Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance | Page 134

July 27, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Kekāuluohi

Kekāuluohi, daughter and firstborn (July 27, 1794) of Kaheiheimālie and Kalaʻimamahu (Kamehameha’s younger half-brother,) was reared by her maternal grandparents, Namahana and Keʻeaumoku, who “fondled her as if she were a feather lei from the precious mamo bird.” (Luomala)

“Her grandfather, Keʻeaumoku, was the most noted of all the warriors of Kamehameha I, and by his personal prowess placed that eminent man on the throne of Hawaii; first by slaying with his own hand his great antagonist Kiwalaʻo, and subsequently Keōua, the only remaining enemy on that island.” (Jarves; The Friend)

Kekāuluohi was “a favorite above all the other grandchildren,” and was also the favorite of the uncles and cousins of her aunt Kaʻahumanu, her mother’s older sister and one of Kamehameha’s wives.

Kekāuluohi was looked on as the family head, and her father’s own trusted kahu and the latter’s kin were her caretakers.

“(S)he was betrothed in her youth to Pomare, the King of Tahiti, but his death prevented the union by marriage of the Kingdoms of the Hawaiian and Society Islands. She is reported to have been remarkably handsome in her youth, and as having possessed a very tenacious memory, treasuring up the old genealogies of the islands.” (Jarves; The Friend)

Kekāuluohi became Kamehameha’s youngest wife, cowife (punalua) with her mother, her mother’s sister, and other high-ranking chiefesses. After Kamehameha’s death his son Liholiho (Kamehameha II) took her as one of his wives. Around 1821 Kamehameha II gave Kekāuluohi to his friend Charles Kanaʻina.

Kekāuluohi succeeded her half-sister Kīna‘u as Kuhina Nui. Initially, she was considered something of a “place-holder” for Kīna‘u’s infant daughter Victoria Kamāmalu, who would later assume the office. (Archives)

“…The authority hitherto possessed by my mother Kaʻahumanu II. Until her decease is now transferred to my other mother (Miriam Kekāuluohi) though Victoria Kamehamalu II is her superior, but still under my direction.”

“Furthermore; no documents nor notes, referable to government, after this date, which have not my own signature, and also that of Miriam Kekāuluohi at the bottom of said writing will be acknowledged as government papers.” (Proclamation: Ke Kukala Ana a Ke Ali‘i, June 8, 1839; Archives)

“The person who attracted, our attention most, was Kekāuluohi. … She was altogether one of the most remarkable-looking personages I have ever seen.” (Wilkes, 1849)

“She lives in a grass-hut near the water, and has several chiefs in attendance on her: she appears to be a good-natured and contented person, and has adopted some foreign customs in her way of living.” (Wilkes, 1849)

“This lady is upwards of six feet in height; her frame is exceedingly large and well covered with fat. She was dressed in yellow silk, with enormously large gigot sleeves, and wore on her head a tiara of beautiful yellow feathers interspersed with a few of a scarlet colour.” (Wilkes, 1849)

“Above the feathers appeared a large tortoise-shell comb, that confined her straight black hair. Her shoulders were covered with a richly embroidered shawl of scarlet crape. She sat in a large arm-chair, over which was thrown a robe made of the same kind of yellow feathers as decked her tiara.” (Wilkes, 1849)

Kekāuluohi was a co-signer with Kamehameha III of Hawai‘i’s first Constitution in 1840, which provided for an elected representative body, a first step toward the common people gaining political power. The constitution also codified for the first time, the responsibilities and authority of the Kuhina Nui.

Other important events during Kekāuluohi’s tenure were the threats to Hawaiian sovereignty by the French and English. Soon after assuming her office in 1839, the French threatened war if Kamehameha III did not provide special privileges to the Catholic missionaries, repeal liquor laws and grant generous concessions to French citizens in Hawai‘i.

Then, in 1843, the infamous Charlton land claim resulted in the temporary loss of Hawaiian sovereignty when Lord George Paulet intervened and took possession of the Hawaiian Islands on behalf of the King of England. Richard Charlton was the British Consul in Honolulu who, in 1840, claimed valuable land based on dubious documentation and authority.

As the pressures of international diplomacy and economic development increased on the Hawaiian kingdom, it was necessary to structure the government for better administrative control. As her life came to a close, Kekāuluohi appointed Gerrit P Judd as Minister of the Interior to administer on her behalf. (Archives)

Kekāuluohi became a member of the Protestant church of the missionaries. “In the afternoon the congregation assembled again, a little earlier than the usual hour, and the church took their seats in order round the table of the Lord.”

“Kekauluohi first presented herself before the church and congregation, and, at her request, her desire to consecrate herself to God, and to obey the Gospel, was made known, and she was propounded for admission after further trial.” (Bingham)

“(I)n 1834, Miriam Kekāuluohi having, with her husband, Kanaʻina, built an elegant two story house of rock coral, near the mission houses, at Honolulu, received and entertained, one evening, at a well-furnished table, thirty-three missionaries, including men and women, presiding herself with the dignity of a Christian matron.”

“Kekāuluohi, having tried the routine of civilized domestic life, about two years, in her well finished and furnished habitation, received, at a Christian tea-party, the king, and some twelve or fourteen chiefs .… After tea, the company being conducted to the large upper drawing-room, united, as was customary, in a hymn and prayer.” (Bingham)

By Kanaʻina she had a son Prince William Charles Lunalilo, born on January 31, 1835; he succeeded Kamehameha V as king.

Kekāuluohi and Kanaʻina were the adoptive parents (kahu hānai) not only of Kalama, who became the wife of Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III,) but of the royal couple’s second son. (Luomala)

Kekāuluohi died June 7, 1845. “She was a chiefess of the highest rank at the time of her death. Mr. Jarves in an obituary notice published in the Polynesian of June 21, 1845, writes thus:”

“She was the last adult member of that distinguished family which for the past sixty years has, as it were, shared the Hawaiian throne with the Kings themselves.” (Jarves; The Friend)

The Hawai‘i State Archives is located in the Kekāuluohi Building on the ʻIolani Palace Grounds just behind the Kanaʻina Building (Old Archives Building.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Kekauluohi. Sketched by A. T. Agate; engraved by Welch and Walter

Kekauluohi by Alfred Thomas Agate

Kekauluohi_1842_signature

Kekauluohi-WC

Kekauluohi_(1864)

Proclamation-by-Kamehameha-III-naming Kekauohi-Kuhina Nui

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

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

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

Declaration of Independence

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

Antoinette_Swan-400

Kalakaua & Kapiolani – Iolani Palace with Col. Charles Hastings Judd (Chamberlain), and Antoinette F. Manini Swan (Chambermaid)-WC

Antoinette-Swan-400

Queen_Kapiolani_on_the_Iolani_Palace_grounds with Antoinette Swan-(PP-97-14-016)

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

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

Frank Manini to Antoinette Swan-letter (portion)

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 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