Images of Old Hawaiʻi

  • Home
  • About
  • Categories
    • Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance
    • American Protestant Mission
    • Buildings
    • Collections
    • Economy
    • Missionaries / Churches / Religious Buildings
    • General
    • Hawaiian Traditions
    • Other Summaries
    • Mayflower Summaries
    • Mayflower Full Summaries
    • Military
    • Place Names
    • Prominent People
    • Schools
    • Sailing, Shipping & Shipwrecks
    • Voyage of the Thaddeus
  • Collections
  • Contact
  • Follow

July 7, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Annexation Into US – Is A Treaty Required?

“There is no provision in the Constitution by which the national government is specifically authorized to acquire territory; and only by a great effort of the imagination can the substantive power to do so be found in the terms of any or all of the enumerated powers.”

“The United States has acquired territory through cession, purchase, conquest, annexation, treaty, and discovery and occupation. These methods are permissible under international law and have been approved by the Supreme Court.”

“The executive and the legislature have performed different roles in the acquisition of territory by each of these means. Unfortunately, the historical practice does not supply a precise explanation of where the Constitution places the power to acquire territory for the United States.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“In the Legal Tender Cases, Mr. Justice Strong, speaking for the majority of the court, said that the adoption of the first ten amendments indicated that in the judgment of those who adopted the Constitution there were powers created by it not specified nor deducible from, or ancillary to, any one specified power ‘but which grew out of the aggregate of powers conferred upon the government, or out of the sovereignty instituted.’”

“Mr. Justice Bradley in a concurring opinion characterized the United States as ‘a national government and the only government in this country having the character of nationality,’ and added:”

“Such being the character of the General government, it seems to be a self-evident proposition that it is invested with all those inherent and implied powers which, at the time of adopting the Constitution, were generally considered to belong to every government as such, and as being essential to the exercise of its functions.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“The power of congress to acquire new territory, either by conquest, purchase, or annexation, was much debated at the time of the acquisition of Louisiana from France, in 1803, and in a less degree in connection with the purchase of Florida and of Alaska.”

“It has now come to be recognized and established, rather by precedent and the general acquiescence of the people, than by any strict constitutional justification. In fact, the power cannot be derived from any narrow or technical interpretation of the constitution.”

“But it is necessary to recognize the fact that there is in this country a national sovereignty. That being conceded, it easily follows that the right to acquire territory is incidental to this sovereignty. It is, in effect, a resulting power, growing necessarily out of the aggregate of powers delegated to the national government by the constitution.” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

“Territory is acquired by discovery and occupation where no other recognized nation asserts sovereignty over such territory. In contrast, when territory is acquired by treaty, purchase, cession, or conquest, it is acquired from another nation.” (Footnote, Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“We have acquired much territory under treaty provisions and by conquest, and in such case the acquisition may be regarded as incidental to the powers mentioned …”

“… but we have also acquired territory by original discovery and appropriation alone. Such is the fact with reference to a large portion of Oregon; and such is peculiarly the fact with reference to certain small islands of the sea— the so-called Guano Islands.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“An act of congress passed in 1856, declared that guano islands taken into possession and occupation by American citizens, might be declared by the President to be ‘appertaining to the United States.’” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

“An act of Congress provides for the acquisition by Executive proclamation of any islands valuable for their deposits of guano, discovered by citizens of the United States and not, at the time of discovery, occupied or possessed by any other government or its citizens.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“In regard to this statute, the supreme court has recently declared that ‘by the law of nations, recognized by all civilized states, dominion of new territory may be acquired by discovery and occupation, as well as by cession or conquest …”

“‘… and when citizens or subjects of one nation, in its name, and by its authority or assent, take and hold actual, continuous, and useful possession (although only for the purpose of carrying on a particular business, such as catching and curing fish, or working mines) of territory unoccupied by any other government or its citizens …’”

“‘… the nation to which they belong may exercise such jurisdiction and for such period as it sees fit over territory so acquired. This principle affords ample warrant for the legislation of congress concerning guano islands.’” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

In 1811, another annexation of foreign territory (West Florida) resulted from a Presidential Proclamation followed by an act of Congress (House and Senate participation.)

The Supreme Court, in speaking of the power of Congress to establish the Territorial Government in Florida until it should become a state, declared, “In the mean time, Florida continues to be a territory of the United States …”

“… governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution, which empowers Congress ‘to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory, or other property belonging to the United States.’”

“Perhaps the power of governing a territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a state acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the facts, that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular state, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States.”

“The right to govern, may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned.” (Canter Decision – Decision also cited in Dred Scott Decision)

Then, in Hawai‘i, “In 1893, ‘[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawai‘i, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.’ ‘That government sought annexation by the United States’ (Newlands Resolution).” (US Supreme Court)

“Then the provisional government grew into the constitutional Republic of Hawai‘i, and we have fully recognized that as the rightful and permanent government of Hawai‘i, and have kept our minister and consul-general at Honolulu and our war ships in that bay to protect them and the Republic….”

“No nation in the world has refused recognition of the Republic of Hawai‘i as the rightful Government, and none of them question its soverign [sic] right to deal with any question that concerns the people of Hawai‘i.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“This act also establishes the fact that a treaty with a foreign State which declares the consent of such State to be annexed to the United States, although it is rejected by the Senate of the United States, is a sufficient expression and authentication of the consent of such foreign State to authorize Congress to enact a law providing for annexation …”

“… which, when complied with, is effectual without further legislation to merge the sovereignty of such independent State into a new and different relation to the United States and toward its own people.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

On May 5, 1898, Representative Francis Newlands, of Nevada, offered a joint resolution addressing the annexation of Hawai‘i. Though considerable opposition to annexation was still manifested in the House, the Newlands resolutions were finally passed.

The resolutions were immediately reported to the Senate, which had been discussing the treaty for nearly a year. That body referred them to its Committee on Foreign Relations, which in turn at once favorably reported them.

On June 15, 1898, the Newlands resolution passed the House by a vote of 209 to 91; the vote on the Newlands Resolution in the Senate was 42 to 21 (2/3 of the votes by Senators were in favor of the resolution, a significantly greater margin was cast by Representatives in the House.) (Cyclopedic Review of Current History, 4th Quarter 1898)

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 2 states: “(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …” The following day, July 7, 1898, President McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution it into law.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Annexation-Here to Stay-PCA-July 14, 1898
Annexation-Here to Stay-PCA-July 14, 1898

Filed Under: Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance Tagged With: Cession, United States, Hawaii, Annexation, Newlands Resolution, Treaty

July 4, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Independence Day

Independence Day celebrates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, declaring independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson’s most enduring monument.

What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths” and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country.

Fifty-six men from each of the original 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence – they mutually pledged “to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

Nine of the signers were immigrants, two were brothers and two were cousins. Eighteen of the signers were merchants or businessmen, 14 were farmers and four were doctors. Twenty-two were lawyers and nine were judges.

The average age of a signer was 45. Benjamin Franklin was the oldest delegate at 70. The youngest was Thomas Lynch Jr. of South Carolina at 27.

At the time of the signing, the American Revolutionary War was already underway (1775-1783.)

The British captured five signers during the war. Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward and Arthur Middleton were captured at the Battle of Charleston in 1780. George Walton was wounded and captured at the Battle of Savannah; Richard Stockton was incarcerated at the hands of British Loyalists.

Eleven signers had their homes and property destroyed. Francis Lewis’s New York home was razed and his wife taken prisoner. John Hart’s farm and mills were destroyed when the British invaded New Jersey, and he died while fleeing capture.

Fifteen of the signers participated in their states’ constitutional conventions, and six – Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Benjamin Franklin, George Clymer, James Wilson and George Reed – signed the US Constitution.

Here are some other brief Revolutionary War highlights (and some Hawaiʻi July 4 events:)

1775
March 23 – Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech
April 18 – The rides of Paul Revere and William Dawes
April 19 – Minutemen and redcoats clash at Lexington and Concord “The shot heard round the world”
June 17 – Battle of Bunker Hill (Boston) – the British drive the Americans
Throughout the year, skirmishes occurred from Canada to South Carolina

Initially, fighting was through local militias; then, the Continental Congress established (on paper) a regular army on June 14, 1775, and appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief.

The development of the Continental Army was a work in progress, and Washington used both his regulars and state militia throughout the war.

1776
January 15 – Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ challenged the authority of the British government and the royal monarchy
March 17 – the British evacuate Boston

Ultimately, on September 3, 1783, the war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. The treaty document was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay (representing the United States) and David Hartley (a member of the British Parliament representing the British Monarch, King George III).

On June 21, 1788, the US Constitution was adopted (with all states ratifying it by that time.)

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Charles Carroll were the longest surviving signers of the Declaration of Independence. Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence; Carroll was the last signer to die – in 1832 at the age of 95.

On July 4, 1894, the Republic of Hawai‘i was established at Aliʻiolani Hale; Sanford B Dole became its first president.

On July 4, 1913, Duke Kahanamoku established three new West Coast records in swimming, winning the 50-yard, 440-yard and 220-yard races in a San Francisco regatta.

Following statehood of Hawaiʻi, the new flag of the United States of America, containing a union of 50 stars, flew for the first time at 12:01 am, July 4, 1960, when it was raised at the Fort McHenry National Monument in Baltimore, Maryland.

Attached is an image of the Declaration of Independence.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Declaration of Independence
Declaration of Independence

Filed Under: Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance, Military, Economy, General Tagged With: Hawaii, Declaration of Independence, Independence Day

July 1, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Antoinette Francesa Marin

Don Francisco de Paula Marin (known to the Hawaiian as “Manini”) was a Spaniard who arrived in the Hawaiian Islands in 1793 or 1794 (at about the age of 20.) Manini’s nickname appears to be the closest way that the Hawaiians could pronounce his name.

Marin spoke four languages (he arrived fluent in Spanish, French and English, and learned Hawaiian) and was employed by Kamehameha as Interpreter, Bookkeeper and part time Physician (although he had no formal medical training, he had some basic medical knowledge.) He also served as purchasing agent for the arms that proved decisive to Kamehameha’s victory of the Battle of Nu‘uanu (1795.)

Among his several children, Marin had a daughter, Antoinette Francesa Marin, who was born on October 6, 1832 in Honolulu, Hawaiʻi.

Her father died in 1837 and Antoinette was hānai to Dr Thomas Charles Byde and Grace Kamaikui Rooke; he was one of three physicians in Honolulu in the 1830s. (Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 14, 1941) (Emma, later Queen Emma, was also adopted by the Rookes.)

Antoinette later married Lyman Swan (born on February 26, 1823 at Jefferson County in Watertown, New York,) a partner in Swan & Clifford. “In 1848 (Ornan O Clifford) came to Honolulu and shortly after entered into co-partnership with Lyman Swan in the baking business, at the corner of King and Fort streets.” (Hawaiian Gazette, May 28, 1884)

In April of 1853, Antoinette gave birth to the couple’s first child, Olivia (“Lily,”) and the young Swan family appeared to be living a life of prosperity and promise in Honolulu. (Dunn & Stoner)

Thrum notes Swan and Clifford were consignees to the first cargo of ice to the Islands that came from Sitka, per brig “Noble,” in October, 1854.

But as often would be the case with Lyman Swan throughout his life, appearances were often deceiving. Business records for Swan & Clifford indicate that while the chandlery was doing a booming business, income was not keeping up with expenses.

Apparently, unbeknownst to his partner, Swan was forging $40,000 in promissory notes and leaving over $80,000 in unpaid bills. A $5,000 reward was offered for information on his whereabouts. (Anderson)

Clifford declared his innocence. (Dunn & Stoner) Lyman left town and headed for California.

“Swan & Clifford bought and refitted the condemned bark George for whaling and trading … the senior member of the firm taking passage by her, on departure, to evade the impending crisis in their affairs in consequence of his own questionable transactions.”

“In the fall the vessel reported at San Francisco with 500 bbls oil, where Mr Swan remained. The ship on arrival here was seized by the marshal for the assignees and in due time was sold, as she lay”. (Thrum) Lyman was apprehended in Alameda.

All of the forged bills had been executed in Swan’s handwriting. While Hawaiian authorities tried to extradite Swan, he was never to return to the islands. He endured several years of both civil and criminal cases against him in San Francisco (he was found guilty on several, but not all, counts;) it’s uncertain if he was sentenced to any time in prison. (Dunn & Stoner)

Somehow, he managed to bring Antoinette and daughter Lily to California during his court cases, where the family first resided in San Jose. (Dunn & Stoner) Then, the family settled in Santa Cruz in around 1857.

They are considered one of the ‘Pioneers’ of Santa Cruz; Lyman was one of the signatories of the Constitution and Roll of Members of the Society of Pioneers of Santa Cruz County.

Swan returned to his roots and opened a bakery on Pacific Avenue; the Swans were popular and widely respected pillars of the Santa Cruz business community.

The family purchased a large plot of land in downtown Santa Cruz, at what is now the corner of Front and Cathcart Streets, that backed up to the San Lorenzo River. At least two of the Swan sons, Frank and Alfred, then in their twenties, joined in the family business. (Dunn & Stoner)

But the Swan marriage was not a happy one. Lyman Swan’s larceny may have long been hidden from the Santa Cruz community, but he couldn’t hide it from Antoinette, whom he had shamed with his activities in Honolulu.

Antoinette decided to return to the islands for lengthy periods of time and was Queen Kapiʻolani’s Chambermaid for approximately 5-years. (Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 3, 1905) She returned to Santa Cruz.

When Princes David Kawānanakoa (Koa,) Edward Keliʻiahonui and Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, nephews of Queen Kapiʻolani, were schooled at St Matthew’s Hall in San Mateo in 1885, they were placed under the careful eye of Antoinette Swan.

When the Swan home became too crowded, the princes boarded at the nearby Wilkins House, located half a block away, on Pacific and Cathcart streets. (Dunn & Stoner)

The three princes are noted in the first account of surfing anywhere in the Americas: “The young Hawaiian princes were in the water, enjoying it hugely and giving interesting exhibitions of surf-board swimming as practiced in their native islands.” (Santa Cruz Daily Surf, July 20, 1885; Divine)

“Mrs Antoinette Don Paul Marie Swan was courtly in manner, and had a charm in her dealing with people that won many friends.”

“She was a kind neighbor and a devoted mother, loved by her children.” She was clearly a well-liked and widely respected member of the community. (Santa Cruz Daily Surf, October 2, 1905; Dunn & Stoner)

She died on October 1, 1905 at the age of 72 and was buried at the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF) Cemetery. (Society of California Pioneers of Santa Cruz County)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Antoinette_Swan-400
Antoinette_Swan-400
Kalakaua & Kapiolani - Iolani Palace with Col. Charles Hastings Judd (Chamberlain), and Antoinette F. Manini Swan (Chambermaid)-WC
Kalakaua & Kapiolani – Iolani Palace with Col. Charles Hastings Judd (Chamberlain), and Antoinette F. Manini Swan (Chambermaid)-WC
Antoinette-Swan-400
Antoinette-Swan-400
Queen_Kapiolani_on_the_Iolani_Palace_grounds with Antoinette Swan-(PP-97-14-016)
Queen_Kapiolani_on_the_Iolani_Palace_grounds with Antoinette Swan-(PP-97-14-016)
Royal_Bungalow_outside_Iolani_Palace_(PP-11-2-003)
Royal_Bungalow_outside_Iolani_Palace_(PP-11-2-003)
Kalakaua & Kapiolani and others in front of the Bungalow including Antoinette Swan PP-96-13-016
Kalakaua & Kapiolani and others in front of the Bungalow including Antoinette Swan PP-96-13-016
Chest of Don Francisco de Paula y Marin, later Antoinette Swan-PP-37-4-005
Chest of Don Francisco de Paula y Marin, later Antoinette Swan-PP-37-4-005
Chest of Don Francisco de Paula y Marin, later Antoinette Swan-PP-37-4-004
Chest of Don Francisco de Paula y Marin, later Antoinette Swan-PP-37-4-004
Frank Manini to Antoinette Swan-letter (portion)
Frank Manini to Antoinette Swan-letter (portion)

Filed Under: Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance, Prominent People Tagged With: Hawaii, Kapiolani, Don Francisco de Paula Marin, Rooke, King Kalakaua, Antoinette Swan

June 27, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Recognition

In 1893, “[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawai‘i, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.” (US Supreme Court; Hawaii v OHA, 2008) The Provisional Government was soon recognized by foreign states.

“The term ‘recognition,’ when used in the context of recognition of States and governments in international law, may have several different meanings. It may indicate the recognizing State’s willingness to enter into official relations with a new State or government, or manifest its opinion on the legal status of a new entity or authority, or both.”

“The subject has been complicated by the introduction of several variants of the term. Distinctions between ‘de facto recognition,’ ‘diplomatic recognition’ and ‘de jure recognition’ may be traced back to the secession of the Spanish provinces in South America in early 19th century.”

“Like ‘recognition,’ these terms can be given meaning only by establishing the intention of the authority using them within the factual and legal context of each case. Recognition is a unilateral act performed by the recognizing State’s government. It may be express or implicit.” (Talmon)

“In his Allgemeine Staatslehre (General Theory of the State), published in 1900, Georg Jellinek developed the doctrine of the three elements of statehood, according to which a State exists if a population, on a certain territory, is organized under an effective public authority.”

“Although some authors have criticized this definition as treating the State as a purely factual phenomenon, it is still the definition most commonly found in State practice.”

“There are usually two requirements regarding the element of ‘public authority:’ internally, it must exercise the highest authority, that is, it must possess the power to determine the constitution of the State (internal sovereignty) …”

“… externally, it must be independent of other States (external sovereignty). Independence of other States refers to legal, not factual, independence; that is, the State must only be subject to international law, not to the laws of any other State.”

“When a State recognizes a new ‘government,’ it usually acknowledges a person or group of persons as competent to act as the organ of the State and to represent it in its international relations. The only criterion in international law for the recognition of an authority as the government of a State is its exercise of effective control over the State’s territory.” (Talmon)

The Hawaiian Kingdom became recognized through statements and treaties with Austria-Hungary (June 18, 1875), now Austria and Hungary; Belgium (October 4, 1862); Bremen (March 27, 1854) now Germany; Denmark (Oct. 19, 1846); France (September 8, 1858); French Tahiti (November 24, 1853); Germany (March 25, 1879); Great Britain (March 26, 1846); Great Britain’s New South Wales (March 10, 1874), now Australia …

… Hamburg (January 8, 1848), now Germany; Italy (July 22, 1863); Japan (Aug. 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 and Norway (April 5, 1855), now separate States; Switzerland (July 20, 1864); and the United States of America (December 20, 1849.) (Sai)

Then came the overthrow of the constitutional monarchy in 1893. Following the overthrow, Consulate offices in Honolulu recognized the Provisional Government as the “de facto government of the Hawaiian Islands.” John L Stevens, for the US Legation, acknowledged the Provisional Government on January 17, 1893.

On January 18, 1893, the Imperial German Consulate, Austro-Hungarian Consulate, Consul for Italy, Russian acting consul, Vice-Consul for Spain, Consulate of The Netherlands, Royal Danish Consulate, Consulate of Belgium, Consul for Mexico, Consulate of Chile, Office of the Peruvian Consulate, Consul-General and Charge d’Affaires of Portugal, Consulate and Commissariat of France and Chinese Commercial Agency wrote letters acknowledging (de facto) the Provisional Government. On January 19, 1893, the British Legation and His Imperial Japanese Majesty’s Consulate.

With respect to transformation of the State status in Hawai‘i, the Provisional Government of Hawai‘i then established voter eligibility, convened a constitutional convention, approved a new constitution and the Republic of Hawaiʻi was established on July 4, 1894.

Shortly after (from August 1894 through January 1895,) a number of letters of formal diplomatic recognition (de jure) of the Republic of Hawai‘i were conveyed to the Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford Dole.

These included formal letters from Austria/Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Chile, China, France, Germany/Prussia, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain , Switzerland and the United States. (These were countries that had prior agreements and treaties with the Hawaiian Monarchy.)

An August 7, 1894 letter notes US President Grover Cleveland wrote to Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford B Dole, saying “… I cordially reciprocate the sentiments you express for the continuance of the friendly relations which have existed between the United States and the Hawaiian islands”.

In his annual ‘Message to Congress’ (1895,) President Cleveland noted, “Since communicating the voluminous correspondence in regard to Hawai‘i and the action taken by the Senate and House of Representatives on certain questions submitted to the judgment and wider discretion of Congress …”

“… the organization of a government in place of the provisional arrangement which followed the deposition of the Queen has been announced, with evidence of its effective operation. The recognition usual in such cases has been accorded the new Government.”

Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford Dole sent a delegation to Washington in 1894, seeking annexation to the US. Regarding the annexation discussions, US Secretary of State John Sherman noted …

“(T)he plan of union with the United States became an uncertain contingency, the organization of the Hawaiian Commonwealth underwent necessary changes; the temporary character of its first (Provisional) Government gave place to a permanent scheme (Republic) under a constitution framed by the representatives of the electors of the islands …”

“… administration by an executive council not chosen by suffrage, but self-appointed, was succeeded by an elective and parliamentary regime, and the ability of the new Government to hold – as the Republic of Hawaii – an independent place in the family of sovereign States, preserving order at home and fulfilling international obligations abroad, has been put to the proof.”

“Recognized by the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys, enforcing respect for the law, and maintaining peace within its island borders …”

“… Hawaii sends to the United States, not a commission representing a successful revolution, but the accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly established sovereign State. … the Republic of Hawai‘i approaches the United States as an equal”. (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

On June 15, 1898, the Newlands resolution passed the House by a vote of 209 to 91; the vote on the Newlands Resolution in the Senate was 42 to 21 (2/3 of the votes by Senators were in favor of the resolution, a significantly greater margin was cast by Representatives in the House.) (Cyclopedic Review of Current History, 4th Quarter 1898)

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 2 states: “(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …” The following day, July 7, 1898, President McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution it into law.

On August 12, 1898, there were ceremonial functions held in Honolulu at which the Hawaiian government was formally notified by the US minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary of the adoption and approval of the joint resolution aforesaid, and at which the Hawaiian government made, an unequivocal transfer and cession of its sovereignty and property. (Territorial Supreme Court; Albany Law Journal)

On June 27, 1959, when the matter of Statehood was put to a popular vote, Hawaiʻi registered voters voted on the question of Statehood (there was a 93.6% voter turnout for the General election – as compared to less than 50% today.)

Shall the following proposition, as set forth in Public Law 86-3 entitled ‘An Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union’ be adopted? 1. Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State? – 94.3% voted in support.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Hawaiian-Islands-NASA1
Austria-Hungary-English
Austria-Hungary-English
Belgium-King_Leopold_II
Belgium-King_Leopold_II
Belgium-Minister_of_Foreign_Affairs
Belgium-Minister_of_Foreign_Affairs
Brazil-Minister_of_Foreign_Affairs
Brazil-Minister_of_Foreign_Affairs
Brazil-President_of_the_Republic_of_the_United_States_of_Brazil
Brazil-President_of_the_Republic_of_the_United_States_of_Brazil
Britain-Queen_Victoria-1
Britain-Queen_Victoria-1
Britain-Queen_Victoria-2
Britain-Queen_Victoria-2
China-English-1
China-English-1
China-English-2
China-English-2
France-French-1
France-French-1
France-French-2
France-French-2
Germany-Kaiser_Wilhelm-English-1
Germany-Kaiser_Wilhelm-English-1
Germany-Kaiser_Wilhelm-English-2
Germany-Kaiser_Wilhelm-English-2
Guatemala-Jose_Maria_Reina Barrios-1
Guatemala-Jose_Maria_Reina Barrios-1
Guatemala-Jose_Maria_Reina Barrios-2
Guatemala-Jose_Maria_Reina Barrios-2
Italy-King_Umberto_I-English-1
Italy-King_Umberto_I-English-1
Italy-King_Umberto_I-English-2
Italy-King_Umberto_I-English-2
Mexico-Secretary_of_Foreign_Affairs-English
Mexico-Secretary_of_Foreign_Affairs-English
Netherlands-Emma,_Queen_Regent-English-1
Netherlands-Emma,_Queen_Regent-English-1
Netherlands-Emma,_Queen_Regent-English-2
Netherlands-Emma,_Queen_Regent-English-2
Norway-Sweden-King_Oscar-French
Norway-Sweden-King_Oscar-French
Peru-President_Andres_A_Caceres-1
Peru-President_Andres_A_Caceres-1
Peru-President_Andres_A_Caceres-2
Peru-President_Andres_A_Caceres-2
Portugal-King_Dom_Carlos_I-Portuguese
Portugal-King_Dom_Carlos_I-Portuguese
Russia-Tsar_Alexander_III-Russian-1
Russia-Tsar_Alexander_III-Russian-1
Russia-Tsar_Alexander_III-Russian-2
Russia-Tsar_Alexander_III-Russian-2
Spain-King_Don_Alfonso_XIII-English
Spain-King_Don_Alfonso_XIII-English
Switzerland- Swiss_Federal_Counsel_(Attorney_General)-French-1
Switzerland- Swiss_Federal_Counsel_(Attorney_General)-French-1
Switzerland- Swiss_Federal_Counsel_(Attorney_General)-French-2
Switzerland- Swiss_Federal_Counsel_(Attorney_General)-French-2
US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-1
US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-1
US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-2
US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-2
US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-3
US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-3
US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-4
US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-4

Filed Under: Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance Tagged With: Territory of Hawaii, Hawaii, Provisional Government, Statehood, Republic of Hawaii, Recognition

June 24, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Kapiʻolani Home

“In fulfillment of the commands of His Majesty, and to carry out the views of my colleagues of the Board of Health and the community in the erection of a Home for leper girls, I now present to Your Majesty, as Lady Patroness of this benevolent institution, named after Your Majesty, the keys of this Home.” (Gibson, Dedication of Kapiʻolani Home, November 9, 1885)

“Queen Kapiʻolani took the keys in her hand and proceeded to the door leading into the refectory. She put a key, especially marked, into the door, unlocked it, and then, withdrawing the key, handed it to the Reverend Mother Superior, with the remark:”

“’I deliver these keys to you.’ The President of the Board of Health then said: ‘By command of His Majesty the King I declare the Home now open.’” (Dedication of Kapiʻolani Home, November 9, 1885)

Kapi‘olani had visited Kalaupapa in 1884 to learn how she could assist those who were diagnosed with leprosy and exiled there, and she raised the funds to build the Kapiʻolani Home for Girls. (KCC)

Queen Kapiʻolani, Father Damien de Veuster (now Saint Damien,) Dr Eduard Arning and Mother Marianne (now Saint Marianne) recognized the need for a home for the non-infected children of the leprosy patients.

On November 9, 1885, the healthy girls living in Kalawao moved into Kapiʻolani Home on the grounds of the sisters’ convent at the Kaka’ako Branch Hospital. (Hawaii Catholic Herald)

“It will accommodate fifty inmates, besides the matron, and will be under the supervision and control of the Sisters of Charity, of whom there are now seven, including the Mother Superior attached to the Convent of their order, which is within the enclosure of the Branch Hospital.”

“The Home is a two-story building, on the mauka side of the Branch Hospital, and separated from it by a high fence. The building is 70 feet by 50 feet, and is surrounded by open-railed verandas, 10 feet wide, which furnish a cool and sheltered place for play in all weather.”

“On the ground floor, which is approached by a wide flight of steps to the lower veranda, are two store rooms, an office, class room and refectory. The last two are spacious rooms, well lighted and ventilated, the height of the ceiling being 13 feet 1 inch.
A wide flight of stairs on the outside loads to the upper floor, on which are situate two large dormitories, two bath rooms and matron’s room.”

“The arrangement of these dormitories deserves mention. The one on the mauka or land side, which is the breeziest, from the prevailing wind, will be occupied by girls who have developed the disease; the other will be occupied by girls who are as yet free from it, but who, having been born of leper parents, may be reasonably suspected of having the disease latent in their blood.”

“There will be no communication between these rooms. Separate closets and baths have been provided for each class of inmates. In this way it is hoped to minimize the risk of contagion, by preventing the clean breathing the same atmosphere with the unclean at night.”

“During the daytime, when there is a free circulation of air, the risk of contagion is so slight that it need hardly be estimated. At the same time it should be stated that no bad case of leprosy will be admitted to the Home, but only such as gives hopes of yielding to cleanliness, wholesome food, moderate exercise and kind and scientific treatment.”

“A notice of this kind would be incomplete were no mention made of the Branch Leper Hospital contiguous to the Home, and the noble Christian work performed therein by the Sisters of Charity. The Branch Hospital was established in 1881, and as in the case of the Leper Settlement at Molokai, it was not well managed at the outset, nor indeed, until after the arrival of the first party of the Sisters two years ago precisely yesterday.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, November 9, 1885)

“I had the honor to address the Bishop of Olba a letter, dated January 4, 1883, in which I informed His Lordship that the care of the sick poor of this Kingdom had most earnestly enlisted the sympathies of Their Majesties the King and Queen and awakened the solicitude of the Government) that they appreciated the necessity for trained and faithful nurses, and felt that nowhere could such invaluable assistance be obtained so readily as among the ranks of those blessed Sisterhoods of Charity, who have, in various parts of the earth devoted themselves to the care of the sick”. (Address by Gibson, President of the Board of Health)

From 50 other religious communities in the United States, only Mother Marianne’s Order of Sisters agreed to come to Hawaii to care for people with Hansen’s Disease (known then as leprosy.)

The Sisters arrived in Hawaii on November 8, 1883, dedicating themselves to the care of the 200 lepers in Kaka‘ako Branch Hospital on Oahu. This hospital was built to accommodate 100 people, but housed more than 200 people. (Cathedral of Our lady of Peace)

Kapiʻolani Home was devoted to the care of non-leprous girls of leprous parents, not yet confirmed as lepers, and others suspected of the disease.

Under the care of the Franciscan Sisters, the government has provided a home for many little girls born of leper parents. It is exceedingly rare that a child inherits leprosy, and even where both parents are lepers, if the child be removed before it has become infected with the disease there is small danger of its developing leprosy.

These non-leprous children are generally taken from their parents when 2 years of age. Sometimes friends of the family provide for them, and in other cases they are taken to the home.

Girls, ranging from 2 to 20 years of age, who are not only given a good school education, but trained in such branches of domestic work as are necessary to fit them to become useful members of the community thereafter.

This home is for girls, and is insufficient to accommodate the present number of inmates comfortably. There is a necessity for a similar institution for boys and for enlarging the present capacity of the Kapiʻolani Home. (Hawaiian Commission, September 8, 1898) (A Boys Home was later built in Kalihi.)

After the hospital closed in 1888, the home was moved three times: first, to a more suitable new building adjacent to the Kalihi Receiving Station; second, to a temporary camp in Waiakamilo when a typhoid epidemic closed the previous home in 1900; finally, in 1912 to Kalihi where the patients’ children were housed until 1938. (Hawaii Catholic Herald)

Mother Marianne died in Kalaupapa on August 9, 1918. The Sisters of St. Francis continue their work in Kalaupapa with victims of Hansen’s Disease. No sister has ever contracted the disease. (Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Gibson_and_Mother_Marianne_Cope-Kakaako_Leper_Detention_Center
Gibson_and_Mother_Marianne_Cope-Kakaako_Leper_Detention_Center
Kapiolani Girls Home-1907
Kapiolani Girls Home-1907
Kapiolani Girls Home-new_dormitory-1907
Kapiolani Girls Home-new_dormitory-1907
Kapiolani Girls Home-Sisters_Residence-1907
Kapiolani Girls Home-Sisters_Residence-1907
Queen Kapiolani Statue
Queen Kapiolani Statue
Mother_Marianne_Cope_in_her_youth
Mother_Marianne_Cope_in_her_youth

Filed Under: General, Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance, Missionaries / Churches / Religious Buildings, Prominent People Tagged With: Hawaii, Oahu, Saint Marianne, Molokai, Kapiolani Home

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • …
  • 143
  • Next Page »

Images of Old Hawaiʻi

People, places, and events in Hawaiʻi’s past come alive through text and media in “Images of Old Hawaiʻi.” These posts are informal historic summaries presented for personal, non-commercial, and educational purposes.

Info@Hookuleana.com

Connect with Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Posts

  • Order of Kamehameha I
  • Maunalei Sugar
  • Kapalua
  • Baptism of Kalanimōku
  • Ala Moana Center
  • Canuck
  • About 250 Years Ago … Battles of the South

Categories

  • General
  • Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance
  • Buildings
  • Missionaries / Churches / Religious Buildings
  • Hawaiian Traditions
  • Military
  • Place Names
  • Prominent People
  • Schools
  • Sailing, Shipping & Shipwrecks
  • Economy
  • Voyage of the Thaddeus
  • Mayflower Summaries
  • American Revolution

Tags

Albatross Al Capone Ane Keohokalole Archibald Campbell Bernice Pauahi Bishop Charles Reed Bishop Downtown Honolulu Eruption Founder's Day George Patton Great Wall of Kuakini Green Sea Turtle Hawaii Hawaii Island Hermes Hilo Holoikauaua Honolulu Isaac Davis James Robinson Kamae Kamaeokalani Kameeiamoku Kamehameha Schools Lalani Village Lava Flow Lelia Byrd Liberty Ship Liliuokalani Mao Math Mauna Loa Midway Monk Seal Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Oahu Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Pearl Pualani Mossman Quartette Thomas Jaggar Volcano Waikiki Wake Wisdom

Hoʻokuleana LLC

Hoʻokuleana LLC is a Planning and Consulting firm assisting property owners with Land Use Planning efforts, including Environmental Review, Entitlement Process, Permitting, Community Outreach, etc. We are uniquely positioned to assist you in a variety of needs.

Info@Hookuleana.com

Copyright © 2012-2024 Peter T Young, Hoʻokuleana LLC

Loading Comments...