Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance | Page 2

June 23, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Poʻolua

Poʻolua is literally broken down as Poʻo (head) and lua (two) and refers to a child who has two fathers (the child is sired by other than the husband, but he is accepted by both the husband and the sire.)

A child said to be poʻolua, “that is, a child of two fathers, was considered a great honor by chiefs of that period.” (Luomala)

Kamehameha has been referred to as poʻolua (shared, two-headed) son of Keōua and Kahekili by his mother Kekuʻiapoiwa. (VanDyke)

Kamakau references Kamehameha was born at Kokoiki in Kohala. His father was Keōua, younger brother of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, and his mother was Kekuʻiapoiwa, daughter of Kekela and Haʻae, both of whom belonged to families of chiefs.

Kamakau explains that it was the custom from ancient times among the chiefs of Hawaiʻi for the chief of one island to give a child to the chief of another island. This is the reason why Kahekili has often been called the father of Kamehameha, for chiefs of Hawaii and Maui were closely related. (Kamakau)

Kamehameha, who had always thought that Chief Keōua of the island of Hawaiʻi was his natural father until a few years after he conquered all the islands but Kauaʻi. Dibble notes that when Keōua, the father of Kamehameha, died, he commended his son to the care of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, who received him, and treated him as his own child.

Per Kamakau’s account, in 1802, Kamehameha, on hearing that Chief Kameʻeiamoku was dying at Lāhainā, went to him. Kameʻeiamoku had attended Kamehameha since his boyhood and was one of his four Kona Uncles who had engineered his rise to power and made him king. Kameʻeiamoku (on his deathbed) said to Kamehameha, “I have something to tell you: Kahekili was your father, you were not Keōua’s son. Here are the tokens that you are the son of Kahekili.” (Kamakau)

Kamehameha responded, “Strange that you should live all this time and only when dying tell me that I am Kahekili’s son! Had you told me this before, my brothers need not have died; they could have ruled Maui while I ruled Hawaii.” (Kamakau)

Kameʻeiamoku answered, “That is not a good thought; had they lived there would have been constant warfare between you, but with you alone as ruler the country is at peace.” (Kamakau)

Kahekili’s age is not accurately known, but as by all native accounts he was the reputed father of Kamehameha I. (Fornander)

“Kamehameha was the reputed son of Keōua otherwise called Kalanikupuapaikalaninui, a younger half-brother of Kalaniopuʻu, king of Hawaiʻi. It is said, however, that Kamehameha was the real son of Kahekili, king of Maui and that Kahekili gave him the name of his brother which was Kamehameha.” (Dibble)

Kalākaua notes, “To this record of the tangled relationships of the chiefly families of the group at that period may be added … that Kahekili, the mōʻi of Maui, was the real father of Kamehameha; and in proof of the latter the acts and admissions of Kahekili are cited.”

When Kamehameha prepared an invasion in east Maui, Kahekili sent his younger brother, Alapaʻi, with the following orders: “Go, and bestow our kingdom upon our son; and if he will receive it, well; but if he does not recognize me as his father and will not respect the gift, but insists upon war; then, tell him that both he and his soldiers shall die in their youth, before the going down of the sun.” (Dibble)

“If, indeed he shall listen to my request, then, say to him, ‘Wait, till the black tapa, shall cover me and my funeral rites shall be performed, then, come and receive his kingdom, without the peril of war,’ – for indeed, he is my son, and from me he received his name Kamehameha after that of my elder brother.” (Dibble) Receiving the message, Kamehameha delayed his invasion.

Some say that Kekuʻiapoiwa had a liaison with Kahekili (ruler of Maui) and from this union was born Kamehameha. Though Kahekili was thought to be his biological father, he was raised by his parents (and was considered the son of Kekuʻiapoiwa and Keōua.)

After Kahekili died, Fornander had an interesting perspective related to the relationships of the parties. Fornander notes, “Kameʻeiamoku and his twin-brother Kamanawa secretly took Kahekili’s body away and hid it in one of the caves at Kaloko in North Kona, Hawaii.”

Kameʻeiamoku and Kamanawa were the children of Kekaulike of Maui, and thus half-brothers of Kahekili. The twins (Kameʻeiamoku and Kamanawa) were Chiefs from the Kohala and North Kona districts and were uncles of and his counselors in the wars to unite the islands.

This relationship receives further confirmation from the native legends when they relate that, on learning the birth of Kamehameha, Kahekili sent these two sons of his father Kekaulike to Hawaiʻi to be and act as “Kahus” to Kamehameha. (Fornander)

“In no other way can the otherwise singular fact be explained that two of Kamehameha’s oldest and most prominent and trusted councilor chiefs, during a time of what may be called suspended hostilities, should have repaired from Hawaii to Oahu for the purpose of securing and safely hiding (Huna-kele) the bones of Kamehameha’s political rival; nor the otherwise equally inexplicable fact that they should have been permitted by Kalanikūpule, Kahekili’s son and successor, to carry their design into effect.” (Fornander)

Under the social system of the old regime, and of time-hallowed custom, Kamehameha would have had no power to prevent those chiefs from executing their pious errand, and Kalanikūpule would have had no motive to mistrust their honesty when resigning to them his father’s remains; and a breach of trust on their part would have consigned them to an infamy of which Hawaiian history had no precedent, and so deep, that the Hawaiian language would not have had a word detestable enough wherewith to express it. (Fornander)

“He was the reputed and accepted son of Keōua, the half-brother of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, although it was believed by many that his real father was Kahekili, mōʻi of Maui. But, however this may have been, he was of royal blood, and was destined to become not only the king of Hawaiʻi, but the conqueror and sovereign of the group. This chief was Kamehameha.” (Kalākaua)

Kamehameha, through the assistance of the Kona “Uncles” (Keʻeaumoku, Keaweaheulu, Kameʻeiamoku & Kamanawa (the latter two ended up on the Island’s coat of arms;)) succeeded, after a struggle of more than ten years, in securing to himself the supreme authority over that island (and later, the entire Hawaiian Islands chain.)

The image shows Kamehameha (drawn by Choris in 1816.)

June 20, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

The Apology & the Supreme Court

On March 31, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court and rendered a decision on a case between the State of Hawaiʻi and OHA relating to the transfer of ceded lands.

In that decision, the US Supreme Court discusses the 1993 ‘Apology’ Resolution, as well as makes references to Hawaiian Sovereignty. The following are quotes from the US Supreme Court decision:

“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).”

“Pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, the Republic of Hawai‘i ‘cede[d] absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind’ and further ‘cede[d] and transfer[red] to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining’ (hereinafter ceded lands).”

“The Newlands Resolution further provided that all ‘property and rights’ in the ceded lands ‘are vested in the United States of America.’” “Two years later, Congress established a government for the Territory of Hawai‘i. … The Organic Act reiterated the Newlands Resolution and made clear that the new Territory consisted of the land that the United States acquired in ‘absolute fee’ under that resolution.”

“In 1959, Congress admitted Hawai‘i to the Union (hereinafter Admission Act). Under the Admission Act, with exceptions not relevant here, ‘the United States grant[ed] to the State of Hawai‘i, effective upon its admission into the Union, the United States’ title to all the public lands and other public property within the boundaries of the State of Hawai‘i, title to which is held by the United States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.’”

“Hawai‘i state law also authorizes the State to use or sell the ceded lands, provided the proceeds are held in trust for Hawaiian citizens. In 1993, Congress’ joint Apology Resolution “apologize[d]” for this country’s role in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy, and declared that nothing in the resolution was ‘intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.’”

“In 1993, Congress enacted a joint resolution ‘to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawai‘i and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians.’ Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, … (hereinafter Apology Resolution).”

“Turning to the merits, we must decide whether the Apology Resolution ‘strips Hawai‘i of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer’ the lands that the United States held in “absolute fee” and “grant[ed] to the State of Hawai‘i, effective upon its admission into the Union”. We conclude that the Apology Resolution has no such effect.”

“The Apology Resolution did not strip Hawai‘i of its sovereign authority to alienate the lands the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the State upon its admission to the Union.”

“The resolution’s first substantive provision uses six verbs, all of which are conciliatory or precatory. Specifically, Congress ‘acknowledge[d] the historical significance’ of the monarchy’s over-throw, ‘recognize[d] and commend[ed] efforts of reconciliation’ with native Hawaiians, ‘apologize[d] to [n]ative Hawaiians’ for the overthrow, ‘expresse[d] [Congress’s] commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow,’ and ‘urge[d] the President … to also acknowledge [those]ramifications’.”

“Such terms are not the kind that Congress uses to create substantive rights – especially those that are enforceable against the cosovereign States.”

“The Apology Resolution’s second and final substantive provision is a disclaimer, which provides: ‘Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.’ By its terms, speaks only to those who may or may not have ‘claims against the United States.’”

“The State Supreme Court, however, read [this] as a congressional recognition – and preservation – of claims against Hawai‘i. There is no justification for turning an express disclaimer of claims against one sovereign into an affirmative recognition of claims against another.”

The US Supreme Court concluded, “First, ‘whereas’ clauses like those in the Apology Resolution cannot bear the weight that the lower court placed on them. As we recently explained in a different context, ‘where the text of a clause itself indicates that it does not have operative effect, such as ‘whereas’ clauses in federal legislation …, a court has no license to make it do what it was not designed to do.’”

“Second, even if the ‘whereas’ clauses had some legal effect, they did not ‘chang[e] the legal landscape and restructur[e] the rights and obligations of the State.’”

“The Apology Resolution reveals no indication – much less a ‘clear and manifest’ one – that Congress intended to amend or repeal the State’s rights and obligations under Admission Act (or any other federal law); nor does the Apology Resolution reveal any evidence that Congress intended sub silentio to ‘cloud’ the title that the United States held in ‘absolute fee’” and transferred to the State in 1959.”

“Third, the Apology Resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to ‘cloud’ Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union. We have emphasized that ‘Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State.’”

A later Hawaiʻi Supreme Court case noted (in 2014,) “The US Supreme Court reversed this court, holding that the Apology Resolution did not confer substantive rights or have a substantive legal effect. Thus, the Apology Bill cannot serve to support a fundamental right to nation-building”. (SCWC-29794)

It’s interesting to note the Supreme Court’s repeated references to the Republic of Hawai‘i, Annexation, Territory, Newlands Resolution, Admission Act, State, etc.

June 19, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Hawai‘i Seven

“The Alien Registration Act of 1940, better known as the ‘Smith Act,’ was initially designed to monitor immigrants and prosecute those suspected of collaborating with fascist enemy powers.”

“But after World War II, as relations with the US and Soviet Union changed from reluctant allies to avowed enemies, the Justice Department turned the Smith Act into a weapon against the left, manipulating the law to target American citizens alleged to be leaders of the Communist Party.” (DeLauder, University of Washington)

“The Alien Registration Act was introduced by Virginia Congressman Howard Smith, passed by Congress, and signed by President Roosevelt on June 28, 1940, World War II was raging in Europe and Asia and Congress, worried about espionage, passed the law to keep track of immigrant noncitizens.”

“It required adult noncitizens to register with the federal government and be fingerprinted. (DeLauder, University of Washington)

Then, in the Islands, seven were arrested at or near their homes in the morning of August 28, 1951 and were charged with “conspiring with each other”. “According to the complaint, the alleged conspiracy has continued since April 1, 1945.” (Star Bulletin, August 29, 1951)

The “Hawaii Seven” were Jack Wayne Hall, John Ernest Reinecke, Jack Denishi Kimoto, Koji Ariyoshi, Dwight James Freeman, Charles Kazuyuki Fujimoto and Eileen Toshiko Fujimoto. (State Bulletin)

“The arrests came when sugar negotiations were in progress and on the day of the arrest, the ILWU sugar negotiating committee came to the Federal building to hold a conference with Hall, who was held in custody there. The arrests came when 750 ILWU pine workers were on strike on Lanai.” (Honolulu Record)

“Six defendants spent a week in jail while $15,000 bail was being raised for each. For travel outside of Oahu, an additional $10,000 was required.” (Star Bulletin)

“The longest and hardest fought case in the Territory’s history lasted seven and a half months from late 1952 to the summer of 1953 in the whipped up atmosphere of cold-war McCarthyism.” (Honolulu Record)

“Hawaii’s seven top Communists, including Longshore Boss Jack W Hall, were convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the Government today [June 19, 1953] and stevedores immediately halted work on all island docks, possibly foreruning a general protest strike.”

“Within two hours after the verdict was announced Hall’s International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union suspended negotiations on a new contract and longshoremen began walking off the job at Castle and Cook Pier 32.”

“Conviction of the ‘Hawaii seven’ brings to 51 the number of United States Red leaders convicted since the Nation’s 11 top Communists were found guilty in New York in 1949.” (The Tribune, Pennsylvania, June 20, 1953)

They appealed … “The US Court of Appeals, acting in line with the Supreme Court’s California Reds ruling of last June, Monday reversed the Smith Act convictions of seven persons in Hawaii and four in the State of Washington.” (Subcommittee on Territories and Insular Affairs)

(The “US Supreme Court established a distinction between advocacy of a political doctrine and advocacy of action.” (Advertiser))

The Hawaii Seven were contacted after the Ninth Circuit reversal and provided the following comments to the Honolulu Record:

Jack W. Hall. “This period has certainly been a time when we as a union found out who our friends are. I found out as an individual, too Prom the beginning, I have had confidence that our union program and my part in it would be vindicated.”

Jack D. Kimoto. “The acquittal of the Hawaii Seven means a resounding defeat for reactionary elements who used the Smith Act as a vehicle in their conspiracy to smash militant trade unionism and progressive political movement in Hawaii The vehicle, itself, is on the way to the ash heap of History I congratulate everyone who did his share to defeat this abominable conspiracy.”

Charles K. Fujimoto. “I am happy that the courts have finally handed down a decision in our favor. It is a victory not only for the Seven, but for all Americans in the preservation of their civil liberties.”

Eileen Fujimoto. “I want to thank all the ILWU members, our attorneys and friends and all those who had the intellectual integrity and courage to support us in our fight for those basic civil rights guaranteed all Americans.”

Dr. John Reinecke. “My strongest impressions after more than six years of the Smith Act case and 10 years as one of the targets of local witch-hunting are of the kindliness of the average person, but also of a very general lack of civic courage.”

Koji Ariyoshi. “The reversal of the Smith Act conviction shows once again that laws are not always right, that government, or that part of government that enforces the laws, is not always right The Bill of Rights which protects all Americans finally passed after a long struggle by democratic minded Americans The Smith Act must be repealed.”

Dwight James Freeman. “I’m happy about the reversal of course, but it seems an awful shame that so much time and money and energy should have been required to fight charges that should never have been made and a case that should never have been in court.”

June 11, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Kamehameha Day

Kamehameha Day was first celebrated in 1871 by Kamehameha V as a day to honor his grandfather, Kamehameha I (however, it was first celebrated on December 11 of that year.)

Here’s a little background on the celebration (Kepā Maly gave me information from SM Kamakau) and the reasoning why we now celebrate Kamehameha Day on June 11.

“The celebration of Kamehameha Day on June 11 came about in the following way.”

“On December 11, 1871, the birthday of Kamehameha V who was at that time ruling king, a public celebration was held with horse-riding and other sports.”

“It was agreed to make this celebration an annual event, but because of the uncertain weather in December to change the date to June.”

“Kamehameha V died soon after, and the holiday remained as a “Day in Commemoration of Kamehameha I,” (La Ho‘o-mana‘o o Kamehameha I.)”

So, while linked to Kamehameha V’s birth date (December 11,) because the weather is better in the summer, the decision was made to have the Kamehameha I celebration six months from the King Kamehameha V’s birthday (i.e. June 11 – the date has no direct significance to Kamehameha I.)

In 1882, the Hawaiian Legislature with concurrence from the King (Kalakaua) authorized a Kamehameha statue to serve as a “commemorative of the centennial of the discovery of this Archipelago by Cook”. (PCA, May 19, 1882)

“In 1878 the Kingdom of Hawaii, with King Kalakaua at its head, honored Captain Cook at the centenary celebration of discovery. The permanent memorial established in Honolulu at that time was the splendid statue of Kamehameha the Great which stands upon a high pedestal in front of the Judiciary Building.” (Taylor)

“A great many plans have been proposed and suggestions made whereby the memory of the great navigator might be suitably recognized and perpetuated by our residents.”

“On the eve of the day celebrated the glee troupes of Lahaina, who can boast of a preeminence in the sweet chorus singing peculiar to Hawaiians, with some commemorative of the coming of Captain Cook”. (PCA, Jan 26, 1878)

“January 18, 1878, was the anniversary of the landing of Captain Cook on these Islands – one hundred years ago. The event was commemorated by our people with becoming reverence.”

“The Hawaiian citizens, assisted by the English speaking residents, made such preparations for the event as they could, in order to testify their appreciation of a century of time in the history of the Hawaiian group with all its mutations, whether for good or otherwise in the history of the race.” (Hawaiian Gazette, Jan 23, 1878)

That statue that gets draped with lei on June 11, is “The centennial of the discovery of the Sandwich Islands by Captain Cook in 1778”; it is “a bronze statue, heroic size, of Kamehameha, the conqueror and organizer of the Islands.”

Then, in 1896 the legislature declared it a national holiday.

“Kamehameha Day was generally observed by the people. Elaborate preparations were made for the celebration of the day, with sumptuous feasts and sports, and every effort was brought to bear in order to insure the success of the occasion.”

“It might well be said that, in the language of the poet, its observance was usually attended with:

‘The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,

And all that beaut’, all that wealth e’er gave.’”

“The celebration itself was characterized by a cheerful spirit and good-fellowshlp. “Aloha,” the watchword that opened every heart and brightened every soul, was greeted on every side, and hospitality, unalloyed and unbounded, was displayed at every door. There was no distinction in race, color or creed.” (John C Lane, Mayor, 1916)

In 1939, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes under the Territorial Legislature of Hawai‘i created the King Kamehameha Celebration Commission – that law remains in effect, today.

State law notes: §8-5 King Kamehameha celebration commission … “The commission shall have charge of all arrangements for the celebration each year generally observed throughout Hawai‘i Nei on June 11, to commemorate the memory of the great Polynesian Hawaiian warrior and statesman King Kamehameha I, who united the Hawaiian Islands into the Kingdom of Hawai‘i”.

In 1978 the legislature renamed this holiday King Kamehameha I Day.

Almost from its first observance this day was celebrated chiefly by horse races in Kapi‘olani Park; but the races eventually gave way to today’s parades of floats and pāʻū riders.

On February 14, 1883, the Kamehameha statue was unveiled at Aliʻiōlani Hale during the coronation ceremonies for King Kalākaua.

The stance of the statue, with spear in left hand and right outstretched with open palm, showed the “successful warrior inviting the people … to accept the peace and order he had secured.”

There are now five different statues of Kamehameha:

The first replica stands prominently in front of Aliʻiolani Hale in Honolulu
The initial (repaired) casting of the statue is at Kapaʻau, North Kohala
Another replica is in US Capitol’s visitor center in Washington DC
Another statue is at the Wailoa River State Recreation Area in Hilo
A statute, created by Herb Kane, is at the Grand Wailea Resort Hotel & Spa on Maui

The customary draping of the Kamehameha Statue with lei dates back to 1901. The image shows the lei-draped statue of Kamehameha in Honolulu. (wongsto)

June 10, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

The Hawaiian Club

The Hawaiian Club (sometimes referred to as the Hawaiian Club of Boston) was formed in January, 1866, by a few gentlemen, who having, at different periods during the preceding forty years, resided at the Hawaiian Islands, felt that strong attachment for them which is so general among those who have once lived there.

Its purpose was to promote social intercourse among the friends of Hawaii, resident in or visiting Boston and vicinity, and to advance the interests of the United States at the Hawaiian Islands, and the welfare of the Hawaiian nation, by collecting and diffusing information bearing thereupon, and by all other honorable means. (Articles of Organization)

There were 15-original members, and by 1868 the total had increased to 45. Although the club was in existence for many years, this volume of papers was their first (and only) publication. A note on the reverse of the title page says, ‘Four hundred fifty copies plain, fifty club copies (on) tinted (paper.)’

Their object was partly to revive pleasant associations by occasional meetings to discuss the past and present condition of Hawaii, and partly to advance the prosperity of the country and the interests of the United States and her citizens there.

In furtherance of these objects the Club met once a month, usually in the city of Boston, but occasionally in a more social way at the country residence of some one of its members. It has corresponded with the friends of Hawaii, resident at the Islands.

It has sought, through delegations at Washington, and through newspaper publications and personal interviews of its officers and members with men of influence, to further every measure which would benefit the Islands.

One such was the establishment of steam mail communication between San Francisco and Honolulu, and the negotiation and ratification of a treaty of commercial reciprocity between the United States and Hawaiian Governments.

One interesting issue raised by the Hawaiian Club relates to the Kamehameha Statue – an ‘error’ in how the King is dressed.

“When the Kamehameha had been modeled by Gould, the attention of the Hawaiian Club of Boston … was called to the completed model and it was noticed that the great Moi was represented wearing a sort of apron”.

“(T)he sculptor was informed that this was by no means a correct costume of the time of Kamehameha and would appear ridiculous to the modern Hawaiian.”

It turns out, when the statue was being prepared, King Kalakaua had recently acquired “Malo of Kaumualiʻi” and he selected that to be photographed for the sculptor’s use, providing the model with an ordinary malo at the same time.

William Tufts Brigham – the first director of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum – had written a book on Hawaiian featherwork; he had also been Hawaiian Club president for ten years.

His initial reaction about the “Malo of Kaumualiʻi” was, “how could a band four yards long, made as this is with feathers on both sides be disposed on the wearer? The term malo is certainly misleading”. He suggested it was rather a cordon or sash.

“In the statue the cordon passes from the pendent end up behind the portion used as a waist-band, over the left shoulder, outside the cloak, instead of returning down the back to form the belt as it should have done with the end tucked in to tighten the band, it leaves this belt as an independent member and passes down over the cloak to trail on the ground!” (Brigham)

“The ordinary malo is shown on the statue, a proof that the cordon was not used as a malo, an impossible feat. Perhaps no competent critic saw the model after the cordon was added, or it was thought best not to remove the band after the cast was made.”

“As there was no living Hawaiian who had seen such a cordon worn either by Kamehameha or Kaumualiʻi, the absence of criticism may be understood.” (Brigham)

It turns out Brigham found out it was not the sculptor’s fault, but, rather, the photographer who sent the statue maker photos of what was to be designed (Gould simply sculpted what the photographer provided.)

“The ungraceful position of the left hand was changed by the artist but he could not have been expected to be versed in the peculiarities of ancient Hawaiian adornment. In the photograph sent not only was the cordon placed over the cloak but the main ornament, the terminal set with teeth was not visible in front!”

“I can only suppose that King Kalakaua in his apprenticeship to royalty as assistant chamberlain to Kamehameha V, never saw such a cordon adorning his royal master who was greatly averse to personal display as I was convinced by my acquaintance with that monarch, who probably never saw the cordon in question.” (Brigham)

“The final arrangement must be based on esthetic rather than historical grounds. In fact, the decorated end of the sash drags on the ground behind the figure. The other end has had to be supplemented with a fictitious terminal band to be presentable in front.”

“If you look closely, the final arrangement is impossible without two sashes: a long one from malo front over the shoulder and down to the ground, and a short, separate belt.” (Later noted by Charlot.)

Traditionally, a sash is worn by first draping the sash over the left shoulder to where it falls between the knees. Then the remaining length is wrapped around the waist and over the front flap of the sash to around the back, fed behind the part over the shoulder, and the remaining hangs down in the back (at knee length.) (San Nicolas) After that, you put the cape on over it all.

As attention is drawn to the Kamehameha Statue, with lei draping and anticipation of Kamehameha Day, folks might now all look at the Kamehameha Statue a little closer now. (The painting pattern of the sash on the Kapaʻau Statue illustrates the error best, but it is evident on each.)

Most of the attention has been to the front of the statue; but we have overlooked a little bit of history without looking at the sash as it simply flows from the front over the shoulder (over the cape) to a pile in the back (rather than in the traditional wearing of the sash (wrapped before the cape is worn; under the cape around the waist and looped down.))