Hawaii | Page 494 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

April 27, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Jones Act

It’s called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. The Act was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones from Washington, and thus carried his name.

The Jones Act is part of the post-World War I years, when the vulnerability of US shipping to German U-boats was still fresh in the public’s mind, to maintain a “dependable” merchant fleet for the next “national emergency” – as well as promote US shipping interests. (WSJ)

Part of the act deals with ‘coastwise (or domestic) trade’ – essentially the term applies to a voyage that beginning at any point within the US and delivering a type of commercial cargo to any other point within the US. (Maritime Law Center)

Another related term is ‘cabotage’ – this initially referred to shipping along coastal routes, port to port; now it is defined as the “transportation of passengers and goods within the same country” and “law or policy protecting transporters of passengers and goods within a country from competition from foreign carriers.” (American Heritage Dictionary)

The threshold question here is whether the carriage involves a move of an item of “merchandise” from one coastwise point to another when any part of the journey by sea or by land and sea occurs by vessel. If so, the movement is coastwise trade.

Merchandise is essentially any object, whether valuable or not, whether privately owned or owned by the US Government or by a state government or subdivision thereof, other than the carrying vessel’s own equipment and consumable supplies. (King)

The Jones Act was designed to protect the domestic shipping industry. It states that only ships made in the US and flying the country’s flags can deliver goods between US ports.

That means that a cargo ship filled with goods from China can only make one stop in the US at a time. It can’t stop in Hawaii to exchange goods before heading to Los Angeles. (Bussewitz)

This limitation is not new. After passage of the Constitution in 1789, the First Congress promptly exercised the sovereign powers of the US to protect the US merchant marine fleet from foreign flag competition in its domestic maritime trades.

The new Congress imposed a tax on foreign vessels operating in the domestic trades at a rate that, as a practical matter, precluded them from competing with the domestic merchant marine in those trades. Then, in 1817, Congress expressly prohibited foreign vessels from operating in the coastwise trades.

From 1817 to 1866, the US maritime cabotage laws prohibited the transportation of merchandise “from one port of the United States to another port of the United States in a vessel belonging wholly or in part to a subject of any foreign power.” (McGeorge)

The Jones Act revamped the US shipping laws governing cabotage, ship mortgages, seamen’s personal injury claims and more in the immediate aftermath of World War I. (King)

However, the bulk of the discussion on the Act deals with coastwise trade and cabotage and the fact that the law requires that all goods traded between US ports be transported by US-owned, US-built, US-flagged and at least 75 percent US-crewed ships. (Wilson)

The US is not alone in establishing and enforcing cabotage laws. Most trading nations of the world, according to Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD,) have or have had cabotage laws of some kind. (GAO)

But folks now-a-days, especially in the Islands, are suggesting the Act is inhibiting free trade – which results in higher prices for shipping (adding to the cost of almost everything we buy in the Islands.)

According to a 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service, the cost of a US-manufactured ship is about four times that of foreign competition, and crew costs for “Jones Act–eligible” vessels are several times higher than foreign counterparts. These higher operating costs make shipping between US ports as much as three times the rate of shipping to a foreign port. (Wilson)

The “significant measurable US import restraint on services is in the transportation sector. Complete liberalization of oceanborne domestic water transport (i.e. repeal of the Jones Act) results in a $656 million net welfare gain ….”

“More conservative estimates of foreign-cost advantages under free-trade conditions change the model results, showing significantly less import penetration in the US market and smaller welfare gains. Relaxing the domestic construction requirement alone is estimated to generate $261 million in net welfare gains …” (US International Trade Commission, 2002)

Another way to say the above is that “repealing the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by about 22 percent.” (Congressional Record)

By shutting out foreign competition, the law limits shipping capacity and inflates US freight rates. Like most forms of protectionism, it benefits a few (primarily labor unions and US shipbuilders) to the detriment of many.

US islands, such as Hawaiʻi (along with the state of Alaska,) feel the effects of the Jones Act more than most localities. (Bloomberg)

Jones Act waivers were granted during Hurricane Katrina due to the significant disruption in the production and transportation of petroleum and/or refined petroleum products in the region during that emergency and the impact this had on national defense. (USCG)

Some suggest waivers are evidence of the negative impacts of the law, but also say ending the Jones Act shouldn’t be a unilateral move. Dozens of other nations have similar protectionist laws, and the US should only allow competition from ships that are registered to nations that agree to reciprocal rollbacks. (Bloomberg)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Jones Act-Bloomberg

April 26, 2016 by Peter T Young 3 Comments

‘Righteous and Honorable Diplomat’

“Europe, 1940-41, was a place and time of too few heroes. The world had begun a journey down an unalterable path to horror. …”

“But, in the face of those horrors, there were many who were courageous, who acted selflessly, who saved lives — not for any honor or reward, but simply because they could not act any other way. One man who possessed that courage was Hiram Bingham IV.” (Denise Merrill, Conn Sec of State)

Hiram Bingham IV (known as ‘Harry’) was part of an ‘underground railroad,’ engaged in smuggling people out of Europe. People who belonged to this conspiracy were filing in and out of his house as though they were on conveyor belts. Harry Bingham was participating in discussions of all sorts of illegal activities. (Robert Kim Bingham)

“I do want you to know that Hiram Bingham had me (when I was a 15-year old boy in Marseille working for the Quakers) into his office and told me how he would issue my family a visa to the US after we had obtained the release of my father from the Gurs Concentration Camp.”

“I could write a treatise about what Consul Hiram Bingham did to save refugees during his posting as US consul at the American Consulate in Marseille, France in the 1940-1941 period. He definitely helped to save my life and that of my parents and sister.” (Survivor Ralph Hockley)

“I owe my life, literally, to Hiram Bingham IV, who issued US immigration visas to my grandmother, Anna Ginsburg, grandfather, Marcel Ginsburg and to Helene Sylvia Ginsburg, who would become my mother later in her life. She was 18 at the time.”

“The three fled Antwerp, their home, on May 10, 1940, the day Germany invaded and occupied Belgium. They traveled, by car, to Paris where they hoped to spend the war. It was not to be. As the Germans neared Paris, my relatives escaped west, to Bordeaux.”

“According to the stamps in my mother’s Belgian passport from that period, the three received Immigration Visas from US vice consul Hiram Bingham in Marseille on September 12.”

“After that, they received French exit visas in Perpignan on September 14. Then back in Marseille, they received Portuguese and Spanish transit visas. They crossed from Cerbère into Spain, reaching Barcelona on September 20 and Lisbon the next day. … The two married in 1942. I was born three years later in Manhattan.” (Jane Friedman)

“Of the three of my family he saved in 1941 in Marseilles I am the last one alive and I write this with trembling fingers and many a tear. May his name be honored for ever. (He) saved my Mother, my sister and I.”

“Without him we would not have been able to avoid the concentration camp to which we were assigned two days later. He provided us with a ‘Nansen Passport’ because we no longer held citizenship in any country, and therefore had no papers.”

“He risked a great deal to do this. I still have the document. We cannot honor him enough, and not that many whom he saved are still around to pay him tribute. I am grateful every day. … Thank you.” (Survivor Elly Sherman)

“As vice consul, Hiram Bingham was in charge of issuing visas – visas that could quite literally mean the difference between life and death. Bingham began issuing visas in June of 1940 to Jews and political refugees alike, on occasion even sheltering them in his home.”

“He did so because he simply believed in his heart that it was the right thing to do and the only thing his conscience would allow. However, his actions were not in accord with the official policies of the United States. Germany, at that time, was not our enemy.”

“Also, to assist in the smuggling of refugees was a violation of his orders and the laws governing France. When those who were desperate to escape were refused by American consulates in other French cities, they began, in increasing numbers to turn to Bingham in Marseilles.”

“It is impossible to determine the exact number, but during his relatively brief service in Marseilles, Hiram Bingham was directly or indirectly responsible for saving the lives of perhaps 2000 or more people.”

“Some were or would become famous – Leon Feuchtwanger, Franz Werfel, Alma Mahler Werfel, Heinrich and Golo Mann, son and brother of Thomas Mann, Max Ernst, Marc Chagall, Andre Breton, Andre Masson, Nobel Laureate Otto Meyerhof, Konrad Heiden, Hannah Arendt, and others.” (Denise Merrill, Conn Sec of State)

“Harry Bingham did more than issue visas. He was actively involved in rescue operations – spiriting threatened persons out of the hands of the Vichy police.”

“In one well known incident he helped Lion Feuchtwanger escape from an internment camp and hid him together with Heinrich Mann and Golo Mann – Thomas Mann’s brother and son – in his apartment. He helped Varian Fry through numerous scrapes with the Vichy police by using his consular post to imply US interest and concern.”

Survivor Author Thomas Mann: “I want particularly to be able to thank you personally for your sympathetic help to the many men and women, including members of my own family, who have turned to you for assistance…Yours Very Sincerely, Thomas Mann.”

“Many more were ordinary human beings fleeing tyranny. Harry’s saving work would end in the summer of 1941, when he was relieved of his post and transferred first to Lisbon and later to Argentina. His career in the diplomatic service ended in 1945.”

“He has been honored by many groups and organizations including the United Nations, the State of Israel, and by a traveling exhibit entitled ‘Visas for Life: The Righteous and Honorable Diplomats.’” (Denise Merrill, Conn Sec of State)

Simon Wiesenthal Center video Tribute to Hiram (Harry) Bingham IV:

Hiram Bingham IV was the son of Hiram Bingham III (who rediscovered the ‘Lost City’ of Machu Picchu (he has been noted as a source of inspiration for the ‘Indiana Jones’ character;)) grandson of Hiram Bingham II (born in Hawaiʻi and was a missionary in the Gilbert Islands;) and great grandson of Hiram Bingham I (leader of the Pioneer Company of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to Hawaiʻi.) (Hiram Bingham I is my great-great-great grandfather.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Hiram Bingham IV-ID card

Hiram Bingham IV circa 1980

RoseHarryNewlyWeds-1934

ROSE AND HARRY’S FAMILY WHEN HE RESIGNS FROM FOREIGN SERVICE, circa 1946

ROSE AND HARRY’S FAMILY AT HOME IN SALEM CONNECTICUT (circa 1953)

Hiram Bingham IV-Medal of Valor

ZachariasDische-Visa_May 3, 1941

MorgensternVisa

MorgensternAffidavit

Hiram Bingham IV-MedalOfValor_Citation

April 25, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Nanaue

Puʻumano (Shark Hill) is in the ahupuaʻa of Kainalu on the south-western side of the Island of Molokai. There is a shallow ravine leading up the slope to the summit – tradition suggests this was caused when Nanaue was dragged by Unauna.

Let’s look back …

During the time of ʻUmi, there was a beautiful girl from Waipiʻo named Kalei. She was an expert swimmer, a good diver and noted for the neatness and grace with which she would ‘lelekawa’ (jump from the rocks into deep water without any splashing of water.)

Kalei was very fond of shell-fish, and frequently went to the coast for her favorite food. She generally went in the company of other women, but if the sea was a little rough, and her usual companion was afraid out, she very often went alone.

In those days, the Waipiʻo River emptied over a low fall into a basin partly open to the sea. (The forces of nature have since filled the pool with rocks.) Back then, it was a deep pool and a favorite bathing place.

The shark-god, Kamohoaliʻi, also used to visit this pool.

Kamohoaliʻi was the King-shark of Hawaiʻi and Maui. It was the belief of the ancient Hawaiians that several of these shark-gods could assume any shape they chose, even the human form, when occasion demanded.

Kamohoaliʻi had noted the charms of the beautiful Kalei, and took a liking to her. Knowing he couldn’t court her in his shark form, he assumed the form of a very handsome man, and waited for the girl to show up at the beach.

It was a rough day and Kalei came alone; caught in a wave (raised by the god himself,) the handsome stranger came to Kalei’s rescue. The acquaintance was established and Kalei met the stranger from time to time – finally becoming his wife.

Some little time before she expected to become a mother, her husband, who all this time would only come home at night, told her his true nature, and informing her that he would have to leave her, gave orders in regard to the bringing up of the future child.

He particularly cautioned the mother never to let him be fed on animal flesh of any kind, as he would be born with a dual nature, and with a body that he could change at will.

In time, Kalei delivered a healthy boy named Nanaue; he was apparently the same as any other child, but he had, besides the normal mouth of a human being, a shark’s mouth on his back between the shoulder blades.

Kalei had told her family of the kind of being her husband was, and they all agreed to keep the matter of the shark mouth on the child’s back a secret.

The old grandfather, far from heeding the warning given by Kamohoaliʻi in the matter of animal diet, as soon as the boy was old enough to come under the tabu in regard to the eating of males, and had to take his meals at the hale mua (men’s eating house,) took special pains to feed him on dog meat or pork.

When he became a man, Nanaue’s appetite for animal diet, indulged in childhood, had grown so strong, that the ordinary allowance of a human being would not suffice for him.

The old grandfather had died in the meantime, so that he was dependent on the food supplied by his stepfather and uncles, to feed his shark-like appetite. This gave rise to the common native nickname of a ‘manohae’ (ravenous shark) for a very gluttonous man, especially in the matter of meat.

People were curious as to why Nanaue always kept a kihei (a loose garment of tapa thrown over one shoulder and tied in a knot) on his shoulders.

He also didn’t participate in the games and pastimes of the young people (for fear that the wind or some active movement might displace the kapa mantle, and the shark-mouth be exposed to view.)

About this time children, and eventually grown-ups, began to mysteriously disappear.

Nanaue had one good quality that seemed to redeem his apparent unsociability; he was almost always to be seen working in his mother’s taro or potato patch when not fishing or bathing. People going to the beach would pass by, and it was Nanaue’s habit to ask where they were going.

If they answered ‘to bathe in the sea’” or for ‘fishing,’ he would answer, ‘take care or you may disappear head and tail.’ Whenever he so confronted anyone, it would not be long before some member of the party so addressed would be bitten by a shark. If it should be a man or woman going to the beach alone, that person would never be seen again.

The shark-man would immediately follow, and watching for a favorable opportunity, jump into the sea. Having previously marked the whereabouts of the person he was after, it was an easy thing for him to approach quite close and changing into a shark, rush on the unsuspecting person and drag him or her down into the deep, where he would devour his victim.

This was the danger to humanity which his king-father foresaw when he cautioned the mother of the unborn child about feeding him on animal flesh, as thereby an appetite would be evoked which they had no means of satisfying, and a human being would furnish the most handy meal of the kind that he would desire.

Eventually, while he was in human form, folks managed to remove his kihei and see the shark mouth on his back. The news of the shark-mouth and his characteristic shark-like actions were quickly reported to the King.

The King was told of the disappearance of so many people in the vicinity of the pools frequented by Nanaue; and of his pretended warnings to people going to the sea, which were immediately followed by a shark bite or by their being eaten bodily, with every one’s surmise and belief that Nanaue was the cause of all those disappearances.

ʻUmi asked the priests and shark kahunas to make offerings and invocations to Kamohoaliʻi that his spirit might take possession of one of his ‘hakas’ (medium devoted to his cult,) and so express to humanity his desires in regard to his bad son, who had presumed to eat human beings, a practice well known to be contrary to Kamohoaliʻi’s desires.

The shark-god manifested himself through a ‘haka’ and expressed his grief at the action of his wayward son. He told them that the grandfather was to blame for feeding him on animal flesh contrary to his orders.

Then the shark-god, promised they would be forever free from any persecutions on account of their unnatural son, and Nanaue left the island of Hawaii, crossed over to Maui and, later on to Molokai.

It was not very long before he was at his old practice of observing and accosting people, giving them his peculiar warning, then following them into the sea in his human shape, then seizing one of them as a shark and pulling the unfortunate one to the bottom, where he would devour his victim.

This went on for some time, until the frightened and harassed people in desperation, went to consult a shark kahuna, as the ravages of the man-eating shark had put a practical tabu on all kinds of fishing. It was not safe to be anywhere near the sea, even in the shallowest water.

Following the instructions of the kahuna, the people overpowered Nanaue and started a fire to burn him (it was well known that only by being totally consumed by fire that a man-shark can be thoroughly destroyed, and prevented from taking possession of the body of some harmless fish shark, who would then be incited to do all the pernicious acts of a shark-man.)

The people also called to their aid the demi-god Unauna, who lived in the mountains of upper Kainalu. It was then a case of Akua vs. Akua.

Nanaue was finally conquered and hauled up on the hill slopes of Kainalu to be burnt. The shallow ravine left by the passage of his immense body over the light yielding soil of the Kainalu hill slope, can be seen to this day.

The place was ever afterwards called Puʻumano (Shark Hill,) and is so known to this day.

Unauna ordered the people to cut and bring for the purpose of splitting into knives, bamboos from the sacred grove of Kainalu. The shark flesh was then cut into strips, partly dried and then burnt; but the whole bamboo grove had to be used up before the big shark was all cut up.

The God Mohoaliʻi, (another form of the same God Kamohoaliʻi) father of Unauna, was so angered by the destruction of the grove, that he took away all the edge and sharpness from the bamboos of this grove forever.

To this day they are different from the bamboos of any other place or grove on the islands in this particular, that a piece of them cannot cut any more than any piece of common wood. (This summary comes completely from The Legend of the Shark-Man Nanaue, by Mrs Emma M Nakuina.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

April 24, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

ʻŌhiʻa

There is a disturbance in the forest.

The native Hawaiian ʻōhiʻa (Metrosideros polymorpha) is the most abundant tree in the Hawaiian Islands, comprising about 62 percent of the total forest area.

The name Metrosideros is derived from Greek metra, heartwood, and sideron, iron, in reference to the hard wood of the genus. Known as ‘Ōhi‘a Lehua, the species is found on all major islands and in a variety of habitats. (Friday and Herbert)

‘Ōhi‘a lehua is typically the dominant tree where it grows. Although the species is little used commercially, it is invaluable from the standpoint of watershed protection, esthetics, and as the only or major habitat for several species of forest birds, some of which are currently listed as threatened or endangered.

ʻŌhiʻa is a slow-growing, endemic evergreen species capable of reaching 75- to 90-feet in height and about 3-feet in diameter. It is highly variable in form, however, and on exposed ridges, shallow soils, or poorly drained sites it may grow as a small erect or prostrate shrub.

Its trunk may range in form from straight to twisted and crooked. Because the species can germinate on the trunks of tree ferns and put out numerous roots that reach the ground, it may also have a lower trunk consisting of compact, stilt-like roots.

The hard, dark reddish wood of ʻōhiʻa lehua was used in house and canoe construction and in making images (ki‘i), poi boards, weapons, tool handles, kapa beaters (especially the rounded hohoa beater), and as superior quality firewood.

ʻŌhiʻa lehua, though of a very nice color, cracks or ‘checks’ too easily to be useful for calabash making. The foliage served religious purposes and young leaf buds were used medicinally. The flowers and leaf buds (liko lehua) were used in making lei.

To Hawaiians of old, the gods were everywhere, not only as intangible presences but also in their myriad transformation forms (kinolau) and in sacred images (ki‘i). Most of the large images were carved from wood of the ʻōhiʻa lehua, an endemic species that is regarded as a kinolau of the gods Kane and Kū.

The materials used in large part depended on the resources available nearby and whether a hale was for aliʻi or makaʻāinana, but in either case, hardwoods were selected for the ridgepoles, posts, rafters, and thatching poles. Hardwoods grew abundantly in Hawaiian forests, in terms of both number of species and the count of hardwoods as a whole.

ʻŌhiʻa lehua grew on all the major islands and was widely used in housebuilding. Canoe decking, spreaders, and seats were commonly made of ʻōhiʻa lehua, as well as for the gunwales.

ʻŌhiʻa lehua was one of the five primary plants represented at the hula altar (ʻōhiʻa lehua, halapepe, ‘ie‘ie, maile and palapalai.) The hālau hula, a structure consecrated to the goddess Laka, was reserved for use by dancers and trainees and held a vital place in the life of an ahupua‘a.

Inside a hālau hula was an altar (kuahu), on which lay a block of wood of the endemic lama, a tree whose name translates as “light” or “lamp” and carried the figurative meaning of “enlightenment.” Swathed in yellow kapa and scented with ‘olena, this piece of wood represented Laka, goddess of hula, sister and wife of Lono.

A number of other deities were also represented on the altar by plants: ʻōhiʻa lehua for the god Kukaʻōhiʻa Laka (named for a legendary ʻōhiʻa lehua tree that had a red flower on an eastern branch and a white one on a western branch) …

… halapepe (Pleomele aurea) for the goddess Kapo; ‘ie‘ie for the demigoddess Lauka‘ie‘ie; maile representirig the four Maile sisters, legendary sponsors of hula; and palapalai fern, symbolic of Hi‘iaka, sister of the volcano goddess Pele and the benefactor of all hula dancers.

Native Hawaiians consider the tree and its forests as sacred to Pele, the volcano goddess, and to Laka, the goddess of hula. ʻŌhiʻa lehua blossoms, buds and leaves were important elements in lei of both wili and haku types.

ʻŌhiʻa is the first tree species to establish on most new lava flows. As the entire portion of eastern Hawaii Island is a volcanic area, lava flows occasionally cover areas of forested land. Thus, while some forests are covered with lava, other forested areas serve as ‘seed banks’ and help to bring growth back life to the lava-impacted area.

There is a disturbance in the forest. Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death is posing the greatest threat to Hawai‘i’s native forests. A newly identified disease has killed large numbers of mature ʻōhiʻa trees in forests and residential areas of the Puna, Hilo and Kona Districts of Hawaiʻi Island.

Pathogenicity tests conducted by the USDA Agriculture Research Service have determined that the causal agent of the disease is the vascular wilt fungus; although a different strain, this fungus has been in Hawaiʻi as a pathogen of sweet potato for decades.

It is not yet known whether this widespread occurrence of ʻōhiʻa mortality results from an introduction of an exotic strain of the fungus or whether this constitutes a new host of an existing strain. This disease has the potential to kill ʻōhiʻa trees statewide.

The disease affects non-contiguous forest stands ranging from 1 to 100 acres. As of 2014, approximately 6,000 acres from Kalapana to Hilo on Hawaiʻi Island had been affected with stand showing greater than 50% mortality. The disease has not yet been reported on any of the other Hawaiian Islands.

Crowns of affected trees turn yellowish and subsequently brown within days to weeks; dead leaves typically remain on branches for some time. On occasion, leaves of single branches or limbs of trees turn brown before the rest of the crown of becomes brown.

Recent investigation indicates that the pathogen progresses up the stem of the tree. Trees within a given stand appear to die in a haphazard pattern; the disease does not appear to radiate out from already infected or dead trees. Within two to three years nearly 100% of trees in a stand succumb to the disease.

The fungus manifests itself as dark, nearly black, staining in the sapwood along the outer margin of trunks of affected trees. The stain is often radially distributed through the wood.

Currently, there is no effective treatment to protect ʻōhiʻa trees from becoming infected or cure trees that exhibit symptoms of the disease. To reduce the spread, people should not transport parts of affected ʻōhiʻa trees to other areas. The pathogen may remain viable for over a year in dead wood.

UH scientists are working to protect and preserve this keystone tree in Hawaiʻi’s native forest. The Seed Conservation Laboratory at UH Mānoa’s Lyon Arboretum launched a campaign to collect and bank ʻōhiʻa seeds. They will collect and preserve ʻōhiʻa seeds from all islands for future forest restoration, after the threat of Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death has passed.

I was happy to see the proactive actions taken by the Hawai‘i Department of Agriculture; on a recent trip to the Big Island, they handed out notices to travelers on Hawaiian Air, reminding them not to take ‘ōhi‘a off the island. (Lots of information here is from Abbott and CTAHR.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Healthy-Impaired Ohia (UH, Lyon)

Rapid Ohia Death confirmed location (UH-CTAHR, April 13, 2016)

Rapid Ohia Death Symptons -rapid browning of tree crowns-CTAHR

Lehua_blossoms

Ohia-Native_Range-FS-map

Lehua_blossoms

2016-01-29-ohia-MPA

Rapid Ohia Death-Dept-Ag-Brochure-1

Rapid Ohia Death-Dept-Ag-Brochure-2

Lehua_blossoms

Tiny ohia seeds (1-2 mm) under a microscope-UH

April 23, 2016 by Peter T Young 3 Comments

If the Newlands Resolutions is Not Valid – What does Hawaii Revert to?

“Queen Lili‘uokalani attempted on Saturday, Jan. 14 (1893,) to promulgate a new Constitution, depriving foreigners of the right of franchise and abrogating the existing House of Nobles, at the same time giving her the power of appointing a new House.”

“This was resisted by the foreign element of the community, which at once appointed a committee of safety of thirteen members, which called a mass meeting of their classes, at which 1,200 or 1,500 were present.”

“That meeting unanimously adopted resolutions condemning the action of the Queen and authorizing the committee to take into consideration whatever was necessary for the public safety.” (New York Times, January 28, 1893)

The Committee of Safety, formally the Citizen’s Committee of Public Safety, was a 13-member group also known as the Annexation Club; they started in 1887 as the Hawaiian League. The Committee of Safety was made up of 6-Hawaiian citizens (naturalized or by birth (American parentage;)) 5-Americans, 1-Englishman and 1-German (none were missionaries and only 3 had missionary family ties.)

On January 16, 1893, the Committee of Safety wrote a letter to John L Stevens, American Minister, that stated: “We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Honolulu, respectfully represent that, in view of recent public events in this Kingdom, culminating in the revolutionary acts of Queen Liliʻuokalani on Saturday last, the public safety is menaced and lives and property are in peril, and we appeal to you and the United States forces at your command for assistance.”

“About 5 o’clock in the afternoon (January 16, 1893,) the USS Boston landed about three hundred men. Each man had two belts of cartridges around his waist and was armed with a rifle. The men marched up to the office of the Consul-General of the United States where a halt was made.”

“The Marines were detached and sent to the American Legation on Nuʻuanu Avenue, while the sailors marched out along Merchant Street with two gatling guns and made a halt at Mr JA Hopper’s residence. About sundown they moved to the grounds of Mr JB Atherton’s and after a stay of several hours returned to the Arion Hall, where they camped overnight.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 17, 1893)

“HE Cooper read a proclamation abrogating the Monarchy and creating a Provisional Government. The proclamation dismissed the present Ministry and the Marshal. The following Cabinet was then read: …”

“… Hon. SB Dole, Minister of Foreign Affairs; PC Jones, Minister of Finance; Captain JA King, Minister of Interior; WO Smith, Attorney-General. (They made up the Executive Council of the Provisional Government.) They will call on the protection of the American Government.”

“At 3:15 o’clock a wagon load of men and ammunition arrived at the Government building.” (Daily Bulletin, January 17, 1893) “Armed volunteers arrived from the Beretania Street Armory to reinforce the force already at the Government building, and were posted over the yard.” (Daily Bulletin, January 18, 1893)

To avoid bloodshed, the Queen yielded her throne on January 17, 1893 and temporarily relinquished her throne to “the superior military forces of the United States”. The Committee immediately proclaimed itself to be the Provisional Government.

Almost immediately 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.

The ‘recognition’ of a state under international law is a declaration of intent by one state to acknowledge another power as a ‘state’ within the meaning of international law. Recognition constitutes a unilateral declaration of intent. It is entirely at the discretion of any state to decide to recognize another as a subject of international law.

A distinction is also drawn between de jure and de facto recognition. If a state is accorded de jure recognition that means all the preconditions under international law for final and complete recognition have been fulfilled. De facto recognition has a comparatively less binding effect, because the legal relationship – though effectively in existence – is only provisional. (Blazek, Swiss Government Portal)

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-General acknowledged the Hawaiian monarchy has been abrogated and a Provisional Government established.

US President Benjamin Harrison signed a treaty of annexation with the new government, but before the US Senate could ratify it, Grover Cleveland replaced Harrison as President and subsequently withdrew the treaty. (archives-gov)

“On December 18 of the same year, President Cleveland, unimpressed and indeed offended by the actions of the American Minister, denounced the role of the American forces and called for restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy.” (US Supreme Court, Rice v Cayetano)

Act 69 of the Provisional Government called for “a convention to frame a Constitution,” as well as the election of delegates to the convention. (March 15, 1894)

Qualifications of electors to decide who the delegates would be included “Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands, of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent, who shall have taken the oath by this Act provided …”

“… who shall have paid his taxes for the year 1893, unless exempted by law from paying taxes; who shall have attained the age of twenty years; who shall have been domiciled in the Hawaiian Islands for one year, and shall have caused his name, to be entered on the list of voters of the precinct in which he reside, and …”

“… who is not insane or an idiot, or who shall not have been convicted of a felony, unless pardoned, shall be entitled to a vote for the delegates to be elected from the island on which such voter resides.” (Act 69, Section 4, Laws of the Provisional Government)

These limitations to voting eligibility are generally typical for this time frame. US Women’s right to vote (19th Amendment to the US Constitution) was ratified on August 18, 1920.

The ‘oath’ electors and delegates swore noted that he does “solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God that I will support and bear true allegiance to the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and will oppose any attempt to reestablish monarchical government in any form in the Hawaiian Islands.” (Act 69, Section 18, Laws of the Provisional Government)

Oaths like these were typical. Following the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who surrendered were required to sign oaths before they could return to their homes (1860s.) It noted, in part, “…I will bear true faith, allegiance, and loyalty to the Government of the United States; that I will support and defend its constitution, laws, and supremacy against all enemies whether domestic or foreign …”

“Further, that I will not in any wise give aid or comfort to, or hold communication with any enemy of the Government, or any person who sustains or supports the so-called Confederate States; but will abstain from all business, dealing, or communication with such persons.” (Schraf)

Today, naturalized citizens “declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic …” (US Citizenship and Immigration Services)

Today, in Hawaiʻi (and elsewhere,) “All eligible public officers, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii …”

“As used in this section, ‘eligible public officers’ means the governor, the lieutenant governor, the members of both houses of the legislature, the members of the board of education, the members of the national guard, State or county employees who possess police powers, district court judges, and all those whose appointment requires the consent of the senate.” (Article XVI, Section 4, Hawaiʻi Constitution)

The Provisional Government 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 ‘office copy’ 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”. (This came a year after Cleveland had expressed concern about the actions of the US consulate in the overthrow.)

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.”

It’s interesting to note that fifty years prior, on November 28, 1843, the British and French Governments united in a joint declaration and entered into a formal agreement recognizing Hawaiian monarchy independence (Lord Aberdeen signed on behalf of Britain, French ambassador Louis Saint-Aulaire signed on behalf of France.)

The Declaration states: “Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of the French, taking into consideration the existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign nations have thought it right to engage reciprocally to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent State and never to take possession, either directly or under the title of protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed.”

“The undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, and the ambassador extraordinary of His Majesty the King of the French, at the court of London, being furnished with the necessary powers, hereby declare in consequence that their said majesties take reciprocally that engagement.” (Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics)

However fifty years later, both Britain and France acknowledged the Republic of Hawai‘i through de jure recognition as an independent state. Queen Victoria noted in a September 19, 1894 letter to President Sanford Dole, “We thank you for this communication, and we request you to accept our congratulations on this distinguished mark of the confidence of your fellow citizens …”

“… and we offer you our best wishes for your health and welfare, and for the prosperity of the Republic over which you preside.” Casimir Perier, President of the Republic of France, sent similar sentiments and congratulations to President Sanford Dole.

Hawai‘i was later annexed to the US through the Newlands Resolution. “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.’”

“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).”

“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.” (US Supreme Court)

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.

Even with repeated judicial acknowledgement of Newlands Resolution, some have suggested the Newlands Resolution was not done properly. As such, they suggest the monarchy remains.

However, there were two internationally recognized entities that followed the Hawaiian Monarchy – the Provisional Government (with international de facto recognition) and the Republic of Hawai‘i (with international de jure recognition.)

The last being the Republic of Hawai‘i, that negotiated and agreed to the terms of the Newlands Resolution … that led to annexation, territorial status and Hawai‘i becoming the 50th state.

So, a point to ponder, if the Newlands resolution is not valid – what does Hawai‘i revert to?

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger