Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance | Page 83

June 25, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

John Meek

John Meek (Nov. 24, 1791 – Jan. 29, 1875) came to Hawaii from Massachusetts in 1809 along with his brother Captain Thomas Meek, who was engaged in the Northwest trade.

“A few year later he himself became captain, and continued in the same trade for many years. In 1830 or ’31, he became a resident of this port, occasionally making voyages to the Northwest Coast, China and other ports.” (Hawaiian Gazette, February 3, 1875)

“He sailed from this port in cant capacity on a number of voyages to China and the coast of Mexico, but has been a permanent resident of this Island for the past fifty years. The late John J. Astor thought so highly of Captain Meek that he built a ship specially for him.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 30, 1875)

“For more than twenty years he held a commission as pilot of this harbor, and for the past few years was also harbor master.” (Hawaiian Gazette, February 3, 1875)

“‘Vessels approaching Honolulu and desiring a Pilot, will set their national ensign and pilot signal, on which he will go on immediately.’ The great number of ships coming in from Lahaina, and intending to lie off and on, or to come to anchor without employing a pilot, renders attention to the above requirement of the Harbor Laws necessary.”

“The undersigned will give prompt attendance on all vessels that require his services, but he wishes it to be understood that he will not go off without being signalized as required in the above quoted law, a compliance with which will be necessary to justify
any future complaint against him for want of attention to duty.” (John Meek; Polynesian, July 6, 1844)

“He was the firm friend and often advisor of the chiefs and successive Kings of these Islands, from the days of the first Kamehameha to the present time”.

“He was the last surviving pioneer of the Order of Free Masons in the Pacific, having been one of the ten who were instituted as “Lodge le Progres de l’Oceanie,” No. 124, by Captain Le Tellier, in 1843.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 30, 1875)

“He engaged extensively in the grazing business, and took especial pains to introduce improved breeds of cattle and horses into the country. Combined with the plain and bluff manner of the true sailor, Capt. John Meek was noted for his probity of character, and a genial kindness of disposition.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 30, 1875)

“America is the home of the turkey …. In 1815 Queen Ka‘ahumanu went aboard a trading schooner and saw turkeys Capt. John Meek had obtained in Chile.”

“Never had she seen such large birds before. Upon going ashore she told the king. The king went to the vessel and asked for the birds. Upon refusal he seized the turkeys and went ashore.”

“The birds later escaped. On the slopes of the island’s volcanoes and even in the United States national park wild turkeys are fairly numerous, believed to be descendants of those brought to the islands by Captain Meek.” (Smithfield Times, February 25, 1937)

Meek is also credited with bringing the first documented mango into the islands in 1824. He had given some seedlings to Don Francisco de Marín, advisor to Kamehameha I; Marín is most often credited with planting the first mango tree in Hawai‘i soil, near what is now the corner of Vineyard Boulevard and River Street.

The fruit it bore became the progenitor of the “Hawaiian” mango – a strain that was dubbed “Manini” for the nickname Hawaiians gave Marín. The Manini is also known as the Common mango because, as its name suggests, it’s seen throughout the Islands. It’s a medium-size, juicy fruit with a large seed and skin that turns from light green to rosy-yellow as it ripens. (Lo; Hana Hou)

Meek was a defendant in one of the first landmark cases dealing with the rights of native tenants. (Oni v. Meek) In 1858, Oni, a tenant of the ahupua’a of Honouliuli, O’ahu, filed suit against John Meek, who had a lease over the entire ahupuaʻa. Oni brought suit when some of his horses, which had been pastured on Meek’s land, were impounded and sold.

Oni claimed that he had a right to pasture his horses on the land division as one of his traditional tenant rights (by custom and by language in the Kuleana Act.)

Oni notes, “We are hoaʻāina. We live on the land and grow our crops, and in return we work for the konohiki a few days a week. We call these labor days. The rest of the week, we have the right to use the lands for certain things, like gathering firewood, fishing, and pasturing animals. It’s our custom, our tradition.”

“I take care of the land on labor days, so I can use the land to pasture my horses. Mr. Meek uses the Chief’s land like we do. We all take care of things together, so we should share the land, just like before.” (Judiciary History Center)

On September 22, 1858 the Police Court of Honolulu rendered a judgment for Oni. Meek was ordered to pay $80.00 for two horses and $4.00 in court costs. At the request of the defendant (Meek,) the case was appealed to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.

Oni was the first Hawaiʻi Supreme Court case to discuss “the rights common people to go to the mountains, and the seas attached to their own particular land exclusively” in the 1850 Kuleana Act.

The Supreme Court noted, “the claim of a right of pasturage, put forward by the plaintiff, is made to rest upon far broader grounds than that just mentioned, which fact renders this case one of great importance, not only to the large landed proprietors throughout the Kingdom, but to thousands of the common people.”

“It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that he, as a hoaʻāina of Honouliuli, has a right to pasture his animals on the kula land of that ahupua‘a, upon one or both of two grounds; first, by custom; or secondly, by statute law.”

“It appears by the evidence that horses were first introduced on the ahupua‘a of Honouliuli about the year 1833; that within ten years afterwards they had become numerous ; and that the horses belonging to the hoaʻāinas were allowed to pasture upon the kula land, in common with those of the konohiki.”

The Supreme Court was concerned with the right of a private property owner to use the land as he individually wished without having to share its use. The court said “the custom contended for is so unreasonable, so uncertain, and so repugnant to the spirit of the present laws, that it ought not to be sustained by judicial authority.”

The court also said “…it is perfectly clear that, if the plaintiff (Oni) is a hoaʻāina, holding his land by virtue of a fee simple award from the Land Commission, he has no pretense for claiming a right of pasturage by custom.” (Judicial History Center)

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Meek. For over a hundred years, the Oni v Meek case appeared to foreclose claims based on custom. (MacKenzie) The last fifty years of his life he was a resident of Honolulu and died January 29, 1875. (Kamakau)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Captain-John_Meek-WC

Captain_John_Meek-WC

Oni v Meek-Judicial History Center

June 23, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Evolving Heiau Construction

Oral histories of the Hawaiian temple system indicate that several functional types existed, although all that remains today is dry-laid lava rock foundations and the ruins of stone altars, offering pits, and the foundations of thatched houses and wooden images.

Three general functional categories have been identified archaeologically with the excavation of eight Maui temples, (1) small open court ancestral shrines, (2) large platform temples used for major political rituals and feasts that helped glorify successful chiefly lines, and …

(3) smaller enclosed temples used for local rituals and feasts that promoted collective cosmological principles and encouraged consensus among political groups.

These temples ranged in size from family structures (~2,000 sq ft) to medium-sized community shrines ( ~7,000 sq ft) and larger polity temples (upwards of ~21,000 sq ft – about one-half acre).

Analysis of radiocarbon data show progressive changes that occur over three centuries: from open temples ~AD 1400 to large platform temples ~AD 1500 and finally the addition of small enclosed temples ~AD 1600.

However, Kirch and Sharp report dates of near-surface coral dedicatory offerings taken from seven temples from the political district of Kahikinui, Maui, and an additional temple from the neighboring island of Molokai.

Because these dates all fall into a very short interval of 60 years (~AD 1565-1638), they argue that Kahikinui’s temple hierarchy was rapidly built during a time of predatory territorial expansion under the reign of a single Maui chief around the turn of the seventeenth century AD.

New data relevant to this was included in analysis by Kolb, including an extensive radio carbon dating chronology consisting of a corpus of 73 new and 17 published dates.

This new chronology indicates a prolonged period of island-wide temple construction (~ AD 1200-1800) that consisted of four distinct ‘periods’ which correlate with some important social trends noted in the oral-historical literature of Hawai‘i.

Kolb’s analysis notes four distinct modes with notable peaks at – AD 1240-60, 1360-80, 1540-60, and 1800-1820, each of which is statistically distinguishable (95% confidence interval) by cluster analysis.

The first mode peaks at AD 1220-60 – these early dates document the oldest temples in Hawai‘i. On Maui because the data comes from sound architectural contexts of seven different temples, they may also signify the inception of an island-wide temple network.

Oral traditions from the 13th century indicate that this was a period of intensive social change with a widening economic and social gap between chief and commoner, more authoritative chiefly rule and the formation of at least three ruling political districts (Lahaina, Wailuku and Hana).

These early temple building episodes were small, located upon promontories, tied to public activities of ancestor worship and dispersed across most of the island – characteristics of a formative temple network used to mark emerging territorial boundaries.

A second mode peaks at AD 1360-80; these dates mark the clear expansion of the temple network. Temple-building episodes representing this mode were similar in style and location to those of earlier temples but larger in scale.

Oral traditions speak about the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries as a period of political polarization between the genealogically distinct and often antagonistic ruling lines of East and West Maui.

Competition was intense and led to a series of intra-island wars over rank succession and territory. Conflicting genealogies during this time also lend credence to the idea of polarized and shifting rule.

The next mode peaks at AD 1560-80. Oral history of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries indicate, that this time was marked by political strife and the competing territories of East and West Maui eventually merged.

When this merger actually occurred, however, is difficult to say. At least three generations of chiefs are said to have been recognized as rulers by both East and West Maui: Kāka‘e, who ruled jointly with his brother Kaka‘alaneo; Kawaokaohele; and Pi‘ilani.

The final mode peaks at AD 1800-1820 (most Hawaiian temples were abandoned in AD 1819). Taken as a whole, these dates seem to indicate a final island-wide period of temple construction/use during the early nineteenth century.

Ethnohistory from this period sits on very firm ground, consisting pf numerous eyewitness Hawaiian and European accounts.

This was a time of interisland warfare and conquest, when competition between the Maui and Hawai‘i island ruling chiefs grew especially intense. The chiefs Kekaulike and Kahekili II dedicated numerous Maui war temples during the course oi their internecine struggles.

The Maui chiefly line abruptly ended in AD 1795, when Kamehameha I, a conquering chief from Hawai‘i Island, absorbed Maui into his emerging kingdom.

This last mode coincides with a flurry of temple activities that included Kamehameha’s rededication of the Maui temples in AD 1800-18001 to his own war god. It also coincides with other archaeological data documenting the rise of the Hawaiian incipient state, such as settlement intensification, internecine warfare and temple sacrificial activity.

The general trend of temple construction followed four phases between – AD 1200 and 1800, phases that correlate with some general sociopolitical trends distilled from ethnohistory.

These include (1) the formation of district-sized polities and the rise of chiefly prerogatives, (2) the expansion of the chiefly hierarchy and a bifurcation of the island into eastern and western kingdoms, (3) island unification and a shift in land tenure and (4) interisland competition and eventual absorption into a larger incipient state.

An important shift in temple construction and use coincided with island unification and a shift in land tenure and occurred – AD
1452-1625. Overall, the temple system followed a cycle of construction and use characteristic of incipient state development, coinciding with distinct periods of political tension when it was important to encourage and control social allegiances.

This pattern has significance for the development of complex societies throughout the world, where the processes of political formation and ritualized ideology can be interwoven with architectonic and economic questions in discussions of historical or archaeological change. (All here is from Kolb.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Piilanihale_Heiau_in_Kahanu_Garden

aerial-view-of-piilanihale-heiau

21-Hāpaiali‘i_Heiau_and_Ke‘ekū_Heiau

22-Mākole‘ā_Heiau

Hikiau Heiau

Oahu-Kailua-Ulupoheiau-gardenview

Mailekini_Heiau-Puukohola_Heiau-(USGS)

Kahanu-Garden-Aerial

Hikiau-Heaiu

Heiau, probably Kukuionapeha, at the top of Koko Head Avenue, between Crater Road and what is now the Kaimuki Fire Station-(HSA)-PPWD-11-7-020

Ahuena_Heiau-Wikimedia_Commons

An illustration by William Ellis of the Morai (heiau) at Kealakekua-1782

Ahuena_heiau_1816

Periods of Heiau Construction-Kolb

June 21, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Policy of Great Britain toward the Hawaiian Islands (1824-1854)

Here are a number of correspondences between British leadership at the time that suggest the position of the British government on Hawai‘i during the reign of Kamehameha III. (All are from an Appendix in the Report of the Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawai‘i, 1925.)

A note of George Canning, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (July 14, 1824), to King George, Announcing the Death of Kamehameha II notes, “an Attention perhaps the more advisable as the Governments both of Russia and of the United States of America …”

“… are known to have their Eyes upon those Islands: which may ere long become a very important Station in the trade between the N. W. Coast of America and the China Seas.” (Canning to King George IV, July 14, 1824)

“On the Question of the Right of Great Britain to the Sandwich Islands … their Lordships confide in your Judgement and discretion in treating unforseen Circumstances according to the Principles of Justice and Humanity which actuate H[is] M[ajesty]’s Councils …”

“… and They recommend to You, that while You are ready to assert and vindicate H[is] M[ajesty] ‘s Rights, you will pay the greatest Regard to the Comfort, the Feelings, and even the Prejudices of the Natives, and will shew the utmost Moderation towards the Subjects of any other Powers, whom you may meet in those Islands.”

“H[is] M[ajesty] ‘s Rights you will, if necessary, be prepared to assert, but considering the Distance of the Place, and the Infant State of political Society there, You will avoid, as far as may be possible, the bringing these Rights into Discussion …”

“… and will propose that any disputed Point between Yourself and any Subjects of other Powers shall be referred to your respective Governments.” (Secret Instructions Given to Lord Byron, September 14, 1824)

“Considering the increasing importance to Great Britain of many of the islands in the Pacific, and especially of the Sandwich and Society Islands, both in a naval and commercial point of view …”

“… Lord Aberdeen is desirous of impressing on the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, the expediency of a more frequent intercourse between Great Britain and those Islands, by the visits of ships of war, than has hitherto been maintained.”

“[It appears from Captain Jones’ letter to Admiral Thomas that British trade in the Sandwich Islands had increased in the last three years from $20,000 to $150,000 annually, and] that at the time of his arrival there, two years had elapsed since a British Ship of War had visited those islands.”

“Lord Aberdeen is of opinion that such an increase of trade alone would fully justify the more frequent appearance of British ships of wax in those parts. It would also tend to maintain the just influence of Great Britain, and to counter balance the efforts which are now making by other Powers, to establish a dominant authority in the islands of the Pacific.”

“The object of Her Majesty’s (Queen Victoria) Government in increasing their connexion with the chiefs of those islands, ought, in the opinion of Lord Aberdeen, to be rather to strengthen those authorities and to give them a sense of their own independence, by leaving the administration of justice in their own hands …”

“… than to make them feel their dependence on Foreign Powers, by interfering unnecessarily in every matter in which a foreign subject is concerned, and to compel those rulers by peremptory menace, or a show of physical force …”

“… to render to foreign subjects that measure of justice which may appear to the aggrieved person, or to the officer who steps forward in his behalf, to be his due. (Viscount Canning, Under Secretary of State to Sir John Barrow, Second Secretary of Admiralty, October 4, 1842)

“Her Majesty’s Government have no intention of retaining permanent possession of that country; and they have already given, both to the French Government and to that of the United States, an assurance to that effect. But it will be desirable that possession should be held, until the grievances complained of shall have been finally and formally redressed.”

“Her Majesty’s Government have already announced to the Ruler of the Sandwich Islands, their intention to acknowledge his independence. The United States have, it is understood, already taken that step; and the French Government have declared that they are ready, and intend to adopt the same course.”

“Therefore there appears to be no reason to apprehend that when Great Britain gives up her present possession of that country, it will fall into the hands of any other Power.”

“Never-the-less in order to provide against such a possible contingency, Her Majesty’s Government propose, before they release the Chief of the Sandwich Islands from the conditions into which he entered with Lord George Paulet, to endeavour to come to an understanding with the French Government …”

“… to the effect that both Governments shall engage not to assume to themselves any separate or special protection over that country; but that, on the contrary, both Governments shall equally recognise, and at all times treat the King of the Sandwich Islands as an independent ruler, and his country as open to all nations alike.” (Foreign Office to Admiralty, July 11, 1843)

“I have to desire that you will lose no time in officially assuring the Government of the United States that this Act (Paulet’s) was entirely unauthorized by Her Majesty’s Government, and that they propose, with the least practicable delay, to call on Lord George Paulet to render an account of his conduct.” (Foreign Office to Henry S Fox, British Ambassador to the United States, June 3, 1843)

“Without giving way to unreasonable jealousy or suspicion, it is desirable that you, should constantly keep a vigilant eye on the proceedings of the French in the Pacific, and that you should report on them to Her Majesty’s Government whenever you may have the means of safe communication.”

“But I do not wish that you should make any parade of vigilance with respect to the French. The less you appear to watch them the more surely you will be able to do so with effect.” (Earl of Aberdeen, Secretary of State to William Miller, British Consul General for the Hawaiian Islands September 29, 1843)

“Our only object is to secure the independence and permanent well-being of that country. … All that the British Govt, desire is that British Subjects and British interests in general should be placed upon the same footing with the subjects and interests of other Countries …”

“… and also that that footing should be such as to prevent, so far as possible, all future misunderstanding and contention between the respective Govts.” (Aberdeen to Miller, July 1, 1844)

“Her Majesty’s Government have learnt with great satisfaction that the attempts to bring about the annexation of the Sandwich Islands to the United States have been so completely defeated, and principally owing to the stand in favour of Independence which has been made by Prince Alexander and John Ii, a Member of the Upper House …”

“… and I have to instruct you to convey to the Prince and to such other Persons as you may think expedient the expression of that satisfaction on the part of her Majesty’s Government.” (Earl of Clarendon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to Miller, June 26, 1854)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

The_British_Empire-WC

June 11, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

La Ho‘o-mana‘o O Kamehameha I

Kamehameha Day was first proclaimed by Kamehameha V as a day to honor his grandfather, Kamehameha I, and was first celebrated on December 11, 1871 (Kamehameha V’s birthday.) It later changed to 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.)” (Kamakau)

So, while linked to Kamehameha V’s birth date, it boils down to having a celebration when the weather is better (6-months from King Kamehameha V’s birthday.) The date does not have any direct connection to Kamehameha I.

The 1896 legislature of the Republic of Hawaiʻi 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.”

At the request of the monument committee, statue designer Thomas R Gould modified the features to make the king seem about 45-years old. The intent was a bronze statue of ‘heroic size’ (about eight-and-a-half-feet tall.)

‘Boston Evening Transcript’ of September 28, 1878, noted “It has been thought fitting that Boston, which first sent Christian teachers and ships of commerce to the Islands, should have the honor of furnishing this commemorative monument.”

While Gould was a Bostonian, he was studying in Italy, where he designed the statue; ultimately, the statue was cast in bronze in Paris.

It was shipped on August 21, 1880, by the bark ‘GF Haendel,’ and was expected about mid-December. On February 22, 1881, came word that the Haendel had gone down November 15, 1880, off the Falkland Islands. All the cargo had been lost.

About the time it was lost, King Kalākaua was on a royal tour of the island of Hawai‘i. He made a speech in front of the Kohala Post Office.

There, the King was reminded the Kamehameha Statue was destined for Honolulu, yet Kohala, the birthplace of Kamehameha, was overlooked as a place for his statue. Kohala residents then raised funds and a replica was ordered.

It turns out, however, that the original statue had been recovered and was in fair condition. The right hand was broken off near the wrist, the spear was broken and the feather cape had a hole in it. It was taken to a shed at Aliʻiolani Hale to be repaired.

Meanwhile, on January 31, 1883, the replica ordered by Kohala arrived. On February 14, 1883, the replica statue was unveiled at Aliʻiolani Hale during the coronation ceremonies for King Kalākaua.

As for the original statue (which had been repaired,) it was dedicated on May 8, 1883 (the anniversary of Kamehameha’s death) and is in Kapaʻau, North Kohala outside Kohala’s community/senior center.

There are now four different statues of similar design 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

The customary draping of the Kamehameha Statue with lei dates back to 1901. As far as the parade goes, in 1903, the Territory of Hawaiʻi, Chamber of Commerce and Merchants’ Association created the Hawaiʻi Promotion Committee (forerunner to the Hawaiʻi Visitors and Convention Bureau.) Supported by a legislative appropriation, it was mandated to provide better publicity to encourage tourism to Hawaiʻi.

The early years of the Territorial era saw the creation of a series of public celebrations. Beginning with the Mid-Pacific Carnival in 1904, a series of multiethnic public celebrations and parades were created to attract tourists and showcase Hawaiʻi’s multi-ethnic culture.

The Mid-Pacific Carnival, held in February as a celebration in honor of Washington’s birthday, had spectacular and historic pageants and military parades featured. During the winter season, the Mid-Pacific Carnival was at ʻAʻala Park in downtown Honolulu. Circus acts, sideshows and hula dancers entertained the public.

The carnival had an annual Floral Parade. By the early-1900s, the automobile made its appearance and soon reduced the need and use of horses. Then, a group of women made a society to keep the culture going and Pāʻū clubs were formed.

The Hawaiian Star, February 22, 1906, headlined the “Floral Parade a Great Success.” “It was a great day for Honolulu. The Promotion Committee’s inauguration of what is intended to be an annual event in celebration of Washington’s birthday, could have asked no better day, no greater success …”

“… no more wide spread interest in all classes of the population, no greater enthusiasm among those who participated In the parade, and no more unique, striking, or picturesque a feature to individualize the celebration in Honolulu, and make it separate, and apart from the pageant of other places than the Pa-u riders.”

“The Pa-u riders, of course, were the magnet and center of attraction. This revival of an old custom, picturesque and under the conditions that gave rise to it, strikingly useful, was a happy thought of the Promotion Committee.”

“It appealed to dormant but when aroused, pleasing associations, among the older residents, especially the Hawaiians. It appealed to the love of oddity and the striking costume in the younger generation.” (The Hawaiian Star, February 22, 1906)

In 1916, Mid-Pacific Carnival merged into the Kamehameha Day Parade.

Next time you are at the original or replicas of the Kamehameha Statue, look closely at Kamehameha’s sash; there is an error in the arrangement of the sash. 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.

“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 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.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Kamehameha-Statue

June 10, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Kamehameha Takes A Walk

“The subject of interest which engrossed attention this week, was the question of the location of the second statue of Kamehameha the Conqueror, which we were officially (or rather Royally) informed is designed for Kohala, and very rightly so, as this was his birth-place.”

“At the request of the Governess, who has recently been paying us a visit, a committee was selected to decide upon the site upon which the statue shall be erected upon its arrival.”

“This committee, consisting of twenty-four members, met on the 22d, at the Court-house, in Kapaau, to discuss the question of location. Among the members were the following foreigners: Messrs. Vida, Woods. Chapin, Kenton, Holmes, Atkins, Smith, Sheldon, Ewart, and others who did not put in an appearance.”

“The native members consisted of the Police Magistrate, who acted as chairman, native lawyers, and sugar planters. Various locations were suggested and their claims and advantages warmly advocated.”

“Among others, the respected birth-place of the grand old King, near Kohala Plantation, called Halaula; Hapuu, near Halawa. where he was raised, and his favorite dwelling place, on the bluff near which he stood and marshalled the fleet of war canoes for the expedition which resulted in the final conquest of Maui; and Niulii, at the Eastern end of the District.”

“It was finally decided by an almost unanimous vote, that the statue shall be placed at a point nearly central of the District, on an elevation in the land of Ainakea, near the Government road, and almost equidistant from the Star Mill and that of Kohala Plantation.”

“If placed on a high pedestal it can there be seen front a long distant in every direction.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, March 31, 1883)

Initially, “On the grounds of the Ainakea school, near by, is a statue of the first Kamehameha.” (Anglo-American Magazine, September 1901)

Later, attempts were made to relocate the Kohala statue. “Kaniho presented an amendment providing $500 for the removal of the statue of Kamehameha from its present location in Kohala to the Court house yard. He said the statue was now in a neighborhood where nobody lived and the people of Kohala had petitioned for its removal as they had to deck it with wreaths.”

“Lewis opposed the scheme saying the statue was in a school yard where children could see it and would always be reminded who their great chief was.”

“Chillingworth asked if the statue was not on the birth place of Kamehameha, and replied that It was ten
miles distant.”

“Aylett disputed the statement, saying he was present when the statue was unveiled and it was said at that time that this was Kamehameha’s birth place.”

“Keliinoi moved an amendment to move the statue to Lahaina. Pulaa said the statue had already traveled a good deal; when it was on the way out it fell overboard and when recovered the statue was minus an arm.”

“‘If the money appropriated the statue will be on the move again,’ he said. Both Home Rulers and Republicans voted in favor of the removal.”

“‘The birth place of Kamehameha was in Kohala,’ said Pulaa. ‘I was not there, but my grandmother told me so.’”

“Kealawaa said the statue should not be disturbed. ‘It is not right to remove the statue,’ said he, ‘what is placed there should remain. It is just like this building. It should not be moved.’ Kaniho and Oili talked some more but the interpreter did not consider their remarks worth translating.”

“The motion lost 13 to 12.” (Hawaiian Gazette, July 3, 1903)

A year later, the newspaper noted in a page 1 headline, “Kamehameha To Take A Walk.”

“Kamehameha I’s statue in Kohala is going to be moved, not out of the district but to a position where it may be seen by the visitor.”

“By a relocation of the main road, involving a deep cut through a hill, the statue has been left out of sight of the passing way farer.”

“It is proposed therefore to remove it from its old site in front of the schoolhouse to a position in front of the courthouse.”

“As the statue is Territorial property the Board of Supervisors of Hawaii county asked the permission of the Superintendent of Public Works for Its removal. Mr. Holloway has compiled with the request.”

“The Kohala statue is the original. It was sunk at sea near Cape Horn in the vessel bringing it out from Europe.”

“After a replica, from the sculptor’s mould, had been procured to set up in Honolulu the original was fished out of the depths, brought to the islands and set up in Kohala, amidst the scenes of the great monarch’s earlier military exploits.” (Sunday Advertiser, March 24, 1904)

“To Move Statue Of Kamehameha – Relocation Of Main Road In Kohala Bars Attraction From View Of Visitors. The statue of Kamehameha the Great in Kohala is going to be moved to a position where It can be seen by visitors.”

“By a relocation of the main road the statue is cut off from the observance of wayfarers. The Public Works Department has granted the Hawaii Supervisors the right to move the attraction.” (Hawaiian Star, March 25, 1907)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger