
a. Iceland. Independence: June 7, 1944.
4. France—Treaty of Friendship,Commerce and
Navigation
On October 29, 1857, a third Treaty was signed between France and the Hawaiian
Kingdom in Honolulu and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 42). Article IV
of this treaty provides:
"their respective subjects shall enjoy, in both States, a
constant and complete protection for their persons and
properties. They shall, consequently, have free and easy
access to the tribunals of justice, in prosecution and defense
of their rights, in every instance, and in all the degrees of
jurisdiction established by the laws."
Neither France nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to
terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XXVI of the 1857 Treaty.
Therefore this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.Former
French territories, which acquired their independence from France, are successor States
to,at the very least,Article IV of the Hawaiian-French Treaty with regard to the citizenry
36
of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in
the treaty. Former French territories,which includes mandate territories,are:
a. Algeria. Independence: July 5, 1962.
b. Benin. Independence: August 1, 1960.
c. Burkina Faso. Independence: August 5, 1960.
d. Central African Republic. Independence: August
13, 1960.
e. Chad. Independence: August 11, 1960.
f. Comoros. Independence: July 6, 1975.
g. Congo. Independence: August 15, 1960.
h. Cote D'Ivoire. Independence: August 7, 1960.
i. Djibouti. Independence: June 27, 1977.
j. Gabon. Independence: August 17, 1960.
k. Guinea. Independence: October 2, 1958.
1. Lao People's Democratic Republic. Independence:
July 19, 1949.
m. Lebanon.Independence from French Mandate:
November 22, 1943.
n. Madagascar. Independence: June 26, 1960.
o. Mali. Independence: September 22, 1960.
p. Mauritania. Independence: November 28, 1960.
q. Morocco. Independence: March 2, 1956.
r. Niger. Independence: August 3, 1960.
s. Republic of Cameroon.Independence from French
Trusteeship on January 1, 1960.
t. Senegal. Independence: April 4, 1960.
u. Syria. Independence from French Mandate: April
17, 1946.
v. Togo.Independence from French Trusteeship on
April 27. 1960.
w. Tunisia. Independence: March 20, 1956.
x. Vanuatu. Independence from France and Great
Britain: July 30, 1980.
y. Viet Nam. Independence: September 2, 1945.
5. Germany—Treaty of Friendship,Commerce and
Navigation and Consular Convention
On March 25, 1879, a Treaty was signed between Germany and the Hawaiian
Kingdom in Berlin and thereafter ratified by both governments and exchanged (Annex
43).Article II of this treaty provides:
"the subjects and citizens of the two High Contracting
Parties may remain and reside in any part of said territories
respectively and shall receive and enjoy full and perfect
37
protection for their persons and property. They shall have
free and easy access to the courts of justice, provided by
law, in pursuit and defense of their rights,and they shall be
at liberty to choose and employ lawyers, advocates or
agents to pursue or defend their rights before such courts of
justice; and they shall enjoy in this respect all the rights and
privileges as native subjects or citizens."
Neither Germany nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention
to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XXVI of the 1879 Treaty.
Therefore,this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.
6. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island—
Treaty of Friendship,Commerce and Navigation
On July 10, 1851, a Treaty was signed between the United Kingdom and the
Hawaiian Kingdom in Honolulu and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 44).
Article VIII of this treaty provides:
"the subjects of either of the contracting parties, in the
territories of the other, shall receive and enjoy full and
perfect protection for their persons and property, and shall
have free and open access to the courts of justice in the said
countries, respectively, for the prosecution and defense of
their just rights..."
Neither Great Britain nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its
intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the principles of customary
international law. Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal
effect to date. Former British territories, which acquired their independence from Great
Britain, are successor States to, at the very least, Article VIII of the Hawaiian-British
Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the
citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. Former British territories, which includes
mandate territories,are:
a. Afghanistan. Independence: August 19, 1919.
b. Antigua and Barbuda. Independence:
November 1, 1981.
c. Australia. Independence: January 1, 1901.
d. Bahamas. Independence: July 10, 1973.
e. Bahrain. Independence: August 15, 1971.
f. Bangladesh. Independence from Pakistan on
December 16, 1971. Pakistan acquired
Independence from Great Britain on August 14,
1947.
g. Barbados. Independence: November 30, 1966.
38
•
h. Belize. Independence: September 21, 1981.
i. Bhutan. Independence from India on August 8,
1949. India acquired Independence from Great
Britain on August 15, 1947.
j. Botswana. Independence: September 30, 1966.
k. Brunei Darussalam.Independence: January 1,
1984.
1. Cyprus. Independence: August 16, 1960.
m. Dominica. Independence: November 3, 1978.
n. Egypt. Independence: February 28, 1922.
o. Fiji. Independence: October 10, 1970.
p. Gambia. Independence: Februaryl8, 1965.
q. Ghana. Independence: March 6, 1957.
r. Grenada. Independence: February 7, 1974.
s. Guyana. Independence: May 26, 1966.
t. India. Independence: August 15, 1947.
u. Iraq. Independence from British Mandate:
October 3, 1932.
v. Ireland. Independence: December 6, 1921.
w. Israel.Independence from British Mandate:
May 14, 1948.
x. Jamaica. Independence: August 6, 1962.
y. Jordan.Independence from British Mandate:
May 25, 1946.
z. Kenya. Independence: December 12, 1963.
aa. Kiribati. Independence: July 12, 1979.
bb.Kuwait. Independence: June 19, 1961.
cc. Lesotho. Independence: October 4, 1966.
dd.Malawi. Independence: July 6, 1964.
ee. Malaysia. Independence: August 31, 1957.
ff. Maldives. Independence: July 26, 1965.
gg.Malta. Independence: September 21, 1964.
hh.Mauritius. Independence: March 12, 1968.
ii. Myanmar. Independence: January 4, 1948.
jj. Namibia. Independence from South African
Mandate on March 21, 1990. South Africa
acquired Independence from Great Britain on
May 31, 1910.
kk.Nauru. Independence from Australia,New
Zealand and Great Britain Trusteeship on
January 31, 1968.New Zealand acquired
Independence from Great Britain on September
26, 1907,and Australia acquired Independence
from Great Britain on January 1, 1901.
11. New Zealand. Independence: September 26,
1907.
39
mm. Nigeria. Independence: October 1, 1960.
nn.Pakistan. Independence: August 14, 1947.
oo.Papua New Guinea. Independence from
Australian Trusteeship on September 16, 1975.
Australia acquired Independence from Great
Britain on January 1. 1901.
pp. Qatar. Independence: September 3, 1971.
qq. Saint Kitts and Nevis. Independence:
September 19, 1983.
rr. Saint Lucia. Independence: February 22, 1979.
ss. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Independence: October 27, 1979.
tt. Samoa.Independence from New Zealand
Trusteeship on January 1, 1962.New Zealand
acquired Independence from Great Britain on
September 26, 1907.
uu. Seychelles. Independence: June 29, 1976.
vv. Sierra Leone. Independence: April 27, 1961.
ww. Singapore. Independence from Malaysia on
August 9, 1965.Malaysia acquired
Independence from Great Britain on August 31,
1957.
xx. Solomon Islands. Independence: July 7, 1978.
yy. Somalia. Independence: June 26, 1960.
zz. South Africa. Independence: May 31, 1910.
aaa. South Sudan.Independence from Sudan on
July 9,2011. Sudan acquired Independence
from Great Britain on January 1, 1956.
bbb. Sri Lanka. Independence: February 4, 1948.
ccc. Sudan. Independence: January 1, 1956.
ddd. Swaziland. Independence: September 6,
1968.
eee. Tonga. Independence: June 4, 1970.
fff.Trinidad and Tobago. Independence: August
31, 1962.
ggg. Tuvalu. Independence: October 1, 1978.
hhh. Uganda. Independence: October 9, 1962.
iii. United Arab Emirates. Independence:
December 2, 1971.
jjj. United Republic of Tanzania.Tanganyika
became independent on December 9, 1961 from
British Trusteeship;Zanzibar became
independent on December 19, 1963;Tanganyika
united with Zanzibar on April 26, 1964 to form
the United Republic of Tanganyika and
Zanzibar; renamed United Republic of Tanzania.
40
kkk. Vanuatu. Independence from both France
and Great Britain on July 30, 1980.
111. Zambia. Independence: October 24, 1964.
mmm. Zimbabwe. Independence: April 18, 1980.
7. Italy—Treaty of Amity,Commerce and Navigation
On July 22, 1863, a Treaty was signed between Italy and the Hawaiian Kingdom in
Paris and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 45). Article IV of this treaty
provides:
"the respective citizens of the two countries shall enjoy the
most constant and complete protection for their persons and
property. Consequently, they shall have free and easy
access to the courts of justice in the pursuit and defense of
their rights, in every instance and degree of jurisdiction
established by the laws."
Neither Italy nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to
terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XXVII of the 1863 Treaty.
Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.
Former Italian territories, which acquired their independence from Italy, are successor
States to, at the very least, Article IV of the Hawaiian-Italian Treaty with regard to the
citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor
State in the treaty.Former Italian territory is:
a. Libya. Independence: December 24, 1951.
8. Japan—Treaty of Amity and Commerce
On August 19, 1871, a Treaty was signed between Japan and the Hawaiian Kingdom
in the city of Yedo and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 46). Article II of
this treaty provides:
"the subjects of each of the two high contracting parties,
respectively, shall have the liberty freely and securely to
come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports and
rivers in the territories of the other, where trade with other
nations is permitted; they may remain and reside in any
such ports, and places respectively, and hire and occupy
houses and warehouses, and may trade in all kinds of
produce, manufactures and merchandise of lawful
commerce,enjoying at all times the same privileges as may
have been, or may hereafter be granted to the citizens or
subjects of any other nation, paying at all times such duties
and taxes as may be exacted from the citizens or subjects of
41
other nations doing business or residing within the
territories of each of the high contracting parties."
Neither Japan nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to
terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article VI of the 1871 Treaty.
Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.
Former Japanese territories, which acquired their independence from Japan,are successor
States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Japanese Treaty with regard to the
citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor
State in the treaty.Former Japanese territories are:
d. North Korea. Independence: August 15, 1945.
e. South Korea.Independence: August 15, 1945.
9. Netherlands—Treaty of Friendship,Commerce and
Navigation
On October 16, 1862, a Treaty was signed between the Netherlands and the Hawaiian
Kingdom in The Hague and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 47). Article
II of this treaty provides:
"the respective subjects of the two high contracting parties
shall be perfectly and in all respects assimilated on their
establishment and settlement, whether for a longer or
shorter time in the States and Colonies of the other party on
the terms granted to the subjects of the most favored nation
in all which concerns the permission of sojourning, the
exercise of legal professions, imposts, taxes, in a word, all
the conditions relative to sojourn and establishment."
Neither the Netherlands nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its
intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article VI of the 1862
Treaty. Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to
date. Former Dutch territories, which acquired their independence from the Netherlands,
are successor States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Dutch Treaty with
regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the
predecessor State in the treaty.Former Dutch territories are:
a. Indonesia. Independence: August 17, 1945.
b. Suriname. Independence: November 25, 1975.
10.Portugal—Treaty of Friendship and Commerce
On May 5, 1882, a Provisional Convention was signed between Portugal and the
Hawaiian Kingdom in Lisbon and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 48).
Article I of this convention provides:
42
"the Consular Agents, the subjects, the ships and products
of the soil, or of the industry of one of the two countries,
will enjoy on the territory of the other the same exemptions,
privileges, and immunities which other Consular Agents,
subjects,ships and products of the soil,or of the industry of
the most favored nation,enjoy."
Neither Portugal nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention
to terminate this Provisional Convention in accordance with the principles of customary
international law. Therefore, this Portuguese Provisional Convention is still in full force
and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Portuguese territories, which acquired
their independence from Portugal, are successor States to, at the very least, Article I of
the Hawaiian-Portuguese Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that
effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. Former
Portuguese territories are:
a. Angola. Independence: November 11, 1975.
b. Cape Verde. Independence: July 5, 1975.
c. Guinea-Bissau: Independence: September 24,
1973.
d. Mozambique. Independence: June 25, 1975.
e. Sao Tome and Principe. Independence: July 12,
1975.
f. Timor-Leste.Independence: November 28,
1975.May 20,2002 is the official date of
international recognition of Timor-Leste's
independence from Indonesia.
11.Russia—Treaty of Commerce and Navigation
On June 19, 1869,a Treaty was signed between Russia and the Hawaiian Kingdom in
Paris and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 49). Article II of this treaty
provides:
"the subjects of His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias,
and the subjects of His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian
Islands, shall be treated reciprocally on the footing of the
most favored nation."
Neither Russia nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to
terminate this treaty in accordance with the principles of customary international law.
Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.
Former Russian territories,which acquired their independence from Russia,are successor
States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Russian Treaty with regard to the
citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor
State in the treaty.Former Russian territories are:
43
a. Armenia. Independence: September 23, 1991.
b. Azerbaijan. Independence: August 30, 1991.
c. Belarus. Independence: August 25, 1991.
d. Finland. Independence: December 6, 1917.
e. Georgia. Independence: April 9, 1991.
f. Kazakhstan. Independence: December 6, 1991.
g. Kyrgyzstan. Independence: August 31, 1991.
h. Latvia. Independence: August 21, 1991.
i. Lithuania. Independence: March 11, 1990.
j. Republic of Moldova. Independence: August
27, 1991.
k. Tajikistan. Independence: September 9, 1991.
1. Turkmenistan. Independence: October 27,
1991.
m. Ukraine. Independence: August 24, 1991.
n. Uzbekistan. Independence: August 31, 1991.
12.Spain—Treaty of Peace and Friendship
On October 29, 1863,a Treaty was signed between Spain and the Hawaiian Kingdom
in London and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 50). Article IV of this
treaty provides:
"the respective citizens of the two countries shall enjoy the
most constant and complete protection for their persons and
property. Consequently, they shall have free and easy
access to the courts of justice in the pursuit and defense of
their rights, in every instance and degree of jurisdiction
established by the laws."
Neither Spain nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to
terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XXVII of the 1863 Treaty.
Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date day.
Former Spanish territories, which acquired their independence from Spain, are successor
States to, at the very least, Article IV of the Hawaiian-Spanish Treaty with regard to the
citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor
State in the treaty.Former Spanish territories are:
a. Cuba. Independence: May 20, 1902.
b. Equatorial Guinea. Independence:
October 12, 1968.
44
13.Switzerland—Treaty of Friendship,Establishment and
Commerce
On July 20, 1864, a Treaty was signed between the Swiss Confederation and the
Hawaiian Kingdom in Berne and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 51).
Article III of the treaty provides:
"the citizens of each of the contracting parties shall enjoy
on the territory of the other the most perfect and complete
protection for their persons and their property. They shall
in consequence have free and easy access to the tribunals of
justice for their claims and the defense of their rights, in all
cases and in every degree of jurisdiction established by the
law."
Neither the Swiss Confederation nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other
of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XIII of the
1864 Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced
the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. Therefore, this treaty is still in full
force and continues to have legal effect to date.
14.Sweden and Norway—Treaty of Friendship,Commerce
and Navigation
On July 1, 1852,a Treaty was signed between Sweden and Norway and the Hawaiian
Kingdom in Honolulu and thereafter ratified by both governments (Annex 52). Article II
of the treaty provides:
"there shall be between all the dominions of His Swedish
and Norwegian Majesty, and the Hawaiian Islands, a
reciprocal freedom of commerce. The subjects of each of
the two contracting parties, respectively, shall have liberty
freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to
all places, ports and rivers in the territories of the other,
where trade with other nations in permitted. They may
remain and reside in any part of the said territories,
respectively, and hire and occupy houses and warehouses
and my trade,by wholesale or retail, in all kinds of produce,
manufactures or merchandise of lawful commerce,
enjoying the same exemptions and privileges as native
subjects, and subject always to the same laws and
established customs as native subjects."
Following the separation of Austria-Hungary into two separate States, both States
remained parties to the 1852 Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom. Neither Norway nor
Sweden nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of their intentions to
45
terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVII of the 1852 Treaty.
Therefore,the treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.
15. United States of America—Treaty of Friendship,
Commerce and Navigation
On December 20, 1849, the Treaty between the United States of America and the
Hawaiian Kingdom was concluded and signed in Washington,D.C. Ratifications by both
countries were exchanged in Honolulu on the Island of O`ahu, on August 24, 1850.
(Annex 6). Article VIII of the treaty provides:
"...each of the two contracting parties engages that the
citizens or subjects of the other residing in their respective
States shall enjoy their property and personal security in as
full and ample manner as their own citizens or subjects, or
the subjects or citizens of the most favored nation, but
subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries,
respectively."
In addition,Article XVI of the said treaty provides that any:
"...citizen or subject of either party infringing the articles of
this treaty shall be held responsible for the same, and the
harmony and good correspondence between the two
governments shall not be interrupted thereby, each party
engaging in no way to protect the offender, or sanction
such violation."
Neither the United States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its
intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVI of the 1849
Treaty. Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to
date. Former United States territories, which acquired their independence from the United
States, are successor States to, at the very least, Article VIII of the Hawaiian-American
Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the
citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty.Former United States territories are:
a. Federated States of Micronesia.Independence
from American trusteeship on November 3,
1986.
b. Marshall Islands.Independence from American
trusteeship on October 21, 1986.
c. Palau. Independence from American trusteeship
on October 1, 1994.
d. Philippines. Independence: July 4, 1946.
46
16. United States of America-1907 Hague Convention,IV,
respecting Laws and Customs of War on Land
The United States of America signed at The Hague Convention, IV, on October 18,
1907 and ratified by the Senate March 10, 1908 (Annex 37). This treaty is still in full
force and continues to have legal effect to date and binds the United States of America to
administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.Article 43 of the treaty provides:
"The authority of the legitimate power having in fact
passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take
all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far
as possible, public order and safety, while respecting,
unless absolutely prevented,the laws in force in the country"
Article 55 of the treaty also provides:
"The occupying State shall be regarded only as
administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real
estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the
hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It
must safeguard the capital of these properties, and
administer them in accordance with the rules of
usufruct."
17. United States of America-1907 Hague Convention, V,
respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers
The United States of America also signed the 1907 Hague Regulations respecting the
Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers at The Hague on October 18, 1907 and ratified by
the Senate on March 10, 1908. (Annex 53). This treaty is still in full force and continues
to have legal effect to date and binds the United States of America to respect the
neutrality of the Hawaiian Kingdom.Article 1 of the treaty provides:
"The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable."
Article 2 of the treaty provides:
"Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of
either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a
neutral Power."
Article 3 of the treaty provides:
`Belligerents are likewise forbidden to: (a) Erect on the
territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or
other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with
47
belligerent forces on land or sea; (b) Use any installation of
this kind established by them before the war on the territory
of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which
has not been opened for the service of public messages."
Article 4 of the treaty provides:
"Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting
agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist
the belligerents."
18.Foreign Consulates Unlawfully Established within the
territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom
The United States of America has accredited thirty-four (34) foreign Consulates that
are unlawfully maintained within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of
international law and Hawaiian law,to wit:
(1) CONSULATE OF AUSTRALIA (2) CONSULATE OF BELGIUM
Consul General Scott Dewar Honorary Consul Jeffrey Lau
1000 Bishop Street,P.H. 707 Richards Street,Suite 600
Honolulu,Hawai`i 96813-4299 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96813-4693
(3) CONSULATE OF BRAZIL (4) CONSULATE OF CHILE
Honorary Consul Eric Crispin Honorary Consul Gladys Vernoy
745 Fort Street Mall,Suite 1450 2240 Kuhio Avenue,P.H. 3804
Honolulu.Hawai`i 96813 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96815-2820
(5) CONSULATE OF CZECH REPUBLIC (6) CONSULATE OF DENMARK
Honorary Consul Ann Ching Honorary Consul Claus Hansen
591 Paikau Street 1150 Kikowaena St.
Honolulu,Hawaii 96816 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96819-2227
(7) CONSULATE OF FINLAND (8) CONSULATE OF FRANCE
Honorary Consul Katja Silveraa Honorary Consul Patricia Lee
411 Hobron Lane,Suite 808 P.O.Box 22009
Honolulu,Hawai`i 96815 Honolulu,Hawaii 96823
(9) CONSULATE OF HUNGARY (10) CONSULATE OF INDIA
Honorary Consul Honorary Consul Sheila Watumull
Katalin Csiszar,Ph.D. P.O.Box 10905
1960 East-West Road,Suite T415 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96816
Honolulu,Hawai`i 96822
(1 1) CONSULATE OF ITALY (12) CONSULATE OF JAPAN
Honorary Consul Michele Consul General Yoshihiko Kamo
48
Carbone,M.D.,Ph.D. 1742 Nuuanu Avenue
735 Bishop Street,Suite 201 Honolulu.Hawaii 96817-3201
Honolulu,Hawai`i 96813
(13) CONSULATE OF KIRIBATI (14) CONSULATE OF SOUTH KOREA
Honorary Consul William Paupe Consul General Young Kil Suh
95 Nakolo Place 2756 Pali Highway
Honolulu,Hawai`i 96819-1845 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96817-1491
(15) CONSULATE OF LUXEMBOURG (16) CONSULATE OF MARSHALL ISLANDS
Honorary Consul Consul General Noda Lojkar
Jean-Claude Drui 1888 Lusitana Street,Suite 301
2176 Lauwiliwili Street,#101 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96813-1518
Kapolei,Hawai`i 96707
(17) CONSULATE OF MEXICO (18) CONSULATE OF MICRONESIA
Honorary Consul Andrew Kluger Consul General Akillino Susaia
818 South King Street,#2100 3049 Ualena Street,Suite 910
Honolulu,Hawaii 96813 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96819-1999
(19) CONSULATE OF MOROCCO (20) CONSULATE OF THE NETHERLANDS
Honorary Consul M.Jan Rum Honorary Consul Gaylord Tom
1419 Sixteenth Avenue 745 Fort St.Mall,Suite 702
Honolulu,Hawaii 96816 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96813-3814
(21) CONSULATE OF NEW ZEALAND (22) CONSULATE OF NORWAY
Honorary Consul Peter Lewis Honorary Consul Nina Fasi
3929 Old Pali Road 949 Wainiha Street
Honolulu,Hawaii 96817 Honolulu Hawaii 96825
(23) CONSULATE OF PERU (24) CONSULATE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Honorary Consul Carlos Consul General Julius Torres
Juarez,Ph.D. 2433 Pali Highway
1 188 Fort Street Mall Suite 305 Honolulu,Hawaii 96817-1452
Honolulu,Hawai`i 96813-2471
(25) CONSULATE OF POLAND (26) CONSULATE OF PORTUGAL
Honorary Consul Bozena Jarnot Honorary Consul John Felix,Ph.D.
2825 South King Street,Suite 2701 P.O.Box 240778
Honolulu,Hawai`i 96826-3535 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96824
(27) CONSULATE OF SAN MARINO (28) CONSULATE OF SLOVENIA
Honorary Consul Yukio Takahashi Admiral R.J.Zlatoper,USN (RET)
4615 Kahala Avenue 900 Fort Street Mall,Suite 920
Honolulu,Hawaii 96816-5210 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96813
49
(29) CONSULATE OF SPAIN (30) CONSULATE OF SRI LANKA
Honorary Vice Consul Honorary Consul Kusuma Cooray
John Felix,Ph.D. 60 North Beretania Street,Suite 410
P.O. Box 240778 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96817-4754
Honolulu,Hawai`i 96824
(31) CONSULATE OF SWEDEN (32) CONSULATE OF SWITZERLAND
Honorary Consul James M.Cribley Honorary Consul Theres Ryf Desai
737 Bishop Street,Suite 2600 616 Kahiau Loop
Honolulu,Hawaii 96813-3283 Honolulu,Hawaii 96821-2450
(33) CONSULATE OF THAILAND (34) CONSULATE OF TONGA
Honorary Consul Colin Miyabara Honorary Consul Annie Kaneshiro
866 Iwilei Road,Suite 201 738 Kaheka Street,Suite 306B
Honolulu,Hawaii 96817 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96814-3726
The Lili'uokalani assignment did not authorize the U.S. Department of State to
accredit foreign Consulates within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Foreign
Consulates can only be accredited in the Hawaiian Islands by exequatur under Hawaiian
Kingdom law pursuant to §458, Article X, Chapter VIII, Title 2, Compiled Laws of the
Hawaiian Kingdom (Annex 5), which the Lili'uokalani assignment calls for the faithful
execution by the United States of America.
19. Universal Postal Union—Treaty of Berne
On January 1, 1882, the Hawaiian Kingdom joined the Universal Postal Union as a
member State and acceded to the 1874 Treaty of Berne establishing the General Postal
Union, which came to be known as the Universal Postal Union. The Hawaiian Kingdom
was also a signatory to the Additional Act to the Universal Postal Union Convention of
June 1, 1878, on March 21, 1885, (Annex 54) together with the other member States of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Germany, United States of
America, Argentina, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile,
Columbia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ecuador, Spain, France.
Canada, India, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg,
Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Netherlands, Peru, Persia (Iran), Portugal,
Romania, Russia, El Salvador, Serbia, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey,
Uruguay and Venezuela, was concluded and signed at Lisbon and thereafter ratified and
exchanged by the governments.
The Hawaiian Kingdom has provided no notice of termination of its membership and
maintains that it is still a member State of the Universal Postal Union. Therefore, the
membership is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.
50
20. War Crimes Committed Against Civilian Population
Since April 6, 2012, protests and demands for the commission of war crimes by
civilian judges of the State of Hawaii, being a political subdivision of the United States
of America, against civilians who are invoking Hawaiian Kingdom law were sent to
Admiral Locklear,Commander of the U.S.Pacific Command,pursuant to Section 495(b),
Department of the Army Field Manual 27-10; Hague Convention No. IV,Respecting the
Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907; the Geneva Convention Relative to
the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949; and Title 18 U.S.C.
§2441(c)(1) (Annex 55).These war crimes are continuing to date.
VI. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT PROTEST AND DEMAND
It cannot be sufficiently stressed that conditions laid down under Article 35(2) of the
Charter of the United Nations are satisfied.
The HAWAIIAN KINGDOM is a non-member State of the United Nations and the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANGOLA, ANTIGUA AND
BARBUDA, ARGENTINA, ARMENIA. AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BAHAMAS,
BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELGIUM, BELIZE, BENIN, BHUTAN,
BOLIVIA (PLURINATIONAL STATE OF), BOTSWANA, BRAZIL, BRUNEI DARUSSALAM,
BULGARIA,BURKINA FASO,BURUNDI,CAPE VERDE,CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC,CHAD,
CHILE, COLOMBIA, COMOROS, CONGO, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CUBA, CYPRUS,
CZECH REPUBLIC, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
OF THE CONGO, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR,
EGYPT, EL SALVADOR, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, FIJI, FINLAND, FRANCE, GABON, GAMBIA,
GEORGIA, GERMANY, GHANA, GREECE, GRENADA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUINEA-
BISSAU, GUYANA, HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN
(ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF), IRAQ,IRELAND,ITALY,JAMAICA,JAPAN,JORDAN,KAZAKHSTAN,
KENYA, KIRIBATI, KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC,
LATVIA,LEBANON,LESOTHO,LIBERIA,LIBYA,LITHUANIA,LUXEMBOURG,MADAGASCAR,
MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MALDIVES, MALI, MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITANIA,
MAURITIUS, MEXICO, MICRONESIA (FEDERATED STATES OF), MONTENEGRO, MOROCCO,
MOZAMBIQUE, MYANMAR, NAMIBIA, NAURU, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND,
NICARAGUA, NIGER, NIGERIA, NORWAY, PAKISTAN, PALAU, PAPUA NEW GUINEA,
PARAGUAY, PERU, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL, QATAR, REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON,
REPUBLIC OF KOREA, REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA, ROMANIA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION,
RWANDA,SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS,SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES,
SAMOA,SAN MARINO,SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE,SENEGAL,SERBIA, SEYCHELLES, SIERRA
LEONE, SINGAPORE,SLOVAKIA,SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOMALIA,SOUTH SUDAN,
SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SRI LANKA, SUDAN, SURINAME, SWAZILAND, SWEDEN,
SWITZERLAND, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, TAJIKISTAN, THAILAND, TIMOR-LESTE, TOGO,
TONGA, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO,TUNISIA,TURKEY,TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU,UGANDA,
UKRAINE, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND, UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA, URUGUAY, UZBEKISTAN,
51
VANUATU,VENEZUELA(BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF),VIET NAM,ZAMBIA,and ZIMBABWE
are member States of the United Nations.
The HAWAIIAN KINGDOM will withdraw States named in this Protest and Demand,
with the exception of the United States of America, when said States shall declare,
whether individually or collectively, that they will not recognize as lawful the United
States of America's presence and authority within the territory, territorial seas, exclusive
economic zone and airspace of the Hawaiian Kingdom according to Article 41(2),
Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (2001), except for the United
States' temporary and limited authority vested by virtue of the 1893 Lili`uokalani
assignment, Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and international law.
The HAWAIIAN KINGDOM also reserves the right to present further grounds for its
Protest and Demand giving fuller particulars, which it will deposit with the President of
the United Nations General Assembly in due course.
David Keanu Sai
52
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Hawaiian Kingdom's Acceptance of the Obligations of Pacific Settlement
Annex 2: Anglo-French Proclamation Recognizing Hawaiian Independence (Nov.
28, 1843.
Annex 3: United States Recognition of Hawaiian Independence (July 6, 1844)
Annex 4: Hawaiian Constitution (1864)
Annex 5: Chapter VIII—Department of Foreign Affairs,Compiled Laws of the
Hawaiian Kingdom (1884)
Annex 6: Hawaiian-United States Treaty of Friendship,Commerce and Navigation
(December 20, 1849)
Annex 7: Hawaiian-United States Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity (January 13,
1875)
Annex 8: Hawaiian-United States Postal Convention Concerning Money Orders
(September 11, 1883)
Annex 9: Hawaiian-United States Supplementary Convention to the 1875 Treaty of
Commercial Reciprocity (December 6, 1884)
Annex 10: Lili`uokalani assignment(January 17, 1893) through Exchange of Notes
Annex 11: Treason—Penal Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom
Annex 12 Agreement of restoration (December 18, 1893) through Exchange of
Notes
Annex 13: New York Tribune (January 14, 1894)
Annex 14: St.Paul Sunday Globe newspaper(January 14, 1894)
Annex 15: The Princeton Union newspaper(January 18, 1894)
Annex 16: Hawai'i Holomua newspaper(January 24, 1894)
Annex 17: Diplomatic Protest by Queen Lili`uokalani (June 17, 1897)
Annex 18: Protests by the Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hawaiian Political
Association (July 24, 1897)
53
Annex 19: Signature Petition 21,269 signatures Protesting Annexation by the
Hawaiian Patriotic League (1897)
Annex 20: United States Congress' Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the
Hawaiian Islands to the United States (July 7, 1898)
Annex 21: Transcripts of the Secret Session of the United States Senate regarding the
occupation of the Hawaiian Islands,May 31, 1898.
Annex 22: United States Congress' An Act To provide a government for the Territory
of Hawai'i(April 30, 1900)
Annex 23: United States Congress' An Act To provide for the admission of the State
of Hawai'i into the Union (March 18, 1959)
Annex 24: Larsen v.Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 International Law Reports 566 (2001)
Annex 25: Hawaiian Legislature's Act to Provide for the Registration of Co-
partnership Firms, 1880
Annex 26: Deed of General Partnership for Perfect Title Company (December 10,
1995)
Annex 27: Deed of General Partnership for the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company
(December 15, 1995)
Annex 28: Deeds of Trust to the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company
Annex 29: Title 3—Legislative Department,Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian
Kingdom(1884)
Annex 30: Deed of Conveyance from David Keanu Sai to Donald Lewis (February
27, 1996)
Annex 31: Deed of Conveyance from Donald Lewis to Nai`a Ulumaimalu (February
27, 1995)
Annex 32: Notice of Appointment of acting Regent on March 1, 1996,by the
Trustees of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company (March 14, 1996)
Annex 33: Deed of Conveyance from the Trustees of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust
Company to David Keanu Sai as acting Regent
Annex 34: Newspaper printing of Proclamation of the Restoration of the Hawaiian
Kingdom Government by the acting Regent on February 28, 1997 (March
9, 1997)
54
Annex 35: Privy Council Resolution establishing an acting Council of Regency to
replace the acting Regent(September 10, 1999)
Annex 36: Acting Government Letter to Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin,
President of the Security Council (March 1,2008).
Annex 37: 1907 Hague Convention,IV, respecting Laws and Customs of War on
Land
Annex 38: 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War,IV
Annex 39: Austria/Hungary—Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (June
18, 1875)
Annex 40: Belgium—Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation (October 4, 1862)
Annex 41: Denmark—Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (October 19,
1846)
Annex 42: France—Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (October 29,
1857)
Annex 43: Germany—Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation and Consular
Convention (March 25, 1879)
Annex 44: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island—Treaty of
Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (July 10, 1851)
Annex 45: Italy—Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation (July 22, 1863)
Annex 46: Japan—Treaty of Amity and Commerce (August 19, 1871)
Annex 47: Netherlands—Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (October
16, 1862)
Annex 48: Portugal—Treaty of Friendship and Commerce (May 5, 1882)
Annex 49: Russia—Treaty of Commerce and Navigation (June 19, 1869)
Annex 50: Spain—Treaty of Peace and Friendship (October 29, 1863)
Annex 51: Switzerland—Treaty of Friendship,Establishment and Commerce (July 20,
1864)
55
Annex 52: Sweden and Norway—Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation
(July 1, 1852)
Annex 53: 1907 Hague Convention, V. respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral
Powers
Annex 54: Universal Postal Union—Additional Act to the Universal Postal Union
Convention of June 1, 1878(March 21. 1885)
Annex 55: War Crime Protests and Demands communicated with the United States
Pacific Command without exhibits
56
Exhibit "8"
�`-.1-IM�:� ` DAVID KEANU SAI,PH.D.
re l^ ;� . „ Ambassador-at-large for the Hawaiian Kingdom
A t` ` $1 P.O.Box 2194
�� ,
n� _ ,\k. „� Honolulu.HI 96805-2194
�i�r —t_�i/ 4
� f�� �. �-_��, � �� Tel:(808)383-6100
rz1i- N. E-mail: interior@ hawaiiankingdom.org
'`C � * Website:http://hawaiiankingdom.org/
August 14,2012
Excellency:
Recalling my country's Protest and Demand of 9 August 2012 that was
acknowledged and received by Dr. Mezoui on behalf of your Excellency on 10 August
2012 pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Charter of the United Nations at the headquarters
for President of the General Assembly, I would like to make the following clarifications
and request.
Although the provision of Article 35(2) of the Charter of the United Nations states
a "State which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the
General Assembly any dispute," we are not in dispute with the United States of America
with regard to the non-compliance of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment&Agreement of
restoration, 1899 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and
international law. Nor are we in dispute with the other named States. Rather, my country
views this as a situation and not a dispute. My country's acceptance of the obligations of
pacific settlement was made should a dispute arise with the named States in the Protest
and Demand.
It is also my country's understanding that there is binding precedence with regard
to the legal consequences for States, other than the United States of America, regarding
the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands that are enumerated in the International
Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, Legal Consequences for States of
the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia (South-West Africa) Notwithstanding
Security Council Resolution 276(1970). While the Court's advisory opinion centered on
rights of the mandatory, being Namibia, that had yet, at the time, been able to exercise
self-determination and independence and, as a result, the legal consequences of States,
the Hawaiian Protest and Demand centers on the rights of the Hawaiian Islands who
already exercised self-determination and achieved the international recognition of its
independence since 28 November 1843,and,as a result,the legal consequences of States.
The Hawaiian Islands being the State, while the Hawaiian Kingdom being its
government.
The United States obligations to the Hawaiian Kingdom arises from the 1893
Lili'uokalani assignment & Agreement of restoration, 1899 Hague Convention, IV, the
1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and international law, where in similar fashion the
obligations of South Africa with regard to Namibia arose under the General Assembly
resolution 2145 (XXI), the Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), the Charter of the
United Nations, and international law. Therefore, the legal consequences for States with
regard to the Hawaiian situation are enumerated as follows:
a) Member States are under obligation(subject to (d)below)to abstain from
entering into treaty relations with the United States of America in all cases
in which the Government of the United States of America purports to act
on behalf of or concerning the Hawaiian Islands. With respect to existing
bilateral treaties member States must abstain from invoking or applying
those treaties or provisions of treaties concluded by the United States of
America on behalf of or concerning the Hawaiian Islands,which involve
active intergovernmental co-operation. With respect to multilateral
treaties, the same rule cannot be applied to certain general conventions
such as those with humanitarian character, the non-performance of which
may adversely affect the people of the Hawaiian Islands: it will be for the
competent international organs to take specific measures in this respect.
b) Member States are under obligation to abstain from sending diplomatic or
special missions to the United States of America including in their
jurisdiction the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, to abstain from sending
consular agents to the Hawaiian Islands, and to withdraw any such agents
already there; and to make it clear to the United States of America that the
maintenance of diplomatic or consular relations does not imply any
recognition of its authority with regard to the Hawaiian Islands.
c) Member States are under obligation to abstain from entering into
economic and other forms of relations with the United States of America
on behalf of or concerning the Hawaiian Islands which may entrench its
authority over the territory.
d) However, non-recognition should not result in depriving the people of the
Hawaiian Islands of any advantages derived from international co-
operation. In particular, the illegality or invalidity of acts performed by the
Government of the United States of America on behalf of or concerning
the Hawaiian Islands during its illegal annexation on 12 August 1898 and
subsequent prolonged occupation cannot be extended to such acts as the
registration of births, deaths and marriages.
In light of the prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since 12
August 1898 and the severity of the Hawaiian situation, my country makes the following
requests:
I. Because the term of the President is coming to an end next month and
a new President will be entering office, my country requests that the
Protest and Demand and all relevant documents be provided to the
successor President and his administration.
2. Because of the legal, political and economic severity of the Hawaiian
situation and the obligation of States to abstain: (a) from entering into
treaty relations with the United States of America in all cases in which
the Government of the United States of America purports to act on
behalf of or concerning the Hawaiian Islands; (b) from sending
diplomatic or special missions to the United States of America
including in their jurisdiction the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, to
abstain from sending consular agents to the Hawaiian Islands, and to
withdraw any such agents already there; and (c) from entering into
economic and other forms of relations with the United States of
America on behalf of or concerning the Hawaiian Islands which may
entrench its authority over the territory, my country requests that the
Hawaiian situation be placed on the agenda at the opening of the
Sixty-Seventh Session of the General Assembly in order for all one
hundred ninety-three (193) members of the United Nations to be made
aware of the Hawaiian situation, and not just the one hundred seventy-
three (173) member States named in the Protest and Demand.
3. Because of the complexities of the Hawaiian situation, my country
requests that member States of the General Assembly and the Security
Council peruse my doctoral dissertation titled "American Occupation
of the Hawaiian Kingdom," with particular focus on chapter 5 titled
"Righting the Wrong: Beginning the Transition from Occupied State
to Restored State" that proposes a general plan for the United Nations
to address the prolonged occupation. The dissertation and other law
journal articles on this topic I authored can be accessed on the
accompanying CD to the Protest and Demand provided to your office
and the other named member States in the Protest and Demand. The
dissertation and law journal articles, however,can also be downloaded
from the Internet at www2.hawaii.edu/–anu/publications.
4. And because the General Assembly lacks the necessary powers to
carry out sections 1, 2, and 4 of Section II—Nature of the Claim,
Protest and Demand (pages 5-6), my country requests the Sixty-
Seventh Session of the General Assembly to enlist the co-operation of
the Security Council. The Security Council is vested with the
necessary authority under Article 24 of the Charter.
Please accept,Excellency,the assurances of my highest consideration,
./
David Keanu Sai
cc: Executive Secretary,Council of Presidents
Executive Secretary,Group of 77 at the United Nations
Permanent Mission for China
Named States in the Protest and Demand