Republic of Hawaii | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

January 24, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Abdication

On the afternoon of January 24, 1895, the members of the Cabinet were informed that the ex-Queen Lili‘uokalani had an official document which it was desired should be presented to the Executive. (Alexander)

Lili‘uokalani then read and signed a letter addressed to The Honorable Sanford Ballard Dole, President of the Republic of Hawai‘i, which stated, in part:

“After full and free consultation with my personal friends and with my legal advisors, both before and since my detention by military order in. the Executive building, and acting in conformity with their advice, and also upon my own free volition, and in pursuance of my unalterable belief and understanding of my duty to the people of Hawai‘i …”

“… and to their highest and best interests, and also for the sake of those misguided Hawaiians and others who have recently engaged in rebellion against the Republic, and in an attempt to restore me to the position of queen, which I held prior to the 17th day of January, AD 1893 …”

“… and without any claim that shall become entitled, by reason of anything that I may now say or do, to any other or different treatment or consideration at the hands of the Government than I otherwise could and might legally receive …”

“… I now desire to express and make known, and do hereby express and make known, to yourself, as the only lawful and recognized head of the Government, and to all the people of the Hawaiian Islands …”

“… whether or not they have yet become citizens of the Republic, or are or have been adherents of the late monarchy, and also to all diplomatic and other foreign representatives in the Hawaiian Islands, to all of whom I respectfully request you to cause this statement and action of mine to be made known as soon as may be, as follows, namely:”

“First. In order to avoid any possibility of doubt or misunderstanding, although I do not think that any doubt or misunderstanding is either proper or possible, I hereby do fully and unequivocally admit and declare that the Government of the Republic of Hawai‘i is the only lawful Government of the Hawaiian Islands …”

“… and that the late Hawaiian monarchy is finally and forever ended, and no longer of any legal or actual validity, force or effect whatsoever …”

“… and I do hereby forever absolve all persons whomsoever, whether in the Hawaiian Islands or elsewhere, from all and every manner of allegiance, or official obligation or duty, to me and my heirs and successors forever …”

“… and I hereby declare to all such persons in the Hawaiian Islands that I consider them as bound in duty and honor henceforth to support and sustain the Government of the Republic of Hawaii.”

“Second. For myself, my heirs and successors, I do hereby and without any mental reservation or modification, and fully, finally, unequivocally, irrevocably, and forever abdicate, renounce and release unto the Government of the Republic of Hawai‘i and the legitimate successors forever all claims or pretensions whatsoever to the late throne of Hawai‘i …”

“Third. I do hereby respectfully implore for such misguided Hawaiians and others as have been concerned in the late rebellion against the Republic of Hawai‘i, such degree of executive clemency as the Government may deem to be consistent with its duty to the community, and such as a due regard for its violated laws may permit.”

“Fourth. It is my sincere desire henceforth to live in absolute privacy and retirement from all publicity, or even appearance of being concerned in the public affairs of the Hawaiian islands, further than to express, as I now do and shall always continue to do, my most sincere hope for the welfare and prosperity of its people, under and subject to the Government of the Republic of Hawaii.”

“Fifth. I hereby offer and present my duly certified oath of allegiance to the Republic of Hawai‘i.”

“Sixth. I have caused the foregoing statement to be prepared and drawn, and have signed the same without having received the slightest suggestion from the President of Hawai‘i, or from any member of the Government of Hawai‘i, concerning the same or any part thereof, or concerning any action or course of my own in the premises. …”

“On the 24th day of January, AD 1895, the foregoing was in our presence read over and considered carefully and deliberately by Liliuokalani Dominis, and she, the said Liliuokalani Dominis, thereupon in our presence declared that the same was a correct, exact and full statement of her wishes and acts in the premise …”

“… which statement she declared to us that she desired to sign and acknowledge in our presence as her own free act and deed, and she thereupon signed the same in our presence, and declared the same to be her free act and deed …”

“… in witness whereof we have at the request of the said Liliuokalani Dominis, and in her presence, hereunto subscribed our names is attesting witnesses, at the Executive building, in Honolulu on the Island of Oahu, this 24th day of January, A. D. 1893. (Signed), Wm G Irwin, HA Widemann, Samuel Parker J. Kalua Kahookano, CB Wilson, Paul Neumann”

Three years later (1898,) Lili‘uokalani, in her book ‘Hawai‘i’s Story by Hawai‘i’s Queen,’ stated, “The idea of abdicating never originated with me. I knew nothing at all about such a transaction until they sent to me, by the bands of Mr. Wilson, the insulting proposition written in abject terms.”

“For myself, I would have chosen death rather than to have signed it; but it was represented to me that by my signing this paper all the persons who had been arrested, all my people now in trouble by reason of their love and loyalty towards me, would be immediately released.”

“Think of my position, sick, a lone woman in prison, scarcely knowing who was my friend, or who listened to my words only to betray me, without legal advice or friendly counsel, and the stream of blood ready to flow unless it was stayed by my pen.”

“My persecutors have stated, and at that time compelled me to state, that this paper was signed and acknowledged by me after consultation with my friends whose names appear at the foot of it as witnesses.”

“Not the least opportunity was given to me to confer with anyone; but for the purpose of making it appear to the outside world that I was under the guidance of others, friends who had known me well in better days were brought into the place of my imprisonment, and stood around to see a signature affixed by me.”

Contrary to these last statements, there is consistent information that Lili‘uokalani abdication statement was correct and, through her advisors, Wilson, Widemann and Parker, Alfred Stedman Hartwell prepared the abdication statement for her and she signed it “upon (her) own free volition”.

Several reports, including Lili‘uokalani’s own statements 2-weeks following the abdication and signing of the loyalty oath, show the latter to be true. On February 21, 1895, The Independent noted, “Already before her arrest, she had been planning to throw herself on the mercy of the Executive, and make every possible submission.”

“The President and his associates did not encourage her in doing so; in fact, they declined to listen at all to advances which she sought to make to them.”

“She was permitted, however, to consult with Widemann, Wilson, Newmann, Parker and others of her friends, by whose advice she employed Judge AS Hartwell to draw up in the strongest and completest possible form her renunciation of the monarchy and acceptance of the Republic.”

“This she formally executed on the morning of the 24th, in the presence of several witnesses, and took oath of allegiance to the Republic. The documents were then sent to the President’s room across the hall, with the request to communicate them to the foreign diplomatic representatives and to the public.” (The Independent, February 21, 1895)

Local and mainland papers consistently said the same thing, “Between 10:35 and 11:20 on Thursday morning, in the Executive Building, there took place a ceremony that will form an interesting page in Hawaiian history.”

“It was neither more or less than the formal abdication and renunciation, absolutely and forever, of all claims to the throne of Hawai‘i, on behalf of herself, her heirs and successors, of Liliuokalani Dominis, late Queen of the Hawaiian Islands.”

“There were present, besides the ex Queen, William G Irwin, HA Widemann, Samuel Parker, JK Kahookano, Chas B Wilson, Mrs Wilson, Paul Neumann, AS Hartwell and WL Stanley.”

“Mrs Dominis offered her abdication in the form of a letter to President Dole …. This action was taken on the advice of Mr Wilson, who had been acknowledged by the Government as the ex Queen’s business representative, as well as that of Mr Neumann and Mr Hartwell, her legal advisers.”

“Mr Hartwell had prepared the document and Mr Neumann read it aloud before all present. Then her ex majesty also read it aloud and then signed both the abdication and the oath of allegiance.” (Evening Bulletin, January 25, 1895)

“The ex-Queen has relinquished all her rights to the throne of Hawai‘i. Following her arrest the ex-Queen was allowed frequent interviews with Charles B Wilson, ex-Marshal under the monarchy, HA Widemann, who recently visited the United States and Europe on her behalf … and her attorney, Paul Neumann, but no one connected with the Government saw her.”

“The result of these frequent interviews became apparent last Thursday, when she requested that some person connected with the Government be sent to her, as she had an important official communication to make. …”

“Mrs. Dominis in a few words stated that she desired to surrender all her claims to the throne, and offered her formal abdication to President Dole in the shape of a document drawn up by Judge AS Hartwell, who was consulted by Mr. Wilson, Mr. Parker and Mr. Neumann about the matter and acted as advising counsel for them, but not strictly as attorney for Liliuokalani.” (San Francisco Call, February 7, 1895)

When Lili‘uokalani went to trial two weeks after signing the abdication document and loyalty oath (February 8, 1895,) she told the tribunal prosecuting her involvement in the counter revolution, “Before the 24th of January, 1895, the day upon which I formally abdicated, and called upon my people to recognize the Republic of Hawai‘i as the only lawful government of these Islands, and to support that government …”

“I was not intimidated into abdicating, but followed the counsel of able and generous friends and well-wishers, who advised me that such an act would restore peace and good-will among my people, vitalize the progress and prosperity of the Islands …”

“… and induce the actual government to deal leniently, mercifully, charitably, and impassionately with those who resorted to arms for the purpose of displacing a government in the formation of which they had no voice or control, and which they themselves had seen established by force of arms.”

“I acted of my own free will, and wish the world to know that I have asked no immunity or favor myself, nor plead my abdication as a petition for mercy.”

“My actions were dictated by the sole aim of doing good to my beloved country, and of alleviating the positions and pains of those who unhappily and unwisely resorted to arms to regain an independence which they thought had been unjustly wrested from them.”

Hartwell confirms that he secretly wrote the abdication statement and that Lili‘uokalani and her advisors had participated in the drafting and editing of it, noting, …

“While the queen was under arrest by the Provisional Government, Paul Neumann, Sam Parker, her last foreign minister, and Charles Wilson, the ex-marshal, came to my office with a request, which they said was by her authority, that I draw her abdication.”

“I did this and had three separate drafts made with changes to meet suggestions they brought to me from her. No one else but Stanley, my confidential clerk, knew of this until she formally acknowledged the instrument before a notary, in the presence of Neumann, Parker, Irwin, Widemann, Iaukea and myself.”

“I took a lot of trouble in the matter, and gratuitously, and yet the queen in her Hawai‘i book says that she was deceived and that I was acting as the attorney for the other side.”

Hartwell suspects the misinformation about the abdication statement in Lili‘uokalani’s Book was made by the American journalist who helped her with her book, noting, “I think, however, that this was said for her by (Julius) Palmer, who got up her book, for she knew better.” (Hartwell; HHS)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Liliuokalani-Loyalty_Oath-Jan_24,_1895

Liliuokalani-Abdication-Jan_24,_1895-1

Liliuokalani-Abdication-Jan_24,_1895-2

Liliuokalani-Abdication-Jan_24,_1895-3

Liliuokalani-Abdication-Jan_24,_1895-4

Liliuokalani-Abdication-Jan_24,_1895-5

Liliuokalani-Abdication-Jan_24,_1895-Witnesses

Liliuokalani-Abdication-Jan_24,_1895-Notary

August 12, 2016 by Peter T Young 3 Comments

Annexation

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;) 5-Americans, 1-Englishman and 1-German (of the 13, none were missionaries and only 3 had missionary family ties.)

“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.”

“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)

“… 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.”

Then, “[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawaii, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.” (US Supreme Court; Hawaii v OHA, 2008)

On January 18, 1893, letters acknowledging (de facto) the Provisional Government were prepared by 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.

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.

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”.

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

Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford Dole sent a delegation to Washington in 1894, seeking annexation to the US. John Sherman, US Secretary of State, prepared a report reviewing the negotiation between representatives of the Republic of Hawai‘i and the US, and provisions of the Treaty of Annexation. That report (June 15, 1897) noted, in part:

“The undersigned, Secretary of State, has the honor to lay before the President, for submission to the Senate, should it be deemed for the public interest so to do, a treaty, signed in the city of Washington on the 16th instant by the undersigned and by the fully empowered representative of the Republic of Hawaii …”

“… whereby the islands constituting the said Republic, and all their dependencies, are fully and absolutely ceded to the United States of America forever.”

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

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

“Recognized by the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys, enforcing respect for the law, and maintaining peace within its island borders, Hawaii sends to the United States, not a commission representing a successful revolution, but the accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly established sovereign State.”

“… the Republic of Hawaii approaches the United States as an equal, and points for its authority to that provision of article 32 of the constitution promulgated July 24, 1894, whereby …”

“The President (of the Republic of Hawai‘i,) with the approval of the cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a treaty of political or commercial union between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.” (The Hawaiian resolution for ratification of the annexation treaty was unanimously adopted by the Senate of the Republic of Hawai‘i on September 9, 1897.)

“Turning, then, to the various practical forms of political union, the several phases of a protectorate, an offensive and defensive alliance, and a national guarantee, were passed in review. In all of these the independence of the subordinate state is the distinguishing feature, and with it the assumption by the paramount state of responsibility without domain.”

“There remained, therefore, the annexation of the islands and their complete absorption into the political system of the United States as the only solution satisfying all the given conditions and promising permanency and mutual benefit. The present treaty has been framed on that basis”.

“As to most of these, the negotiators have been constrained and limited by the constitutional powers of the Government of the United States. As in previous instances when the United States has acquired territory by treaty, it has been necessary to reserve all the organic provisions for the action of Congress.”

“If this was requisite in the case of the transfer to the United States of a part of the domain of a titular sovereign, as in the cession of Louisiana by France, of Florida by Spain, or of Alaska by Russia, it is the more requisite when the act is not cession, but union, involving the complete incorporation of an alien sovereignty into the body politic of the United States.”

“For this the only precedent of our political history is found in the uncompleted treaty concluded during President Grant’s Administration, November 29, 1869, for the annexation of the Dominican Republic to the United States.”

“Following that example, the treaty now signed by the plenipotentiaries of the United States and the Republic of Hawaii reserves to the Congress of the United States the determination of all questions affecting the form of government of the annexed territory, the citizenship and elective franchise of its inhabitants, and the manner in which the laws of the United States are to be extended to the islands.”

“In order that this independence of the Congress shall be complete and unquestionable, and pursuant to the recognized doctrine of public law that treaties expire with the independent life of the contracting State, there has been introduced, out of abundant caution, an express proviso for the determination of all treaties heretofore concluded by Hawaii with foreign nations and the extension to the islands of the treaties of the United States.”

“This leaves Congress free to deal with such especial regulation of the contract labor system of the islands as circumstances may require. There being no general provision of existing statutes to prescribe the form of government for newly incorporated territory, it was necessary to stipulate, as in the Dominican precedent …”

“… for continuing the existing machinery of government and laws in the Hawaiian Islands until provision shall be made by law for the government, as a Territory of the United States, of the domain thus incorporated into the Union …”

“… but, having in view the peculiar status created in Hawaii by laws enacted in execution of treaties heretofore concluded between Hawaii and other countries, only such Hawaiian laws are thus provisionally continued as shall not be incompatible with the Constitution or the laws of the United States or with the provisions of this treaty.” (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

Meanwhile, the breaking of diplomatic relations with Spain as a result of her treatment of Cuba so completely absorbed public attention that the matter of Hawaiian annexation seemed to have been forgotten.

The war drama moved swiftly. The destruction of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor precipitated matters, and on April 25, 1898, President McKinley signed the resolutions declaring that a state of war existed between the United States and Spain.

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

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

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

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

“There was no ‘conquest’ by force in the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands nor ‘holding as conquered territory;’ they (Republic of Hawai‘i) came to the United States in the same way that Florida did, to wit, by voluntary cession”.

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

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

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

While Hawaiʻi was the 50th State to be admitted into the union on August 21, 1959, Statehood is celebrated annually on the third Friday in August to commemorate the anniversary of the 1959 admission of Hawaiʻi into the Union.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

American_flags_on_Iolani_Palace,_Annexation_ceremony_(PP-36-1-008)

Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-016-400

Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-008)

Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-011)

Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-022)

Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-017

Annexation_of_Hawaii–PP-35-8-025

Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-36-1-018

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

June 27, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Recognition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

… Hamburg (January 8, 1848), now Germany; Italy (July 22, 1863); Japan (Aug. 19, 1871, January 28, 1886); Netherlands (October 16, 1862); Portugal (May 5, 1882); Russia (June 19, 1869); Samoa (March 20, 1887); Spain (October 9, 1863); Sweden and Norway (April 5, 1855), now separate States; Switzerland (July 20, 1864); and the United States of America (December 20, 1849.) (Sai)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Austria-Hungary-English

Belgium-King_Leopold_II

Belgium-Minister_of_Foreign_Affairs

Brazil-Minister_of_Foreign_Affairs

Brazil-President_of_the_Republic_of_the_United_States_of_Brazil

Britain-Queen_Victoria-1

Britain-Queen_Victoria-2

China-English-1

China-English-2

France-French-1

France-French-2

Germany-Kaiser_Wilhelm-English-1

Germany-Kaiser_Wilhelm-English-2

Guatemala-Jose_Maria_Reina Barrios-1

Guatemala-Jose_Maria_Reina Barrios-2

Italy-King_Umberto_I-English-1

Italy-King_Umberto_I-English-2

Mexico-Secretary_of_Foreign_Affairs-English

Netherlands-Emma,_Queen_Regent-English-1

Netherlands-Emma,_Queen_Regent-English-2

Norway-Sweden-King_Oscar-French

Peru-President_Andres_A_Caceres-1

Peru-President_Andres_A_Caceres-2

Portugal-King_Dom_Carlos_I-Portuguese

Russia-Tsar_Alexander_III-Russian-1

Russia-Tsar_Alexander_III-Russian-2

Spain-King_Don_Alfonso_XIII-English

Switzerland- Swiss_Federal_Counsel_(Attorney_General)-French-1

Switzerland- Swiss_Federal_Counsel_(Attorney_General)-French-2

US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-1

US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-2

US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-3

US-Albert_S_Willis-Envoy_Extraordinary_and_Minister_Plenipotentiary_for_the_US-4

April 23, 2016 by Peter T Young 3 Comments

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

“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.”

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 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)

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

1845 (May) - Feb 1893 The current Hawaiian flag introduced in 1845

March 7, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Claims to the Crown Lands

Under King Kamehameha III, the most important event in the reformation of the land system in Hawai‘i was the separation of the rights of the King, the Chiefs, the Konohiki (land agents) and makaʻāinana (the native tenants.)

More than 240 of the highest ranking Chiefs and Konohiki in the Kingdom joined Kamehameha III in this task (generally referred to as the Great Māhele.) The first māhele, or division, of lands was signed on January 27, 1848; the last māhele was signed on March 7, 1848.

Each māhele was in effect a quitclaim agreement; in each māhele for lands for the King, the Chief or the Konohiki signed an agreement: “I hereby agree that this division is good. The lands above written are for the King. I have no more rights therein.”

The King retained all of his private lands as his individual property; one third of the remaining land was to be for the Hawaiian Government; one third for the Chiefs and Konohiki; and one third to be set aside for the tenants, the actual possessors and cultivators of the soil.

The high Chiefs and the lesser Konohiki were required to present their claims before the Land Commission to receive awards for the lands. Until an award for these lands was issued by the Land Commission, title to such lands remained with the government.

In the Māhele, of the approximate 10,000 awards, around 1,000,000-acres were reserved by King Kamehameha III as “Crown” lands, 1,500,000-acres were given by the King (as “Government” lands) to the ‘government and people’, approximately 1,500,000-acres were set aside for the Chiefs (as “Konohiki” lands) and less than 30,000-acres of land were awarded to the native tenants (Kuleana lands.)

Kamehameha III divided the lands he reserved for himself into two separate parts; the smaller portion he retained for his personal use (“Crown” lands); the larger portion he gave ‘to the Chiefs and people’ (“Government” lands.)

On June 7, 1848, Kamehameha III approved a Law, passed at the Council House, that listed respective ahupua‘a and ili that were “the private lands of His Majesty Kamehameha III … and said lands shall be regulated and disposed according to his royal will and pleasure subject to the rights of native tenants.”

Another long list of ahupua‘a and ili were noted as “the lands of the Hawaiian Government.” A shorter list of O‘ahu lands were “set apart for the use of the Fort in Honolulu, to be cultivated by soldiers and other tenants under the direction of the Governor of O‘ahu”. (An Act Relating to the Lands of His Majesty the King and the Government, 1848)

For a while, the ‘Crown’ lands were viewed and handled “to be the private lands of His Majesty Kamehameha III, to have and to hold to himself, his heirs and successors forever”. (An Act To Relieve The Royal Domain From Encumbrances, And To Render The Same Inalienable, 1865)

Kamehameha IV administered his land in much the same way as his uncle (as if it was his own private property.) In dispositions, Queen Emma joined him, waiving her right of dower in such lands.

Queen Emma was the first to make a claim to the Crown Lands as private property, with the death of Kamehameha IV.

She “claimed that all the property possessed by her late royal husband was his private property” and made claim of dower to one-half of the Crown Lands in the royal domain; the Attorney General opposed her claim, noting they constituted “a Royal Domain annexed to the Hawaiian Crown”.

Kamehameha V responded that he, as “hereditary successor to the throne, shall inherit the entire estate, both real and personal derived from his Majesty Kamehameha III, at his decease, and held by Kamehameha IV, the King lately deceased.”

The Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in deciding the Estate of Kamehameha IV noted, “In 1840 (Kamehameha III) granted the first Constitution by which he declared and established the equality before the law of all his subjects, chiefs, and people alike.”

“By that Constitution, he voluntarily divested himself of some of his powers and attributes as an absolute Ruler, and conferred certain political rights upon his subjects, admitting them to a share with himself in legislation and government. This was the beginning of a government as contradistinguished from the person of the King …”

“… who was thenceforth to be regarded rather as the executive chief and political head of the nation than its absolute governor. Certain kinds of public property began to be recognized as Government property, and not as the King’s.”

The Court noted, “These lands are to be in the perpetual keeping of the Legislative Council (Nobles and Representatives) or in that of the superintendents of said lands, appointed by them from time to time, and shall be regulated, leased, or sold, in accordance with the will of said Nobles and Representatives, for the good of the Hawaiian Government, and to promote the dignity of the Hawaiian Crown.”

The Court found, “while it was clearly the intention of Kamehameha III to protect the lands which he reserved to himself out of the domain which had been acquired by his family through the prowess and skill of his father, the conqueror, from the danger of being treated as public domain or Government property …”

“… it was also his intention to provide that those lands should descend to his heirs and successors, the future wearers of the crown which the conquerer had won; and we understand the act of 7th June, 1848, as having secured both those objects.” (Supreme Court Decision in the Matter of the Estate of Kamehameha IV, 1864)

The Crown Land stayed with the government and dower was acknowledged with Queen Emma, however there was a “settlement of a permanent annuity upon Queen Emma in lieu of her claim of dower in the royal domain.” (Alexander)

This litigation led to legislation which affirmed the decision of the court; on January 3, 1865, Kamehameha V approved an Act of the Legislative Assembly that initially noted …

“the history of said lands shows that they were vested in the King for the purpose of maintaining the Royal State and Dignity; and it is therefore disadvantageous to the public interest that the said lands should be alienated, or the said Royal Domain diminished.”

That 1865 law noted the Crown Lands “shall be henceforth inalienable, and shall descend to the heirs and successors of the Hawaiian Crown forever”.

The Act also noted that, “during the two late reigns, the said Royal Domain has been greatly diminished, and is now charged with mortgages to secure considerable sums of money” – the Law converted the mortgages to bonds. (An Act To Relieve The Royal Domain From Encumbrances, And To Render The Same Inalienable, 1865)

On the death of Kamehameha V, his half-sister, Ruth Keʻelikōlani, inherited his private lands, but the Crown Lands were held by the commissioners for the benefit of his successors.

Later (September 13, 1880,) Claus Spreckels purchased from Ruth Keʻelikōlani all her interest or claim in and to the Crown Lands. Rather than taking the issue to court, a compromise and an act was carried through the Legislature of 1882, where Spreckels received the ahupua‘a of Wailuku with ili and quitclaimed any interest in other Crown Lands. (Alexander)

Queen Lili‘uokalani made a claim to Crown Lands as her personal property. Noting, “Her cause of action is predicated upon an alleged ‘vested equitable life interest’ to certain lands described in the petition, known as ‘crown lands,’ of which interest she was divested by the defendants.”

However, the US Court of Claims noted, “It may not be unworthy of remark that it is very unusual, even in cases of conquest, for the conqueror to do more than to displace the sovereign and assume dominion over the country.”

The Court concluded, “The crown lands were the resourceful methods of income to sustain, in part at least, the dignity of the office to which they were inseparably attached. When the office ceased to exist they became as other lands of the Sovereignty and passed to the defendants as part and parcel of the public domain.”

“Since 1865, so far as the record before us discloses, the character of the crown lands has not been changed; they have passed to the succeeding monarch. The income, less expense of management, has been used to support the royal office and treated as belonging to the Crown. All other property of the King has uniformly passed to his heirs regardless of his royal successor.”

The Court further noted, “The constitution of the Republic of Hawai‘i, as respects the crown lands, provided as follows: ‘That portion of the public domain heretofore known as crown land is hereby declared to have been heretofore, and now to be, the property of the Hawaiian Government …” (Lili‘uokalani v The United States, 1910)

Today, abstracting (researching title) government lands is fundamentally different from abstracting private lands. For private lands, owners have a deed that evidences ownership and a title company can trace the ‘chain of title’ at the Bureau of Conveyances by researching the transfers of the land from owner to owner via legal documents.

Instead of a deed or other legal document, the State owns the majority of former crown and government land through passage of laws. Public land title is passed by ‘operation of law.’

Today, there is no paper title for the majority of public lands, i.e., there is no deed showing the State owns it. There is no ‘chain of title’ for the majority of former Crown and Government Lands, since the lands were never conveyed out of the government.

We now generally refer to the Crown and Government Lands as ‘ceded’ lands. Under the Admission Act, about 1.2-million acres are to “be held by (the) State as a public trust” to promote one or more of five purposes:
1. support of the public schools and other public educational institutions
2. betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians (per the Hawaiian Homes Act, 1920)
3. development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible
4. making of public improvements
5. provision of lands for public use

As noted in the earlier discussion of Crown and Government Lands above, these lands, though under the control of changing sovereigns and governments (Kingdom to Provisional Government to Republic to Territory to State,) were in and continue to remain in the ‘public domain’ for the public good.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

State-owned-Lands-DBEDT-GIS