The Hawaiian Kingdom—Volume 1: Foundation and Transformation, 1778–1854 9780824843229

Citation preview

The HAWAIIAN KINGDOM

/ / / / / , / / , //A/c Z / . / M . / ,

/

,

tt t

//

/// / ,

KAMEHAMEHA

I

From OM original painting by Louis Choris owned by Mr. Bruce Cartwright of Honolulu

The HAWAIIAN KINGDOM VOLUME I 1778-1854

FOUNDATION AND T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

RALPH S. KUYKENDALL

Foreword to Fifth Printing by Gavan Daws

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF HAWAII HONOLULU

X

First printing 1938 Second printing 1947 Third printing 1957 Fourth printing 1968 Fifth printing 1978 Sixth printing 1980 Copyright © 1938 by the University of Hawaii Copyright renewed 1965 All rights reserved Library of Congress Catalog Card N u m b e r 38-28602 ISBN 0 - 8 7 0 2 2 - 4 3 1 - x M a n u f a c t u r e d in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Foreword to Fifth Printing Preface List of Abbreviations I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX.

vn X1 xnl

Introduction: A Glimpse of Ancient Hawaii Coming of the Foreigners Kamehameha and the Founding of the Kingdom 1819 Kamehameha II Early Commercial Development New Religion and New Learning The Early Years of the Reign of Kamehameha III: Regency of Kaahumanu The Troubled Thirties The Birth of Constitutional Government Industry, Agriculture, Manufactures The Recognition of Hawaii's Independence The Paulet Episode Governmental Reorganization in the Midst of Difficulties The Land Revolution Commercial and Agricultural Progress, 1830-1854 Religious and Educational Development, 1840-1854 The Struggle for Equitable Treaties The Shadow of Destiny Appendix: A. On the Date of the Birth of Kamehameha B. On the Regency, 1823-1833 C. On the Origin of the Hawaiian Sandalwood Trade D. On the Debt Settlement of 1826 Index

v

1 I2 29 61

^ 82

1I7 133

153 170 185 2 0 6

227 2 6 9

299 335 3 6 8 3 8 3

429 430 434 434 4 3 7

MAP Hawaiian Islands

Inside cover, front and back

ILLUSTRATIONS Kamehameha I Kamehameha II Kamehameha III

Frontispiece

vi

Facing page

78

Facing page

220

FOREWORD TO FIFTH PRINTING

R. S. Kuykendall spent four decades of his life writing the history of Hawaii. He came to the Islands in 1922 as executive secretary of the newly formed Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawaii. The Commission planned, among other projects, to publish a large-scale history: a general narrative of a thousand pages or more, sufficiently documented to ensure "authoritativeness." Working to this mandate, Kuykendall brought to bear on his task everything he could muster in the way of personal and professional resources. He was well suited to the sort of pioneer labor that faced him. He had a great appetite and aptitude for spadework of an archival kind, locating, acquiring, and organizing collections of documents. His use of materials was marked by a quite outstanding scrupulosity with regard to matters of fact. Whatever industriousness and commonsensical perceptiveness could wring from often inadequate, often intransigent sources, Kuykendall set himself to extract. Though the Historical Commission itself did not survive the Great Depression, Kuykendall, continuing his researches as a faculty member of the University of Hawaii, published the first volume of The Hawaiian Kingdom in 1938. Essentially this marked the advent of professional scholarly historiography in Hawaii. Kuykendall continued to devote most of his energies in middle and old age to a second and then a third volume. When he died in 1963, at age 78, Emeritus Professor of History and Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters of the University of Hawaii, he was working on the final chapter of the third and last volume, discussing the revolution that brought down the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893. The completed trilogy became his monument. Kuykendall's work for the Historical Commission was to be "official" as well as authoritative. This suited his temperament. He seems to have been well content to regard himself as a reliable chronicler rather than as an interpreter or reinterpreter of events. He never found it necessary to put much on paper about his own philosophy of history. Indeed we have to go to his private correspondence to find even so brief and unexceptionable a statement as this one: " I t is the business of the historian to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—to draw a faithful picture (a moving picture, if you please) of the p a s t . . . . Until comparatively recent times, the exploits of kings, diplomatic intrigues, religious controversies, and wars were about the only things that historians wrote about. That, of course, gave a very one-sided, incomplete picture of human life. Nowadays, historians try to give a complete picture, with proper attention to all factors, including social, economic, and

vii

viii

FOREWORD TO FIFTH PRINTING

psychological conditions and developments. Hence it happens that kings, priests, diplomats, and battles have to share the scene with trade guilds, explorers, inventors, business men, farmers, educators, stevedores, and all the rest of us and our doings." If Kuykendall did not manage "completeness" (what historian ever does?), it is still the case that in the pages of The Hawaiian Kingdom the emerging major institutions of nineteenth-century Hawaii—schools and plantations and business houses, along with churches and royal courts—are presented for the first time in substantial array. In another way Kuykendall was temperamentally well suited to the writing of "official" history. His view of his role as chronicler was equable and uninflected. He was content to see the past diligently documented and (in a sense) laid to rest. "As events recede into the past," he wrote in a letter composed only a few months after he began work in Hawaii, "we are able to see them in a truer perspective. And so, many controversies gradually lose the sharp edge of bitterness. Many actions which at the moment seemed due to malice are at length seen to have been the result of misunderstanding." Be this as it may, in the years since Kuykendall died, and especially in the last few years, more and more people in Hawaii have begun to make pressing demands on the past. The 1970s, for instance, have seen a new birth of ethnic awareness in the Islands, and with this has come the quite legitimate insistence that the writing of history should take proper account of the lives of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their descendents who for so long made up the plantation workforce and later transformed the society and politics of the territory and the state. In the same way, an awareness is growing that Hawaii, for so much of its history marked by profound isolation, is now inescapably and irreversibly part of a world system of rapid population growth and movement, food production and consumption, and energy use. The major firms that dominated the plantation economy of the Islands under the Hawaiian kingdom are now multinational conglomerates, and they make their decisions about their Hawaii operations in a global context. The ocean that for so long in Hawaii's history was a buffer against the outside world is becoming the earth's last highly controverted frontier of economic exploitation—and military-strategic contest. These and any number of other urgent considerations impose a continuing need for the reassessment of the past in relation to the present and the future. And yet all this by no means invalidates Kuykendall's work. On subjects concerning the establishment of the frame of government of the kingdom, and on Hawaii's early political and economic relations with the outside world, he remains authoritative. On a host of other topics he remains instructive. As a guide to sources his work is invaluable. He would never have claimed—modest man that he was—that his work was definitive. But certainly it was the best that had been done up to his time, and in many ways it remains the best. If The Hawaiian Kingdom is no longer sufficient to the needs of those who want to know about Hawaii's past, it is nonetheless still necessary.

FOREWORD TO FIFTH PRINTING

ix

Kuykendall was by no means insensitive to the proposition that the passage of time brings about reorientations between present and past. With the best historians of his own day, he believed that each generation must reinterpret history for itself. As this process goes ahead in the Islands, however, The Hawaiian Kingdom goes on being consulted. Volume I has been reprinted in every decade since its publication, and it is a pleasure to see it being made available once again. Gavan Daws October 1976

PREFACE

This volume is one of the fruits of a project undertaken more than a dozen years ago by the Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawaii and carried on since 1932 by the University of Hawaii. The project called for the preparation of a comprehensive general history of Hawaii based upon a thorough study of original sources. The first phase of the undertaking was to discover the source material not already available in Honolulu and to obtain copies of as much of it as possible, particularly of documents which shed new light on the history of the islands. For this purpose, extensive research has been carried on in the national archives of the United States, Great Britain, and France, and minor investigations have been made in the archives of Belgium and Mexico and in a number of libraries and collections in the United States. Many thousand pages of transcripts have been obtained from these places, supplementing at many points and in many important respects the materials previously available in Honolulu. Independently of this project, a large quantity of new material has been added to collections in the Territory, and there has been during the past fifteen years a great increase of interest in the history of the islands, manifested in the publication of many books and articles, some of which have been thorough studies, making important contributions to our knowledge of the subject. Of the collections previously existing in Honolulu the most important are the official records and the newspaper files in the Archives of Hawaii. Next in value, from the point of view of such an enterprise as this, are the library of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society, which is not by any means exclusively missionary in character, the library of the Hawaiian Historical Society, which is especially rich in voyages, and the library of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum. The Hawaiian department of the University of Hawaii Library is rapidly gaining the position of a good working collection, having been recently enlarged by the addition of Dr. W. D. Westervelt's fine library of books relating to Hawaii and Polynesia. Upon the new sources mentioned above, upon those previously available, and upon my own special studies and the work of other students in the field, the present volume is based. Whether the best use has been made of the materials at hand, the reader can judge. The writer has made a conscientious effort to present the facts objectively and to treat impartially the numerous controversial questions that have to be dealt with. It has not been considered necessary or desirable to include in the volume a formal bibliography; the footnotes supply nearly all the data that would be contained in a bibliography. The greater part of chapter six was published in substantially the same form

xi

xii

PREFACE

as an article in the Pacific Historical Review for December, 1934, and is republished with the permission of the editor and publisher of that journal. It is a pleasant duty to acknowledge the aid and encouragement received from many persons while the work has been in progress. My primary obligation is to the members of the Historical Commission from 1922 to 1932, Hon. George R. Carter, Mrs. Emma Ahuena D. Taylor, Dr. Karl C. Leebrick, and Dr. Harold S. Palmer; and to President David L. Crawford, Dean William H. George, and the Regents of the University of Hawaii. I am also much indebted to the successive librarians of the Archives of Hawaii, Mr. Robert C. Lydecker, Mr. Albert P. Taylor, Mr. Charles E. Hogue, Miss Maude Jones, and Dr. T. T. Waterman, to Assistant Librarians Stephen Mahaulu and Edmund H. Hart, and to the members of the archives staff, who have always responded with unfailing courtesy to the many demands which I have made upon their time and patience. A very special acknowledgment is due the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society and the officers who have been connected with its library from time to time, Mr. H. M. Ballou, Rev. B. T. Sheeley, Miss Bernice Judd, Miss Harriet G. Forbes, and Mrs. Violet A. Silverman. Colonel Thomas M. Spaulding, formerly on duty for several years in the Hawaiian Department of the army and now residing in Washington, D.C., has been helpful in many ways, but especially by furnishing copies of some important documents in the Washington archives that would not otherwise have been made available. Thanks are likewise due the following persons, who have in various ways contributed to whatever merit the book may have: Miss Ethel M. Damon, Miss Caroline P. Green, Miss Mary P. Pringle, Miss Jean Hobbs, Dr. W. D. Westervelt, and Messrs. Arthur C. Alexander, Walter F. Frear, Victor S. K. Houston, Albert F. Judd, J. Tice Phillips, and John F. G. Stokes. Mr. Bruce Cartwright generously permitted me to use for the frontispiece of this volume a photograph of his original Choris portrait of Kamehameha I. The portrait of Kamehameha II is reproduced from an original in the Honolulu Academy of Arts. For the portrait of Kamehameha III the Bernice P. Bishop Museum courteously furnished a photograph made from a daguerreotype original. Ralph S. Kuykendall University of Hawaii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABCFM: American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions AH: Archives of Hawaii AMAE (Paris): Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Paris BPRO: British Public Record Office F.O.: Foreign Office F.O. & Ex.: Foreign Office and Executive file General Letters: Letters from the corresponding secretaries of the ABCFM to the Sandwich Islands Mission as an organized body, generally printed in pamphlet form either in Boston or in Honolulu or Lahainaluna; a few seem to exist only in manuscript. The HMCS Library has a nearly complete set of these general letters. Haw'n Annual: Refers to the annual publication founded by Thomas G. Thrum and published by him for fifty-eight years; since Mr. Thrum's death, published by The Printshop Company, Limited, Honolulu. At first called The Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, in recent years the title has been simply The Hawaiian Annual. HHS: Hawaiian Historical Society HMCS: Hawaiian Mission Children's Society KNK: Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, Honolulu

Hawaiian language newspaper published in

MH: Missionary Herald, official organ of the ABCFM, published in Boston ML: Missionary Letters, a typescript copy in the HMCS Library containing letters and parts of letters from the missionaries in Hawaii to the corresponding secretaries of the ABCFM, copied from the originals in the archives of the ABCFM in Boston. The collection is supposed to contain only materials not printed in the Missionary Herald, but there is a very small amount of duplication. Rep. of Min. of For. Rel.: Report of Minister of Foreign Relations RHAS: Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society USDS: United States Department of State archives Other abbreviations employed are such as are familar to students and will be readily understood by the general reader. xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A GLIMPSE OF ANCIENT HAWAII The Hawaiian islands are situated in the north central portion of the Pacific Ocean. They lie almost wholly within the western hemisphere, the main islands being little more than two thousand miles distant from the American continent; however, those two thousand miles of water are unbroken by any islands, while the seas to the south and west of Hawaii are dotted with thousands of islands lying in the ocean like stepping stones to the continents of Asia and Australia. But the nearest inhabited islands are relatively far off; and Hawaii is geographically the most isolated of the larger island groups within the Pacific. In ancient times, when craft were driven by sail and paddle, its affiliations were, through the islands, with Asia; while in this day of steamship, airplane, cable, and radio, Hawaii is attached politically, economically, and culturally to America. The Hawaiian islands, as a whole, consist of a chain of islands extending over a distance of nearly two thousand miles. If the ocean were drained of its water, this chain would appear as a lofty mountain range. The whole range is of volcanic origin, the separate islands having been built up by out-pourings of lava from vents along a crack in the earth's crust. Raised up by volcanic action, they have been sculptured by geological processes and modified by growth of coral into their present forms. It is supposed that the volcanic action began at the northwest; the islands at that end have been reduced to the status of low coral atolls, while the upbuilding by lava flows is still in progress at the other end of the chain, on the island of Hawaii. The main Hawaiian group, as popularly understood, comprises eight inhabited islands, Hawaii, Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, Molokai, Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau, together with adjacent islets. At some time in the past, two other islands of the chain, Nihoa and Necker, were occupied by the Polynesians, but that occupation had ceased and the islands were nearly forgotten before the end of the eighteenth century. The inhabited islands are all of the high volcanic type, attaining an extreme elevation of nearly 14,000 feet on the island of Hawaii. It is safe to say that they were in substantially their present form at the time they were first occupied by human beings. The total area of the group is 6,435 square miles, but the greater part of this area is mountainous and incapable of economic utilization. The agricultural land, consisting of coastal plain, valleys, and upland, is unequally distributed over the group. Each of the larger islands has a share of forest land, and the group as a whole has scenic features of beauty and grandeur which together make up a varied panorama of surpassing loveliness. The best natural harbors are 1

2

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

in the island of Oahu and that fact has been decisive in modern times in making Honolulu the commercial emporium and political capital, but it was not so in ancient days. Although the group lies just below the Tropic of Cancer, the climate is not tropical in character, thanks to the moderating effect of the surrounding expanse of ocean water and the trade winds which blow from the east and northeast during more than three fourths of the year. Hawaii has in truth a variety of climates, resulting mainly from differences in elevation above sea level and from location—whether to windward or to leeward—with respect to the mountains; but the main inhabited areas can with some degree of justification be said to have a moist, subtropical climate. An outstanding feature of this climate (in the main inhabited areas) is the uniformity of temperature, the average daily, seasonal, and yearly range being comparatively small. At Honolulu, on the leeward side of Oahu, the mean monthly temperature for August, the warmest month, is 78.4°, and for January, the coldest month, 70.1°. At Hilo, on the windward side of Hawaii, the corresponding means are 75° and 69.9°. At the weather bureau in Honolulu the daily range of temperature in 1927 varied from 12° in July and August to 18° in December. There is a noticeable difference in temperature between the windward and leeward sides of the islands, and a marked decrease in temperature as one rises to a higher elevation. Snow falls in the winter on the summits of the highest mountains, Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii, and is occasionally seen on Haleakala, Maui (elevation 10,025 feet) and on Hualalai, Hawaii (elevation 8,269 feet). In rainfall, likewise, the difference is marked between the windward and leeward sides of the islands and at different elevations. The greatest rainfall is on the windward slopes and summits at an elevation of about 5,000 feet. Rains are most abundant in the winter, but may occur at any time throughout the year. In general, the windward sides of the islands receive the most rainfall and the leeward sides the least, but occasionally a kona (southerly) storm drenches the leeward sides with torrential rain, and the lower leeward slopes of the great mountains Haleakala on Maui and Mauna Loa and Hualalai on Hawaii are well watered with rains of the convectional type. Narrow valleys, of which there are a good many cutting deeply into the leeward sides of the mountains, are usually well watered; good examples are the valleys lying back of the city of Honolulu on Oahu. The region of least rainfall is the coastal region in the lee of the high mountains and the Kau desert of south Hawaii. While sunshine is one of the distinctive features of Hawaiian climate, clouds are always to be seen; they drift across the sky and rest like a benediction on the mountain summits; within the space of a few minutes they can appear as if by magic out of the heavens and send down gentle showers or pelting rain—and then vanish with equal speed.

ANCIENT

HAWAII

3

"Liquid sunshine" is an expression frequently heard; and the islands are sometimes spoken of as a "rainbow land." It is a pleasant land in which to live, and hence it is no matter of surprise that the Hawaiian people, who dwelt close to nature in this "paradise of the Pacific," were a healthy, robust, intelligent, and good tempered folk. The Hawaiians are a branch or sub-group of the great Polynesian family, which at the dawn of modern history occupied the eastern tier of islands in the Pacific Ocean, the other principal branches of the family being the Maori of New Zealand, the Samoans, Tongans, Tahitians, Cook islanders, and Marquesans. It has been customary to speak of the Polynesian "race." The expression is somewhat misleading, suggesting a primary stock having uniform characteristics. It is now recognized that the Polynesian is a composite, in physical type, in culture, and in language; and ethnologists are seeking to isolate and define the various elements that have gone into his making and to discover whence they came and how and when they entered into the composition. The problem is yet far from a definite solution. Besides this fundamental ethnological problem, there is the historical question as to when the Polynesians came into the Pacific and the routes they followed to reach the f a r separated island groups that were occupied by them. It is probable that they came by way of southeastern Asia. So f a r as Hawaii is concerned, it is quite generally believed that there were successive arrivals of settlers extending over some hundreds of years. It is also believed that these ancestors of the modern Hawaiians came from the Society Islands (Tahiti) ; it is almost certain that the later ones came from there. The first human beings who came to Hawaii—the real "discoverers" of these islands—may have come as much as a thousand years ago; they may have come from Tahiti or they and the earliest settlers in Tahiti may have branched off from a common stem somewhere along the route f r o m Asia. It has been surmised that these first comers were the Menehunes of Hawaiian legends, and that they were driven out or conquered and absorbed by the later invaders. Archeological remains on the islands of Nihoa and Necker indicate that the people who lived there belonged to this first cultural stratum. There is convincing evidence that over a period of about two centuries some six or eight hundred years ago, the route between Tahiti and Hawaii was well known and was used by numerous voyagers. The last immigration to Hawaii occurred in that period; and in that time were introduced some important new cultural elements. The leaders of these later immigrants were the ancestors of the historical alii (chiefly class) of the Hawaiian islands. At the end of this period of the "long voyages," communication ceased between Hawaii and central Polynesia, and the Hawaiians lived in nearly complete isolation from the rest of the world until the year 1778. Confined within the narrow bounds of a small group of islands, with

4

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,

1778-1854

only the resources possessed by the islands when they arrived supplemented by the few plants and small animals they were able to bring with them on their long and perilous voyages, the Hawaiians showed much skill and ingenuity in adapting themselves to their environment. In that environment the most serious limitations were the absence of metals, such as copper and iron, in usable form, confining the people to stone age tools and utensils; and the absence of the larger domesticated animals, such as cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. T h e machine age was f a r from them; they learned how to get their living direct from the sea and the soil. Without hampering themselves with superfluous clothing, they lived a natural life, working as much as was necessary, and by means of their recreations giving the air, sunshine, and sea water full opportunity to exert a beneficent influence upon their bodies and spirits. T h e result was that they were strong in body and cheerful in disposition. T h e y were a primitive folk, having faults as well as merits common to people in a primitive state. T h e sea was for them a familiar element. T h e y had come to Hawaii over the sea and they lived near it. " I t was in the lowland zone extending from the strand or sea-shore back inland to an elevation of a thousand feet or more that most of the early Hawaiian population lived j " 1 but habitable inland areas were occupied to some extent. F r o m the sea they obtained an important part of their food: fish, salt, and sea-weed necessary to balance their somewhat limited diet. T h e y used the seawater for its medicinal effect. In the sea were spent many of their leisure hours, in swimming and aquatic sports; they had an amazing agility and dexterity in the water, a skill which was noticed with admiration by the earliest visitors f r o m Europe and America. T h e y were expert fishermen, knowing the habits and characteristics of the many kinds of fish in the waters about the islands and off-shore, the times and places and manner of their taking. In connection with fishing, they developed an elaborate and exacting technique and skill, not alone in the direct art of fishing, but also in the art of making fish-hooks, lures, lines, and nets. T h e y had kapus which operated to protect the fish at certain seasons and thus conserve the supply, and they built fish-ponds for the raising and fattening of certain kinds of fish. Fishing was intimately associated with navigation, in which the Hawaiians were very skillful. T h e y needed to be expert in handling their boats and in swimming, for the waters surrounding the islands are very rough at times. Especially is this true in some of the channels separating the islands. Upsets were not infrequent, but accidents of this kind rarely disconcerted the Hawaiian; with little difficulty he would right his boat, climb into it, free it of water, and proceed on his way. 1 Lorna H. Jarrett, A Source Hawaii, 1930, manuscript), 147.

Book

in Hawaiian

Geography

(master's thesis, University of

ANCIENT

HAWAII

5

Even sharks, which live in the waters outside the reefs, do not seem to have bothered him very much. 2 T h e simplest and basic vessel used by the Hawaiians was a single canoe made by hollowing out the trunk of a tree. T h e depth of this vessel might be increased by lashing planks on the sides; the ends were shaped and partially covered over to fend off the spray and surf. In central and southeastern Polynesia, canoes were commonly made of planks sewed together at the edges, built up from a keel or from a dugout base. However made, a single canoe was sometimes rendered more stable by attaching an outrigger to one side. T h e canoe was propelled by a paddle or paddles, but sometimes a crude mat sail was set up to gain the assistance of the wind. T h e outrigger canoe is a remarkably seaworthy vessel within its limitations; the Hawaiians and other Polynesians made a larger and more substantial craft by fastening two large single canoes together at a short distance from each other. Along the middle of the double canoe a platform was lashed, on which something roughly corresponding to a cabin might be erected. One or two sails were used on some double canoes to aid the paddlers in propelling the vessel. A large double canoe was capable of carrying scores of people and a considerable amount of cargo. It is supposed that it was in such craft as these that the long voyages of the Polynesians were made. There was a danger that in violent storms the two canoes might break apart; in that case the whole was almost certain to be lost, and it is likely that many such tragedies occurred in the long course of the Polynesian wanderings. 3 On land the everyday activities of the Hawaiians were devoted mainly to the routine business of supplying food, shelter, and clothing. T h e Hawaiian house consisted of a framework of posts, poles, and slender rods, fitted and lashed together with fibre lashings and covered with a thatch of pili grass or such other appropriate material as was most available. It was a simple thing, architecturally considered, and not very durable, but required more than a little skill to build it well. A complete establishment for one family included five or six of these structures, substantially equivalent, as some one has remarked, to a five or six room house; and the use of the various structures in the Hawaiian domestic establishment corresponded somewhat to the use of the various rooms in such a house. It is true that not all families had a complete establishment, but the same remark is true of other people than the Hawaiians. T h e furnishings of the domestic establishment were few, consisting of some containers of several kinds, poi boards, and calabashes carved out of wood or made from gourds; mats for floor covering and beds; simple tools (adzes, poi pounders, knives, fish-hooks, 2 T . Edgar, master of Captain Cook's ship Discovery, gives in his log book under the date Dec 23, 1778, an incident which illustrates this point. B P R O , Admiralty 5 5 / 2 4 , photostat copy in A H . 3 A. C. Haddon and James Hornell, Canoes of Oceania, Vol. I ( B e r n i c e P . Bishop Museum Special Publication 27. Honolulu, 1936). F o r a brief account, see J . Holland Rose, Man and the Sea: Stages in Maritime and Human Progress (Boston, 1936), 174-180.

6

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

etc.) of stone, wood, and bone; kapa (tapa) for clothing and for bed coverings; fish lines, nets, and cordage for various purposes; a spear and other weapons of warfare. In the Hawaiian domestic economy, the raising and preparation of food was the man's work; he was fisherman, farmer, and cook. The principal agricultural operation was the raising of taro of the wet land variety, a laborious and exacting task, requiring the laying out of terraced ponds with carefully compacted borders to retain the water. This was preliminary to the actual planting and the care of the growing crop. To bring water onto the terraces involved the construction of irrigating ditches, engineering works of no little intricacy. In the raising of taro, the Hawaiians perfected a technique that has not been improved. After the taro had come to maturity, it had to be converted into poi, which was the Hawaiian staff of life. The process included steaming the tubers in the underground oven (imu), peeling them, and pounding with heavy stone pounders on the poi board. Most of the cooking of other kinds of food was also done in the underground oven. Next to taro, the most important vegetable food was the sweet potato; others were breadfruit, yams, bananas, coconuts, arrowroot, sugar cane, and several of minor importance. Fish and sea foods occupied a place only a little less important than taro in the diet of the Hawaiians; and large numbers of pigs, dogs, and chickens were eaten. Woman's work included the care and early training of children; the plaiting of mats, which were made principally of laulmla, the leaf of the pandanus tree: and the preparation of clothing. In the latter work the fundamental operation was the making of kapa (or bark cloth, as it is sometimes called). The raw material of kapa was the inner bark of the paper mulberry, which had to be peeled off, soaked in water, scraped to remove the pulp, and then beaten out into thin, narrow strips; several strips would be overlapped and beaten together along the edges to make wider pieces, and one layer might be put on top of another to make a thicker sheet. The beating was done with wooden mallets or beaters upon a long anvil carefully hewn into shape from a log, and the sound of the kapa beater was a familiar one in old Hawaii. J. S. Emerson has given an interesting comment upon it: W e l l do I remember as a child the j o y with which I listened to the resounding music coming f r o m half a dozen or more skillful women beating their kapa in different parts of the neighborhood. Each operator took a just pride in the musical performance, at times sending a simple telephonic message to her friends by means of her rhythmic beating. 4

There was little need for clothing from a climatic point of view, but such as it was, the ordinary clothing of both men and women was made from kapa; and kapa was used also for bed covers. In battle and on ceremonial occasions the chiefs adorned themselves with magnificent 4Mid-Pacific

Magasine,

XXXI, 505 (June, 1926).

ANCIENT HAWAII

7

feather cloaks, capes, and helmets, in the making of which Hawaiian art and manual skill attained their highest expression. The religion of the Hawaiians was essentially a nature worship. They were profoundly impressed with the mystery of nature, with the manifestations on every side of a power which they could not see and did not understand. The ceremonial system was designed to establish and preserve the right relationship between man and this unseen power. In writing about Polynesian deities, Handy says : The native's sense of the presence of his gods was by no means a vague feeling. In the elements and in nature about him he saw and felt the beings whom he venerated. . . . In Hawaii the rain clouds are referred to in prayer as the "bodies of Lono," the rain god. The more immediate features and objects of nature were all the children of the gods, . . . The gods of the Polynesians were personified concepts that, on the one hand, embodied the desires and needs, the hopes and dreads of their worshippers; and, on the other hand, individualized the elements and forces that they observed in nature."

As one might expect from this, there were many gods—one chant speaks of the four hundred thousand gods—and there was of necessity a gradation of rank and a difference of character among them. The great gods of Hawaii were Kane, Ku, Lono, and Kanaloa; "each of these four gods was worshipped under various special attributes or functions, which afterwards came to be regarded as different persons" 6 so that there were, in a manner of speaking, several different varieties of Kane and Ku and Lono. The god Ku-kailimoku, a war god and the special god of the kings of Hawaii, was of great importance during the latter part of Hawaii's ancient history and in the reign of Kamehameha I. Pele, goddess of the volcano, was specially feared and worshipped in the southern part of Hawaii. Among the higher ranks of the Hawaiian priesthood there may have existed a conception of a Supreme Being, who overtopped all other gods. The place devoted to the public worship of the gods was called a heiau; it consisted of one or more stone-paved platforms or terraces enclosed by stone walls and containing various objects, houses, and other structures, each of which had some special use in the ceremonies. There were several classes of heiaus, in one of which human sacrifices were offered. There were certain kapu (tabu) days in each month, when the rites of the heiau were attended to. Besides the formal services in the heiau, religious ceremonies were performed in connection with all important activities in which the Hawaiians engaged, whether in fishing, in agriculture, in war, or in the making of a house or a canoe, the object being to gain the favor of the god of the particular activity and thus insure success for the enterprise. This ceremonialism reached its climax in the observances associated with the building and dedication of an 8 E . S. C. H a n d y , Polynesian Religion (Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 34, Honolulu, 1927), 87, 88. • W . D. Alexander, A Brief History of the Hawaiian People (New York, 1891), 36.

8

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

important heiau, and in the ceremonies of the makahiki season. The makahiki season—four months beginning in October or November— : was the tax gathering time, a period in which warfare was not carried on, but in which sports were more extensively practiced than at other times. Lono (Lono-makua, father Lono) was the god of the makahiki. As one of the activities of the season, an image of the god was made, consisting of a small figure on a long pole; below the image was fixed a crosspiece on which were hung several lets and a sort of banner made of kapa. The makahiki god thus adorned was carried all around the island, stopping at the boundary of each district (ahupuaa) to receive the taxes. On this circuit, Lono-makua was accompanied by another god, an akua paani (god of sports). 7 Interwoven with the religion of Hawaii (and of all Polynesia) and with governmental and social organization, was the kapu system. This was the feature of the Hawaiian culture which made the deepest impression upon most of the early foreign visitors, who saw only the outer manifestations of the system and who in their descriptions emphasize its bizarre restrictions and cruel sanctions. In one aspect, the kapu system was a system of rules which regulated the daily life of the different classes of society and insured the subordination of the lower to the higher, the maintenance of an aristocratic type of government and a caste system. From a more fundamental viewpoint, the kapu system grew out of a dualistic conception of nature which placed on the one side that which was sacred and divine, the male principle, light, life, etc.; while on the other side were the common and unsacred, the female principle, darkness, death, etc. 8 In its fundamental meaning tapu [kapu] as a word was used primarily as an adjective and as such signified that which was psychically dangerous, hence restricted, forbidden, set apart, to be avoided, because: (a) divine, therefore requiring isolation for its own sake from both the common and the corrupt; (b) corrupt, hence dangerous to the common and the divine, therefore requiring isolation from both for their sakes."

As a substantive, the word kapu means a prohibition or restriction. Anything associated with the gods acquired sacredness; hence there were kapus relating to the priests, heiaus, and all other things dedicated to the gods. The alii (chiefs) were believed to be descended from, the gods, hence there were many kapus referring to them; there were, however, degrees of sacredness among the alii; the highest of all, the aliikapu, was thought of as being, in some sense, an actual god; through him the nation was kept in rapport with the supernatural realm; hence he was surrounded with many and very rigid kapus, in order to prevent 7 David Malo, Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii), translated f r o m the Hawaiian by D r . N. B. Emerson, with notes by the translator (Honolulu, 1903), 186-210. There are references to the arrival and departure of the god (obviously referring to the makahiki god) and to boxing and other sports which began just a f t e r the god's departure, in the diary of Francisco de Paula M a r i n (translated extracts made by R. C. Wyllie, in A H ) , u n d e r the dates Dec. 10, 29, 1811, Oct. 19, 26, Nov. 27, 1812, Nov. 5, 7, 9, 27, 1814, Dec. 3, 4, 1817, Nov. 21, 1818. 8 Handy, op. cit., 34-43. 'Ibid., 43.

ANCIENT H A W A I I

9

any interruption of good relationship between the people collectively and the gods; in this manner the interests of all were deeply involved and there was little likelihood of these kapus being voluntarily violated. In the fundamental conception noted above can be discovered, likewise, the reasons for the eating kapus and the restrictive kapus affecting women. Besides the permanent kapus, there were kapus of a periodical character; and the chiefs and priests might impose special and temporary ones. Penalties for violation of kapu were severe, death being a common one. A person might violate a kapu without being aware of the fact, but that did not save him from the penalty. As might be expected, the kapu system was most hampering, if not actually oppressive, in its effect upon the common people and upon women of all classes. It was, moreover, susceptible of great abuse and unquestionably was abused at times. At the top of the social scale were the alii or chiefs, a highly privileged class. Closely associated with them were the priests. Below the chiefs were the mass of the people, collectively called the makaainana, those who lived on the land. David Malo describes the relationship between the common people and the chiefs: The condition of the common people was that of subjection to the chiefs, compelled to do their heavy tasks, burdened and oppressed, some even to death. The life of the people was one of patient endurance, of yielding to the chiefs to purchase their favor. . . . It was from the common people, however, that the chiefs received their food and their apparel for men and women, also their houses and many other things. When the chiefs went forth to war some of the commoners also went out to fight on the same side with them. . . . It was the makaainanas also who did all the work on the land; yet all they produced from the soil belonged to the chiefs; and the power to expel a man from the land and rob him of his possessions lay with the chief."

The people had different occupations: some were farmers, others were fishermen, house-builders, canoe-builders, bird-catchers (who collected the feathers for capes, cloaks, and helmets), and so on. Below the makaainana was a despised class of slaves called kauwa, but apparently they were not very numerous; not much is known about them. In the Hawaii of old, before the coming of the haole (foreigner), government and land tenure were closely interrelated. Until the time of Kamehameha I, the entire group was not united under a single king, but there were petty kingdoms on the different islands, sometimes embracing two or more islands, sometimes only one island or part of an island. The ruler of a kingdom was called the alii-aimoku (chief possessing the island, or district) ; at times he was spoken of simply as ke alii or ke alii-nui (the chief or the great chief) to distinguish him from other chiefs. Commonly and preferably, but not invariably, the alii-aimoku was also the alii-kapu, the chief of highest rank in the scale of nobility. In determining who should be king, two factors had weight: (1) relative 10 Malo, op. cit., 87-88. I t may be noted, however, t h a t t h e people were not s e r f s and were not bound to the soil, b u t could and sometimes did t r a n s f e r f r o m the service of one chief to that of another.

10

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

rank as a chief, and (2) natural ability. 11 The authority of the aliiaimoku was supreme; he had it in his power to make his people contented or miserable; and Hawaiian traditions tell of bad kings as well as of good ones. Generally speaking, the will of the ruling chief was the law of the land, but there was a fairly large body of traditional or customary law relating mainly to such subjects as water rights, fishing rights, and land usage, and this customary law was ordinarily respected. T o assist him in carrying on the government, the alii-aimoku had two high officers: (1) the kahuna-nui, chief priest, whose duty it was to conduct the important ceremonies of the heiau, to consult the auspices for favorable omens, and to advise the king how to act in order to retain the favor of the gods; and (2) the kalaimoku, a counselor skilled in statecraft and generalship, the prime minister and chief administrative officer. The king sometimes consulted the chiefs on important matters, but his main reliance was upon the kalaimoku. There were, of course, other officials of lesser rank. On attaining the supreme position, whether by orderly succession or as a consequence of victory in battle, the alii-aimoku, after taking such portions of land as he desired for his own use, divided the rest among his chiefs in the way best calculated to insure peace and stability; the chiefs in turn rewarded their retainers, and a sort of feudal relationship was established. The alii-aimoku gave the land; he might also take it away again. As in other parts of the world where feudalism prevailed, wars were very frequent, arising from disputes over the succession, from the ambitions of individual chiefs, from quarrels between neighboring states, and from aggressive attempts at conquest of one kingdom by another. Wars undoubtedly caused much suffering; but on the other hand they gave zest to an otherwise not very exciting life and made it necessary for the chiefs at least to keep themselves mentally alert and physically fit. Although the Hawaiians had not reduced their language to writing, they had an extensive literature accumulated in memory, added to from generation to generation, and handed down by word of mouth. It consisted of meles (songs) of various kinds, genealogies and honorific chants, stories and traditional lore in which were imbedded fragments of history and biography. Much of this was composed in the form of poetry characterized by imaginative art and literary skill of a high order. The poetry of ancient Hawaii evinces a deep and genuine love of nature, and a minute, affectionate, and untiring observation of her moods, which it would be hard to find surpassed in any literature. Her poets never tired of depicting nature; sometimes, indeed, their art seems heaven-born. The mystery, beauty, and magnificence of the island world appealed profoundly to their souls; in them the ancient Hawaiian found the image of man the embodiment of Deity; and their myriad moods and phases were for him an inexhaustible spring of joy, refreshment, and delight." 11 O n this subject, see the article by J . F. G. Stokes, The Hawaiian King (Mo-i, Alii-aimoku, Alii-kapu), H H S Papers, No. 19. a N . B. Emerson, Unwritten Literature of Hawaii: the Sacred Songs of the Hula (Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 38. Washington, 1909), 263.

ANCIENT HAWAII

11

Much of the poetry of old Hawaii was used as an accompaniment to the hula, a large part of it being composed especially for that purpose. The hula was in a sense a religious exercise, its main purpose being to honor the chiefs, and was carried on under the patronage of the goddess Laka. Whatever the hula may have become in later days, competent students of Hawaiian culture have declared that the sacred hula of the olden time "was a delicate, graceful, artistic, and appropriate form of dancing." 13 The hula was not a sport, not something that could be engaged in by anyone; to become a dancer required a long and rigid course of training under a kumu-hula (teacher of the hula). But the hula was a form of entertainment that could be witnessed and enjoyed by people of all ranks, high and low. Dr. N. B. Emerson says that for the ancient Hawaiian, the hula took the "place of our concert-hall and lecture-room, our opera and theater, and thus became one of his chief means of social enjoyment." 1 4 Of the sports and games of old Hawaii, the most exhilarating and healthful were swimming and surf-riding, which were enjoyed by all classes of the population, young and old alike. Coasting down steep slopes on specially prepared courses covered by dried grass laid over stones and earth was a sport practiced extensively by the alii; it required skill and daring, the sled used having runners only a few inches apart. Children played at a similar game, sliding down hills on ti leaves and coconut leaves. Boxing and wrestling were much favored, especially during the makahiki season when large tournaments were held. Foot racing (kukini) was a popular sport. The Hawaiians had several games of skill such as bowling with uluniaika stones and throwing darts of various kinds, arrows, and spears. They had also a number of guessing games which were very popular, and a game called konane that was somewhat like checkers but played on a larger board with more pieces. Interest in games and sports was heightened by bets laid upon their outcome by participants and spectators; this was sometimes carried to such an extreme that an unlucky wager on a foot race or a wrong guess in the game of puhenchene might cost a person all his possessions and even his life. Military exercises and sham battles, training the people for warfare, had many of the characteristics of games. Viewed as a whole, the ancient Hawaiian civilization had some resemblance to the ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean region and Asia; it exhibited a highly cultivated upper class supported upon a substructure composed of an underprivileged lower class. The makaainana of Hawaii had little opportunity and little incentive to improve their status; but on the other hand they were probably less "down trodden" than the lower classes of Europe in the eighteenth century and they lived certainly in a more comfortable environment. 13 K. H . Bryan, K. P. Emory, and E. S. C. H a n d y , in Ancient Hawaiian Civilization—A series of lectures delivered at The Kamehameha Schools by Handy, Emory, Bryan, Buck, Wise and Others [Honolulu, 1933], 313. 14 Emerson op. cit., 7.

CHAPTER II

COMING OF THE FOREIGNERS In the last quarter of the eighteenth century the Hawaiian islands were visited by representatives of a strange foreign culture, that of Europe and America. The first such group was a British exploring expedition, and it was followed by other similar expeditions and by traders. From time to time a few foreigners left the ships on which they came to Hawaii and remained on the islands, some as transient visitors, some as traders who stayed for a few months or a few years, some as permanent residents. Little by little the invading culture made its impress—became a major factor in the life of Hawaii—and fijially disorganized and overwhelmed the old culture of the islands. In Hawaii, as in other parts of the world, the main carriers of the foreign culture were traders and missionaries (though in Hawaii the missionaries came considerably later than the traders), supplemented by the official representatives of foreign governments, such as naval officers and consular agents. Our first task will be to give some account of early phases of this foreign invasion of the Hawaiian islands. Unfortunately, none of the foreigners who came to Hawaii in the early period, or the missionaries who followed soon after, had any adequate understanding or appreciation of the native culture or considered it, or any important part of it, worth preserving. None of them had the knowledge or the training that would have fitted them to help the natives find a new way of life based upon the old culture but reconciled with the new. The strange new ideas and practices broke the force of the old kapus, weakened the relationship between the common people and the alii (their leaders from time immemorial), and set the Hawaiians adrift on a competitive sea whose winds and currents bafifled them for many years. It was Captain James Cook of the British navy who brought Hawaii once more into contact with the outside world. 1 When he visited the 1 The following account of the visits of Captain Cook to the Hawaiian islands and his death is based primarily upon the original log books and journals kept by Cook and other officers of the expedition which are preserved in the archives of the Ilritish government. Copies of the Hawaiian portions of these manuscripts are now to be found in the Captain Cook Collection in the Archives of Hawaii. Besides these journals, the writer has consulted the published official account of the voyage by Cook and King (3 vols. London, 1784), the unofficial accounts by W m . Ellis (1782), J o h n Ledyard (1783), John Rickman (anonymously published in 1781), and H . Zimmermann (1781, translations published in 1926 and 1930), and the Hawaiian histories which cover the subject, more especially the following: Ka Mooolelo Hawaii . . . (I.ahainaluna, 1838); translation begun in Hawaiian Spectator ( H o n o l u l u ) , I I , 58-77, 211-231, 334-340, 438-447 (Jan., April, July, Oct. 1S39), and continued in Polynesian ( H o n o l u l u ) . July 28 U'5], Aug. 1, 8, 15, 21. 1840. S. Dibble, History of the Sandwich Islands (Lahainaluna, 1843). S. M. Kamakau, Ka Moolclo o Kamehamcha 1, chapters 11-14, in K N K , J a n . 19, 26, Feb. 2, 9, 1867. A. F o r n a n d e r , An Account of the Polynesian Race . . . Vol. I I (London, 1880). Since the main outline of the visits of the English exploring squadron is well known and not disputed, it seems unnecessary to give detailed references. References are given, however, f o r direct quotations and in other places where they seem to be needed. T h e original j o u r n a l s are cited only by name of writer and date of entry.

12

COMING OF FOREIGNERS

13

islands, Cook was at the zenith of a brilliant career, engaged in the last of three prolonged voyages which gained for him enduring f a m e as one of the world's greatest navigators and explorers. In the early part of 1778, the two ships of his squadron, Resolution and Discovery, were sailing north from the Society Islands toward the northwest coast of America, when, on the morning of J a n u a r y 18, they found themselves in the midst of the western islands of the H a w a i i a n group. Oahu w a s seen first and Kauai not long a f t e r w a r d s . T h e explorers shaped their course for the latter island and came to anchor off the village of W a i m e a on the afternoon of J a n u a r y 20. The appearance of these great ships, the like of which the Hawaiians of that clay had never seen before, was a source of amazement and intense excitement among the natives. On both sides the first approaches were made in a friendly if somewhat cautious manner. A s the ships coasted slowly along the southeastern and southern shore of Kauai, a few canoes came out; it was noticed that they had stones in the bottom, but the stones were thrown overboard when no need of them appeared. The occupants of the canoes had a few fish and for these a ready sale was found. From this reconnaissance the Hawaiians learned that the strangers had iron in abundance which they were willing to give in exchange for foodstuffs. The natives had only a few small bits of iron 2 and were eager to get more of that precious metal; they fairly loaded the ships with hogs, taro, potatoes, and other products of the soil. Captain Clerke of the Discovery testifies: "This is the cheapest market I ever yet saw, a moderate sized Nail will supply my Ships Company very plentifully with excellent Pork for the Day, and as to the Potatoes and Tarrow, they are attained upon still easier Terms, such is these People's avidity for Iron." 3 Intrinsically the traffic was ludicrously unequal, but no doubt the Hawaiians received in exchange for their produce, that which appeared to them, at the time, to be an equivalent. There was some limit, however, to what the natives would give in exchange for a nail. Lieutenant King notes that at one time "they had brought down some very large hogs, but we had no Iron large enough to purchase them." 4 Captain Cook took advantage of the opportune discovery of these islands (named by him the Sandwich Islands, in honor of the Earl of Sandwich, then first lord of the a d m i r a l t y ) to replenish his supply of water and to obtain fresh meat and vegetables. W a t e r casks were sent on shore and a brisk trade for provisions was soon in progress. T h e watering and trading parties were a l w a y s accompanied by armed g u a r d s in order to prevent any difficulty with the natives. During the first day nine tons of water were gotten on board the Resolution alone; and by exchanges, chiefly for nails, and pieces of iron, about sixty or eighty pigs, a few fowls, a quantity of Potatoes and a few plantains and tarra roots. N o people 2 T h e question of the source of this iron is discussed by J . F. G. Stokes, " I r o n with the E a r l y H a w a i i a n s , " 11IIS Papers, No. 18, 6-14. H e thinks it came on d r i f t s from J a p a n . 3 Clerke, J a n . 22, 1778. 4 K i n g , J a n . 24, 1778.

14

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

[writes Cook] could trade with more honesty than these people, never once attempting to cheat us, either ashore or alongside the Ships. Some indeed at first betrayed a thievish disposition, or rather, they thought they had a right to anything they could lay their hands upon, but this conduct they soon laid aside. 5

The Hawaiians were made acquainted very early with the terrifying power of the firearms carried by the foreigners. Before the ships anchored, a party was sent toward land in small boats to discover a suitable landing and watering place. The leading boat, as soon as it touched land, was closely surrounded by a crowd of eager natives seeking to pull it on shore. One of the natives made a determined effort to get possession of the boat hook and was shot and killed by the officer in command, Lieutenant Williamson. The lieutenant afterwards said he had no idea that the natives intended him or his party any injury, but that "it was their great desire for the new things they saw, which brought on them so unfortunate a business." 6 While the two vessels were anchored off Waimea, Captain Cook was ashore three times. Wherever he went, the common people threw themselves prone on the ground before him, just as they did before their own kapu chiefs. From the first it was clear that the Hawaiians looked upon the principal officers of the foreign ships as chiefs of the highest rank or as gods. The two vessels remained only a few days at Kauai. Captain Cook, on the Resolution, saw no chiefs of high rank, but after his departure, Captain Clerke, on the Discovery, was visited by a handsome young couple, whom he understood to be the king and queen of the island. Of the chief, Clerke writes, I never in my Life saw a Person paid such abject homage to; most of the Indians that were in the Vessel, jumped overboard . . . the rest prostrated themselves before him, as soon as he got on board . . . There were at least half a score principal people about him, who took as much care in getting him in and out of the Canoe, as tho a drop of Salt Water wou'd have destroyed him.'

His attendants would not allow him to go farther than the gangway of the ship. Captain Clerke exchanged gifts with the two young chiefs. From Kauai the ships sailed to Niihau where they obtained a large quantity of very fine yams (an article for which this island became famous) and salt. A party sent ashore to trade with the natives was compelled, by the high surf, to remain on the island for two days and two nights. At Niihau, Cook left a ram goat and two ewes, a boar and a sow pig of the English breed, and seeds of melons, pumpkins, and onions. From the first Captain Cook gave orders intended to prevent the introduction of the venereal disease among the natives of these newly s

Cook, J a n . 21. 1778. The quotation is from King, u n d e r date J a n . 20, 1778. Williamson's account of the affair is in his journal u n d e r the same date. Just prior to this, a native had made off with a butcher's cleaver f r o m the Resolution. ' C l e r k e , J a n . 24, 1778. a

COMING O F

FOREIGNERS

15

discovered islands. The precautions were almost impossible to enforce, and Cook feared also that the inopportune detention of the trading party on shore at Niihau would defeat his purpose to shield the Hawaiians from that scourge. Since this question is one which has become inseparably connected with the history of the discovery, it may as well be stated here as elsewhere that the original journals covering the two visits of the expedition contain indubitable proof that Captain Cook's efforts were defeated and leave no doubt that the dreadful disease was propagated among the native people by sailors of the exploring squadron. A f t e r two weeks at the islands, the two ships sailed away to the north, leaving the Hawaiians to discuss among themselves the astonishing happenings of this fortnight and to ponder the question as to the identity of their recent visitors. The news and the discussion spread quickly to the windward islands and when, eight months later, the ships appeared again, this time off the coasts of Maui and Hawaii, Captain Cook was greeted as the god Lono. Whether the conception of Cook as Lono occurred to the Hawaiians at his first appearance or in the interval between the first and second visits, it was a logical idea, for he came each time during the makahiki season, and Lono, as we have seen, was the makahiki god. There was among the Hawaiians a tradition about Lono having gone away to Kahiki, and it was now supposed that he had returned. 8 The sails of the foreign ships resembled the kapa banner attached to the image of L o n o 9 ; and the way in which Cook's squadron sailed leisurely along the coasts of the various islands was more than a little suggestive of the progress of the god around the island during the makahiki festival. Late in the fall of 1778, Cook's squadron returned south with the purpose of spending the winter at the Sandwich Islands and making a fuller examination of the group. O n the morning of November 26, the ships came in sight of the north coast of Maui and later in the day had a distant view of Molokai. The natives of these islands gave evidence that they knew of the previous visit of the exploring squadron to Kauai and Niihau. In the afternoon of November 27, Kahekili, king of Maui, visited the Discovery and gave Captain Clerke a red feather cloak. 10 A few days later, when the ships were off the east end of Maui, Kalaniopuu, king of the island of Hawaii, who was at war with Kahekili, boarded the Resolution with a retinue of chiefs and remained for two hours; six or eight of those who came with him spent the night on the ship, one of them being the chief Kamehameha. No landing was made on Maui, but a traffic f o r provisions was carried on alongside the ships. From this time until the early part of January, the explorers made their way slowly past the east end of Maui and around the east side of 8

William Ellis. A Narrative of a Tour Through Hawaii . . . (Honolulu, 1917 e d . ) , 101. » Malo, Hawaiian Antiquities, 189-190, 201. " E d g a r , Nov. 27, 1778: Burney, same date; Samwell relates the incident in more detail, giving the name of the king, which he renders Ka-he-kere. T h e visit of Kahekili to the Discovery is not mentioned in the published official account of the voyage.

16

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

Hawaii, going in toward land only when they needed supplies. Cook was well pleased with the conduct of the natives and in his journal pays tribute to their trustfulness, honesty, and business sense. 11 Having rounded the southern point of the island, the Resolution and Discovery, on January 17, 1779, came to anchor in Kealakekua Bay in the Kona district of Hawaii. While coming into the bay and after anchoring, the ships were surrounded by an immense throng of people who manifested their joy and interest by singing, shouting, and gesticulating. Lieutenant King estimated there were not less than ten thousand, most of them afloat in canoes, on surf boards, or swimming in the water. Many of them crowded into the ships, and it is not surprising that among so many under such novel circumstances, a few exhibited what the foreigners called a thievish disposition. In this bay Captain Cook intended to remain long enough to put the ships in a fit state for another cruise into the Arctic, and in the meantime to refresh the ships' companies, take in water and such provisions as could be obtained, make astronomical observations, and gain some additional information about the islands and their inhabitants. All of these obje.cts were satisfactorily accomplished in the course of two weeks and a half, and with remarkably little friction, considering the wide differences in culture and habits between the native people and their foreign guests. To the Hawaiians, Captain Cook was the god Lono. As soon as he went on shore, accompanied by some of his officers, he was taken in hand by priests and made the central figure of an elaborate ceremony in the heiau of Hikiau, by which the priests meant to acknowledge him as the incarnation of Lono; up to the last day of his life he was treated by the natives with a respect amounting to adoration. Whether Cook realized the religious significance of all this is uncertain. When the foreign ships anchored in the bay, the old king, Kalaniopuu, was still on the neighboring island of Maui, but he returned from there on the afternoon of January 25 and immediately made an informal visit to the ships. On the following day he paid a ceremonious visit to Captain Cook, exchanged names with him, and presented to him several feather cloaks and a quantity of hogs, sugar cane, coconuts, and breadfruit. Cook in return gave Kalaniopuu a linen shirt and a sword; later on, Cook gave other presents to Kalaniopuu, among which one of the journals mentions "a complete Tool Chest." 12 The king likewise exchanged gifts with Captain Clerke of the Discovery; and just before the ships made their first departure from Kealakekua, Captain Cook received from the king a large and valuable present consisting of pieces of kapa, feathers, hogs, and vegetables. Throughout their stay the ships were plentifully supplied with fresh provisions which were paid for mainly with iron, much of it in the form of long iron daggers made by " Cook, Dec. 21, 1778. 12 Samwell, Jan. 27, 1779.

COMING O F FOREIGNERS

17

the ships' blacksmiths on the pattern of the wooden pahoa used by the Hawaiians. 13 The natives were permitted to watch the ships' blacksmiths at work and from their observations gained information of practical value about the working of iron. 14 Various entertainments were provided, among them being an exhibition of wrestling and boxing by the Hawaiians and a display of fireworks by the foreigners. Several parties from the ships made excursions into the interior—up through the cultivated areas and into the forest where they saw partially finished canoes, brilliant hued birds, and huts of the canoe builders and bird catchers—and everywhere received the most hospitable treatment from the people whom they met. On the morning of February 4, the Resolution and Discovery sailed out of the bay and headed north along the Kona coast. During their sojourn in the harbor there had been some unpleasant incidents, provoked as much, at least, by the foreigners as by the natives, but the good sense and good will of those in authority on both sides had prevented any serious trouble, and when the farewells were spoken the foreigners certainly had little reason for any other than pleasurable and friendly recollections of the days spent at Kealakekua. Then, however, came a series of events which illustrate how easily small circumstances can change the current of human history. A winter storm lashed the sea into a fury and a few days later a tempest of human passion swept over the bay—and when the foreigners finally quitted the Kona coast, it was with sadly altered feelings. In the midst of the storm at sea, when off the coast of Kohala, the foremast of the Resolution received an injury which made immediate repairs necessary. It was decided to return to Kealakekua, and on the morning of February 11 the ships took up their former stations in the bay. At that time quiet reigned over the bay and it was reported that the king had gone off leaving it under a kapu. However, he came back the next day and the old relations were resumed, although the Hawaiians were curious as to why the foreigners had returned. The injured mast was taken on shore and placed beside the heiau, with the carpenters, sailmakers, and a guard of marines housed nearby; the astronomical instruments were set up on the end of the heiau with tents for the 13 These iron daggers (about two feet long) were much in demand. "Capt. Cook & Capt. Clerke had these dangerous weapons made at the request of the Chiefs or Arees & gave them on various occasions." liayly, Feb. 14, 1779. W h e n the ships were returning to Kealakekua Bay a f t e r the storm that damaged the Resolution's foremast, Kamehameha went on board t h e Discovery and offered to sell the red feather cloak he was wearing, but he insisted on being paid with iron daggers; he obtained seven daggers for the cloak. Edgar, Feb. 11, 1779; Law, same date. Samwell says he obtained nine daggers. Historical Records of New South Wales, Vol. I, part 1, p. 452. 14 See the interesting comment in the official account of the voyage. Vol. Ill, p. 131. On this point, Trevenen has the following note: " T h e forge was set up on deck where they could see the whole process of working the rough Iron into the different forms that were wanted.—One man that had been observed paying the greatest attention to the a r m o u r e r s [blacksmiths] at work, was found the next day on Shore heating his piece of Iron in a large fire, whilst two large stones served him for anvil & hammer with which he was attempting to fashion it." James Trevenen, Notes written in the margin of a copy of the published official account of Cook's T h i r d Voyage, copy in A H f r o m a copy in Archives of British Columbia. See also George Gilbert, " T h e Death of Captain James Cook," H H S Reprints, No. 5, p. 29.

18

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,

1778-1854

astronomer and Lieutenant K i n g ; all of these had the friendly protection of the priests. Nothing of special note happened until the afternoon of the thirteenth when a watering party on shore f r o m one of the ships had some kind of altercation with the natives. At nearly the same time, a native on board the Discovery daringly seized a pair of tongs and a chisel f r o m the blacksmith's forge and made his escape in a canoe that lay alongside the ship. Shots were fired a f t e r him and he was pursued by one of the ship's boats. T h e stolen goods were restored, but the thief escaped and the officer in charge of the ship's boat attempted—unwisely, it would seem—to seize the canoe. This led to a scuffle on the beach in which a chief named Palea was struck on the head with an oar and the boat's crew was rather roughly handled by the natives. As it happened, the canoe belonged to Palea, but it appears also that it was he who caused the tongs and chisel to be restored. 1 5 On the following morning it was found that the Discovery's large cutter had been stolen during the night. A f t e r w a r d s it was reported, on good authority, that the cutter was taken by some of Palea's people as a reprisal f o r the indignity he had suffered; but it is uncertain whether Palea himself was the instigator of the deed. Captain Clerke being unwell, Captain Cook assumed direction of the effort to recover the stolen cutter. H e first placed a cordon of boats to guard the entrance of the bay and then went in a pinnace with Lieutenant Phillips and a squad of nine marines to the village of Kaawaloa where King Kalaniopuu was residing; he was accompanied by a launch and a small cutter, both under command of Lieutenant Williamson. Cook's plan was to get the king on board the Resolution and keep him there until the stolen boat was returned—a plan that had been effective under similar circumstances in the south Pacific. Cook landed with Lieutenant Phillips and the marines and marched to the house where the king was staying. T h e latter came out and a f t e r a short conversation with him Cook became satisfied that he was entirely innocent of what had happened. Kalaniopuu readily consented to go with Captain Cook and they started to walk down toward the shore. T h e king's youngest son, a boy of perhaps twelve years, ran on ahead and climbed into the pinnace. 1 0 Before the king reached the shore, his wife Kanekapolei and several chiefs surrounded him and begged him not to go f a r t h e r ; he stopped and sat down. T h e suspicions of the Hawaiians had evidently been aroused, as well they might be. Lono, if indeed this was Lono, had never before come to visit the king in this fashion—armed, supported by an escort of soldiers, and with a con16 T h i s i n c i d e n t is v e r y briefly m e n t i o n e d in t h e official a c c o u n t of t h e voyage, Vol. I l l , pp. 38-39, b u t it is r e l a t e d in detail by s e v e r a l of t h e j o u r n a l s , n o t a b l y t h o s e of K d g a r , K i n g , a n d S a m w e l l ( j o u r n a l p r i n t e d in Historical Records of New South Wales, Vol. I, P a r t 1, pp. 450-478, a t pp. 453-455). 16 T h e official p r i n t e d a c c o u n t says t h e k i n g ' s t w o boys got i n t o the p i n n a c e , b u t L i e u t . K i n g ' s o r i g i n a l j o u r n a l a n d s e v e r a l o t h e r s m e n t i o n o n l y the y o u n g e r son. T h e s e t w o b o y s w e r e t h e c h i l d r e n of t h e k i n g a n d K a n e k a p o l e i .

COMING O F FOREIGNERS

19

certed and apparently hostile movement of armed boats from the two ships. In the meanwhile, a great crowd had gathered about, many of the natives being armed with daggers, clubs, spears, and stones. While the king was hesitating, news came that a chief crossing the bay in a canoe had been killed by a shot from one of the foreign boats. This caused an angry reaction among the people and some of the bolder ones began to make threatening motions toward Cook and the squad of marines. Captain Cook gave up the attempt to take the king on board, and directed his efforts to getting the marines and himself safely into the boats. The marines withdrew to the waterside and formed in line on the rocks. One of the natives made a pass at Cook with a dagger and Cook replied by firing one barrel of his gun, either a blank or a charge of small shot—the accounts differ on this point—which apparently did no damage and only served to embolden the Hawaiians. The king's son became alarmed at the ominous change in the situation and was allowed to return on shore. Cook fired the other barrel of his gun, loaded with ball, and killed a man. Lieutenant Phillips also fired and the marines on shore and the sailors in the boats began firing. Cook turned, ordered the boats to cease firing and come in close, and then started toward the water. By this time a general mêlée was in progress ; Cook was knocked down with a club and as he tried to get up was struck in the back with a dagger and fell into the water; it is uncertain whether he drowned or died of his wounds. 17 Four of the marines were killed ; the others managed to swim off to the pinnace. The Hawaiians carried away the bodies of Cook and the four marines ; Cook's body was treated like that of a high chief. Some of the journals of the voyage blame Lieutenant Williamson for not making a vigorous effort to protect the party on shore ; and a recent writer, a British naval officer, says flatly that "Cook's death must lie at his [Williamson's] door." 18 Captain Clerke, who succeeded to the command of the expedition, decided upon a conciliatory policy in the hope of restoring peace and recovering the bodies of the slain Englishmen; most of the Hawaiian priests and a few of the chiefs evidently favored such a policy; but it was a difficult one to carry out. The hot anger on both sides kindled by the tragic affray of February 14 was not easily cooled. During the next few days there was desultory fighting, in which the Hawaiians exhibited great courage and daring in the face of gunfire, a good many of them being killed ; a number of houses, behind which the native warriors sheltered themselves, were burned down by the foreigners ; a few of the latter indulged in reprisals for which even savages might blush. 17 The official account does not say that Cook was knocked down with a club{ but several of the original journals mention it and the circumstance fits well into the general picture. Captain James Colnett, who visited the islands in the early part of 1788, met on Kauai a man who claimed that he was the one who gave Cook the fatal dagger blow and had in his possession the shirt worn by Cook on that occasion. A photostat copy of the Hawaiian portion of Colnett's journal is in AH. 18 Lieut.-Com. Rupert T. Gould, "Some Unpublished Accounts of Cook's Death," The Mariner's Mirror (London), XIV, 301-319 (Oct. 1928), at p. 319.

20

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

Finally, however, after about a week, peace was restored. Part of the bones of Captain Cook were given up by the Hawaiians, and a kapu placed on the bay while the funeral service was held on February 21. On the next day friendly relations were reestablished. "Many Chiefs came on board, who shew'd both a great sorrow for what had happen'd as well as great pleasure that we were friends—Maiha maiha [Kamehameha] & others, who perhaps were afraid of venturing themselves, sent large hogs as peace offerings." 19 Late in the evening of February 22 the Resolution and Discovery weighed anchor and stood out of the bay. They sailed northwesterly past Maui, Lanai, and Molokai, and around the northern side of Oahu; anchored for a few hours off Waimea, Oahu, where Captain Clerke and some other officers made a brief visit on shore; and then crossed over to their former anchorage at Waimea, Kauai. At this place and off Niihau they remained for two weeks, taking in water and food supplies. In these leeward islands a civil war was in progress, and the goats (and probably also the pigs) left there by Captain Cook the year before had been killed in the course of the struggle. On March 15, 1779, the English ships took their final departure from the Sandwich Islands in order to continue their explorations in the north along the coasts of America and Asia. LATER FOREIGN VISITORS AND SETTLERS

After the departure of the Resolution and the Discovery, no foreign ships are known to have visited the islands until 1786. It has been suggested by some writers that the death of Captain Cook implanted in the minds of Europeans and Americans a belief that the Sandwich Islanders were fierce and cruel savages and that this belief deterred ships from visiting the islands. But it is doubtful that such was the case. The simple fact is that for several years there was no occasion for ships to visit Hawaii. It was the development of the fur trade along the northwest coast of America that brought ships of many nations into the north Pacific at the end of the eighteenth century; that trade was a direct consequence of Cook's last voyage, but it required several years for the trade to get under way; when it did get under way the Hawaiian islands very soon became a familiar resort for the fur traders. In 1786 four foreign ships visited the islands. Two of them, commanded by Captains Portlock and Dixon, were connected with an English commercial enterprise; the other two were French naval vessels under command of the celebrated explorer La Perouse. The English ships came twice in 1786 and returned again the following year for a short stay. From then on, not a year passed without one or more ships visiting the islands, and in a very short time Hawaii became well established as a port of call and wintering place, not alone for ships engaged in the fur trade but also for those engaged in the more general trade '» King, Feb. 22, 1779.

COMING O F FOREIGNERS

21

which grew up between Asia and the west coast of North and South America. 20 It was not long until foreigners of various nations began to see how desirable it would be to get possession of the Sandwich Islands, either for colonization or for the promotion of commerce. In 1789 a Spanish naval officer, Ensign E. J. Martinez, who had been on the Northwest Coast, wrote about the Sandwich Islands and called attention to their fruitfulness and their convenient location; he suggested to the viceroy of New Spain that it would be useful for the Spanish government to make a settlement on the islands for the purpose of conquering the Hawaiians and preventing other nations from using the islands to the disadvantage of Spain. The viceroy was not convinced of the advisability of attempting such an occupation, but he sent one of his naval officers, Lieutenant Manuel Quimper, in the spring of 1791, to make an exploration, instructing him to collect information about the commerce, situation, and natural products of the islands and to secure the good favor of the inhabitants by kind treatment and by gifts of various kinds. Quimper made the exploration as directed; but Spain was not then in position to undertake such a project as Martinez had proposed.21 Captain John Meares, one of the early English traders, who visited Hawaii in 1787 and in 1788, thought the islands might be made to "answer very important commercial purposes", and gravely expressed the idea that Providence intended them to belong to Great Britain. 22 Captain George Vancouver, who visited Hawaii five times, twice as a junior officer under Captain Cook in 1778 and 1779 and three times as commander of an exploring expedition in 1792, 1793, and 1794, was impressed with the value of this group of islands and earnestly sought to attach it to the British empire.23 The ship captains who brought their ships into Hawaiian waters during these early decades were mainly interested in obtaining fresh supplies of meat and vegetables, water, salt, firewood, and rest from the hardships of a sea voyage; but they discovered another valuable com10 I t is n o t my intention to give a detailed account of the visits of foreign ships to Hawaii d u r i n g this period and the gradual infiltration of foreigners into the local population. To even list the materials dealing with the subject would require m a n y pages. A useful sketch for the early part of the period is the article by W . D. Alexander, " E a r l y Visitors to the Hawaiian I s l a n d s , " in Haw'n Annual, 1890, pp. 37-53. This is a short digest of the published voyages and Hawaiian sources of information. L a t e r research has revealed some e r r o r s in this and other early accounts and has added greatly to our knowledge of the period prior to 1820. Especially noteworthy contributions have been made by J u d g e P . W . Howay of New Westminster, British Columbia, in connection with his study of the history of the Northwest Coast of America. See, f o r example, his " E a r l y Relations Between the Hawaiian Islands and the Northwest Coast," in Hawaii. Early Relations with England-Russia-France. Official Papers Read at the Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Celebration, Honolulu, August IJ, ¡918 (Honolulu, 1930), 11-38. " Howay, op. cit., 34-35; R. S. Kuykendall, " J a m e s Colnett and the 'Princess R o y a l ' , " in Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, X X V , 36-52 (March, 1924); these two articles cite the original documents on which they are based. Quimper' 5 diary of the-voyage in which he visited the islands is in the Mexican archives; a copy is in possession of the University of Hawaii. M a n y y e a r s later, Quimper published a pamphlet giving a description of the islands a n d an account of his visit to them, under the title. Islas de Sandwich. Descripción sucinta de este archipiélago . . . (Madrid, 1822). M r . Otto Degener of Honolulu has a copy of this pamphlet a n d has kindly made it available; translated extracts f r o m it a r e quoted by Donald Billam-Walker in two articles published in Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Oct. 30, Nov. 6, 1937. 21 J o h n Meares. Voyages made in the Years 1788 and 1789, from China to the North West Coast of America . . . (London, 1790), xcv. * Vancouver's relations with the Hawaiian chiefs will be described in the following chapter.

22

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

modity, man power, and before long began to recruit sailors from among the sturdy sons of Hawaii. Ordinarily, the Hawaiians were glad to go, but in at least one case of which we have record, in 1795, several natives were kidnaped for service on a voyage to the Northwest Coast.- 4 Strangely enough, the very first Hawaiian employed on a foreign voyage —indeed, the first to leave the islands, so far as present information shows—was a woman. The British ship Imperial Eagle visited the islands in May, 1787. The captain, Charles W . Barkley, was accompanied by his wife and she engaged a young Hawaiian woman to go with her as lady's maid. 25 The lure of foreign travel strongly attracted many of the Hawaiians. Captain Meares, at the islands in August, 1787, stated that numbers "pressed forward, with inexpressible eagerness" to accompany him to "Britannee." 28 Mortimer two years later noticed the same eager desire of many of the natives to go abroad. 27 Besides those Hawaiians who enlisted as sailors on various ships, there were a number who traveled to foreign lands somewhat in the manner of tourists, as guests or personal servants of sea captains, and whose experiences in detail would make an entertaining story. The most distinguished of these early Hawaiian tourists was the high chief Kaiana, who went away with Meares in 1787 and returned the following year after having visited China and the Northwest Coast. 28 Until the year 1796, war was the characteristic note in the islands, with various chieftains engaged in a fierce struggle for supremacy. The actual fighting was intermittent, but, until the question of supremacy was settled, the warring chiefs grasped every chance to strengthen their positions. The coming of the foreigners presented a golden opportunity, and foreign men, foreign weapons, and foreign ships were eagerly sought. When Captain Cook was at Kealakekua Bay in January, 1779, King Kalaniopuu seriously asked him to leave Lieutenant King behind, and King, who was very popular with the natives, noted that they urged him to stay with them, promising to hide him in the hills until the ships were gone and to make him a great man. 29 In the following month, Captain Clerke reported that on Kauai, where a civil war was in progress, the chiefs made many large offers and fair promises to some of his men to induce them to run away and assist the chiefs in their battles. 30 Similar attempts were made in 1788 to get some of Captain James Colnett's men to remain on Kauai in the service of King Kaeo. 30a After the trading ships began to visit the islands, it became quite fashionable, as Fornander has said, " f o r every chief of note to have one or more . . . foreigners in his employ. They were . . . serviceable as interpreters and 24 25

Howay, op. cit., 21. Ibid., 11-12; Meares, op. cit., 10, Meares, op. cit., xxxix. George Mortimer, Observations Mercury . . . (London, 1791), 55. 28 Kaiana's experiences abroad are lock, A Voyage Round the World . . . » K i n g , Feb. 3, 1779. M Clerke, March 6, 1779. so * Golnett, J o u r n a l on board Prince 28 27

28, 36. and Remarks

made during

a voyage

. . .

in the

brig

described in Meares' book and in that of Capt. N. Portin 1785, 1786, 1787, and 1788 (London, 1789). of Wales, about March 12, 1788, photostat copy in A . H .

COMING O F FOREIGNERS

23

factors in trading with the foreign ships; and their skill and adroitness in managing firearms, and in many other things hitherto unknown to the Hawaiians, made them valuable to the chiefs . . ." 3 1 In December, 1794, King Kalanikupule of Oahu sought and obtained the aid of part of the crew of an English ship anchored in Honolulu harbor, to assist him in repelling an invasion from Maui. 3 2 In view of the strife of contending chieftains it is not strange to find in the contemporary literature of the period repeated references to the efforts of the chiefs to obtain cannons, muskets, and ammunition; the nature of the trade that developed in the north Pacific makes it even less strange that the efforts of the chiefs were in many cases successful. Captain Douglas in the spring of 1789 supplied Kamehameha with a quantity of arms and ammunition, including a swivel gun mounted on the platform of a large double canoe. 33 The latter chief in 1791 informed Lieutenant Quimper that all the ships which anchored at the island of Hawaii gave him firearms.34 Vancouver, during his visits to the islands, found much evidence of a regular traffic in arms, by which the chiefs on all the islands were supplied with the means of carrying on their factional w a r f a r e ; he was given to understand that some of the traders encouraged the chiefs to continue their ruinous strife with each other. Worse still, the traders had sold the chiefs defective guns, some of which burst on the first discharge, causing bad accidents. Vancouver himself resolutely refused to have anything to do with the business and condemned it in scathing terms. 3 5 W h e n Captain Douglas was at Kawaihae in December, 1788, with the Iphigenia and the little sloop North West America, Kamehameha was greatly impressed with the story of the building of the latter vessel at Nootka Sound and "he intreated that a carpenter might be left at Owhyhee" to supervise the building of a similar one f o r him. 36 Even that early the Hawaiians were attempting to improve their own navigation by imitating foreign methods, f o r in January, 1789, Captain Douglas saw, at Waikiki, Oahu, a double canoe schooner rigged, with jib, main-sail, and fore-sail. 37 A few years afterwards, Kamehameha secured the services of Vancouver's carpenters to assist in the construction of the Britannia, the first foreign style vessel built at the islands. In 1795-1796, when Kamehameha was at Oahu preparing to invade Kauai, foreigners in his service built f o r him a small sailing vessel of about forty tons. 3 8 In two cases, other and less honorable methods were 31 82

P o m a n d e r , op. cit., I I , 231, footnote. F o r this incident, see the following chapter. «> Meares, op. cit., 354-355. 84 Quimper, diary mentioned in Note 21, u n d e r date March 25, 1791. 86 George Vancouver, A Voyage of Discovery to the north Pacific Ocean, and round the world . . . in the years ¡790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, and 1795 . . . (6 vols., London, 1801), I , 353, 355, 391-392, 403-405, I I I , 183-184, 319, I V , 179-180, V, 48-50. Other j o u r n a l s of t h e voyage make similar references to the subject. 88 Meares, op. cit., 338. « Ibid., 348. 88 J o h n Boit, Jr., The Journal of a Voyage Round the Globe [on the sloop Union] ( M S in Massachusetts Historical^ Society L i b r a r y ; photostat of Hawaiian portion in H M C S L i b r a r y ) , u n d e r date Oct. 16, 1795; W m . R. Broughton, A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean . . . in the years 1795, '796, 1797, 179S (London, 1804), 40-41, 70-71.

24

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

used in order to get possession of the coveted foreign ships; and this statement brings us to a series of acts of violence which stain the history of the early intercourse between Hawaiians and foreigners. Two of these acts concerned an American trader, Captain Simon Metcalfe, who had two vessels, the Eleanora commanded by himself and a tiny schooner called the Fair American commanded by his son Thomas. They had been on the Northwest Coast in 1789; the smaller vessel had been seized by the Spaniards and taken to San Bias, but had then been released and sailed to Hawaii, arriving there in the early part of 1790. The elder Metcalfe had already gone to the islands with the Eleanora and at the end of January was anchored off Honuaula, Maui, engaged in trading for supplies. During the night a small boat tied to the stern of the Eleanora was taken away by some natives and a sailor in the boat was killed by them. Metcalfe's retaliation for this deed can hardly be surpassed for downright fiendishness. He tried unsuccessfully to recover the boat and the sailor, fired some rounds of shot into the village, thereby killing several of the inhabitants, and then, learning that the natives who stole the boat had come from Olowalu, he sailed around to that place. Having found out definitely that the boat had been broken up and the sailor killed, Metcalfe planned his revenge. He first placed all his cannons on the starboard side of the ship and loaded them with musket balls and langrage shot. He then encouraged the natives to come off in their canoes to trade, but he kapued the larboard side of the ship and thus contrived to get the canoes—scores of them—closely grouped to starboard. Outward appearances were friendly, when suddenly the ship's whole broadside was fired into the canoes. The slaughter was horrible; more than a hundred of the natives were killed and many others wounded. This affair is known in Hawaiian annals as the "Olowalu massacre." 39 About five or six weeks later, the Fair American arrived from San Bias and while making its way down the west side of Hawaii was becalmed near a place in north Kona where the chief Kameeiamoku was residing. This chief had once committed some petty offense on board the Eleanora for which he had been struck with a rope's end by Captain Simon Metcalfe. Smarting under this affront to his dignity, Kameeiamoku is said to have sworn that he would have revenge on the next " • T h e r e a r e three important primary sources for this episode: (1) An account w r i t t e n by one of the officers of the Eleanora, printed in the Gentleman's Magazine ( L o n d o n ) , April 1791, and reprinted in the Columbian Centinel (Boston), Nov. 30, 1791, in The Wonders of the Universe, Vol. I I (London, 1827), 3-6, and in the Advertiser ( H o n o l u l u ) , J u l y 1, 1906, and Sept. 3, 1928; (2) A n account derived f r o m J o h n Young, boatswain of the Eleanora, given in Vancouver, op. tit.. I l l , 227-229; (3) A n Hawaiian account in Ka Mooolelo Hawaii, translation published in Hawaiian Spectator ( H o n o l u l u ) , I I , 71-72 (Jan., 1839). Capt. James Colnett, who was at the islands in April, 1791, in t h e Argonaut, obtained f r o m the natives some f u r s and some bits of information t h a t enabled him to piece together the main facts regarding the Olowalu massacre and the capture of the Fair American. Photostat copy of Colnett's journal in A H . T h e r e is another v e r y brief independent account in J . Ingraham, Journal of the Voyage of the Brigantine Hope . . . ( M S in Library of Congress; photostat copy in Bishop Museum, Honolulu; Hawaiian portion printed in H H S Reprints, No. 3), u n d e r date May 26, 1791, derived f r o m a foreigner named Ridler whom I n g r a h a m met at Maui. S. M. Kamakau gives a detailed account in his Ka Moolelo o Kamehameha I , chap. 24. in K N K , April 20. 1867, but this seems to be derived f r o m the earlier accounts mentioned above. T h e r e are some other brief accounts in j o u r n a l s and log books, most or all being based on information furnished by J o h n Young.

COMING O F FOREIGNERS

25

foreign ship that came his way. As fate would have it, the next ship was the tiny schooner Fair American, commanded by Metcalfe's son and having a crew of only five men. Kameeiamoku and his followers, after gaining admittance to the vessel by pretence of friendly trade, had little difficulty in throwing the captain and crew overboard, killing all of them except one, and seizing the vessel. The sole survivor, Isaac Davis, was taken under the protection of Kamehameha, who by this time had become king of the northwestern half of the island of Hawaii and who is said to have rebuked Kameeiamoku for his barbarous deed. Kamehameha likewise took possession of the schooner and it became the first foreign style vessel in his war fleet. It may be pointed out that there was no relationship of cause and effect between the Olowalu massacre and the capture of the Fair American„ the two things having occurred at different islands controlled by rival chieftains. 40 While the tragedy of the Fair American was taking place, the Eleanora was at anchor in Kealakekua Bay. On the same or the following day, the boatswain of the ship, an Englishman named John Young, went on shore for a visit. He was detained by the stringent order of Kamehameha, who feared that if Metcalfe learned what had happened he might take some signal revenge. The Bleanora waited several days for Young to return on board and then sailed away without him. It is believed that Metcalfe left the islands without learning of the disaster that had overtaken his son. Young he doubtless looked upon as a deserter. 41 Davis and Young became fast friends. They made an unsuccessful attempt to escape,42 but were treated so well by Kamehameha that they were soon reconciled to spending their remaining days in Hawaii. They were given wives, lands, and servants, and became in effect Hawaiian chiefs. Though of limited education, they were, fortunately, men of excellent character and exerted a wholesome influence upon Kamehameha, to whom they afterwards stood in the relationship of confidential advisers. 43 A few years later, the island of Oahu witnessed two outbreaks of violence in the relations between Hawaiians and foreigners. In May, 1792, the British naval storeship Daedalus, belonging to Vancouver's squadron, anchored off the mouth of the Waimea stream for the purpose of taking in water. The commander, Lieutenant Hergest, foolishly went on shore unarmed and accompanied only by the astronomer Gooch and 40 Vancouver, op. cit., I l l , 231-234; I n g r a h a m , loc. ext.; Ka MoooUlo Hawaii, translation as cited, p. 73; Kamakau, op cit.. in K N K , April 27, 1867; Archibald Campbell. A Voyage Round the World, from 1806 to 1812 . . . (4 American ed. Roxbury, Mass., 1825). 103-105. I t is said t h a t Kamehameha intended to restore the schooner to its owner if he came to claim it. 11 Vancouver, op. cit.. I I I . 229-230; I n g r a h a m , loc. cit. T h e Hawaiian accounts, in Ka Mooolelo Hawaii, loc. cit., and Kamakau, loc. cit.t say that one reason f o r the detention of J o h n Y o u n g was Kamehameha's desire to have foreigners in his service. 42 Vancouver, op. cit., I l l , 236-239. 43 T h e r e has existed and still exists in some parts of the United States a tradition t h a t J o h n Y o u n g was an American. T h i s idea doubtless arose f r o m a confusion of identity. ^ Evidence shows t h a t in 1790 there was another J o h n Y o u n g residing temporarily in H a w a i i : it is believed that this man was an American. It is certain, however," that the John Young who became a prominent figure in Hawaii was an Englishman. O n this subject, see articles in Ilaw'n Annual, 1911 and 1916, and articles by G. R. Carter, Bruce Cartwright. E d g a r Henriques, and Bishop H . B. Restarick, in the 22nd, 25th, and 32nd Reports of t h e Hawaiian Historical Society.

26

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

two seamen. Walking a little way up the river, the party was attacked by a crowd of natives and all killed except one of the seamen.44 There is some evidence tending to show that this may have been an act of reprisal for a flare-up that occurred at Maui the year before, when an American trader, Ingraham, believing his small vessel was in danger of being attacked, fired a number of shots for the purpose of scaring off the natives. Or it may be that it was simply an isolated outrage committed, as Kahekili, king of Maui and Oahu, stated to Vancouver, "by a lawless set of ill-minded men" in the presence of opportunity and in the absence of any chief who could control them ; 45 but some of the authorities cited point to Kahekili himself as being, indirectly, the instigator of the outrage. On the first day of 1795, two English trading vessels, the Jackall and the Prince Lee Boo, at anchor in Honolulu harbor, were seized by the natives and the two captains killed; an account of this affair and the attendant circumstances will be given in the following chapter. In July, 1796, two marines belonging to the British sloop Providence were killed by natives on the island of Niihau, apparently for the purpose of getting possession of the firearms carried by them.46 As we now take leave of this phase of Hawaii's history, it may be well to say that, in spite of the unfortunate incidents which have been mentioned and of occasional reports of plots by the natives to capture other vessels, the relations between the Hawaiians and the foreigners who came to the islands were as a general thing friendly and agreeable. After 1796 peace prevailed and a normal trade slowly developed. Kamehameha, however, had not yet completed the consolidation of the kingdom; Kauai still remained out, and preparations for war went on until 1810, by Kamehameha for the conquest of Kauai, and by Kaumualii for the defence of that island. During this time the traffic in arms was controlled by the two rival kings. From about 1790, there grew up, very slowly at first, a foreign population in Hawaii. Many of these early settlers were common sailors, but a few were of higher status. Some left the ships with the permission of their officers; others simply deserted. As early as the time of Vancouver it was reliably reported that there were scattered through the group many runaway sailors variously described as "vagabonds" and 44 Vancouver, op. ext., I l l , 160-164; T. Manby, "Journal of Vancouver's Voyage to the Pacific Ocean (1791-1793)", in Honolulu Mercury, Vol. I, No. 2 ( J u l y , 1929), pp. 34-37; Donald Angus, "Murder in Hawaii in 1792," in Paradise of the Pacific (Honolulu), Vol. X L V I I I , No. 9 (Sept., 1936), pp. 19, 30, quoting account of this affair from the original M S diary of Archibald Menzies in the British Museum; Kamakau, op. cit., chap. 27, in KNK, May 18, 1867; Fornander, op. cit., II, 246-249. 45 Vancouver, op. cit., I l l , 266-267, 296-298, 307-308; Ingraham, op. cit., under date May 26, 1791 (but see ibid., Oct. 11-12, 1791). A story somewhat similar to Ingraham's (perhaps a garbled version of the same incident) was told by John Young many years later. Diary of Andrew Bloxam . . . (Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 10. Honolulu, 1925), p. 96. Kamakau, loc. cit., and Fornander, loc. cit., say-that the killing of Hergest and Gooch was carried out under direction of a minor chief named Koi for the purpose of getting possession of the firearms carried by the Englishmen. The English accounts, however, clearly indicate that the landing party was unarmed. « Broughton, op. cit., 75-80.

COMING O F FOREIGNERS

27

"renegadoes." 47 But at that time and in later years there were a number of foreign residents of better character. John Young and Isaac Davis and the Spaniard Francisco de Paula Marin, whom the Hawaiians called Manini, were the best known but by no means the only representatives of the latter class. In the early part of 1794, there were eleven foreigners with Kamehameha at Kealakekua; they were of several nationalities, including Chinese. 48 A dozen or more foreigners aided Kamehameha in the conquest of Oahu in 1795. In 1798, Townsend saw six foreigners at Kawaihae, Hawaii, where John Young was then residing, and five at Waimea, Kauai. 40 Archibald Campbell, who resided on Oahu for more than a year in 1809-1810, states that at one time during his stay there were nearly sixty white people upon that island; but the number varied greatly and before his departure was considerably diminished. Although the great majority had been left by American vessels, not, above one third of them belonged to that nation; the rest were almost all English, and of these six or eight were convicts, who had made their escape from New South Wales. Many inducements are held out to sailors to remain here. If they conduct themselves with propriety, they rank as chiefs, . . . at all events they are certain of being maintained by some of the chiefs, who are always anxious to have white people about them. The king has a considerable number in his service, chiefly carpenters, joiners, masons, blacksmiths, and bricklayers; these he rewards liberally with grants of land. . . . Most of the whites have married native women, by whom they have families; but they pay little attention either to the education or to the religious instruction of their children.60

By the time of which Campbell writes, Honolulu was becoming a place of some importance commercially. It was situated in a rich and productive island and its protected harbor, the only accessible one in the entire group, caused foreign ships to go there in preference to other places. To the Hawaiians themselves, Honolulu and its snug harbor had been of very little importance compared with the nearby reef-protected romantic beach and town of Waikiki. But the foreigners' rendezvous at Honolulu caused the natives to congregate in that place. Campbell describes Honolulu as a village of several hundred houses, well shaded by large coconut trees. 51 While Campbell was staying at Oahu, Kamehameha resided in Honolulu and a house in the European style was being built for him. 52 Two and a half years earlier, when Isaac Iselin visited the islands (1807), Kamehameha was living at Waikiki. 53 The rise of Honolulu at the expense of Waikiki is an illustration of the general disturbance of conditions in Hawaii caused by the coming of the foreigners. The foreign trade was an influence which caused a shift " V a n c o u v e r , op. cit., V, 112-115. « E d w a r d Bell, " L o g of the C h a t h a m , " in Honolulu Mercury, I I , 86 (Dec. 1929). « H H S Reprints. No. 4. pp. 5-7, 21. 80 Campbell, op. cit., 126-128. 111 Ibid., 99 "Ibid., 162. 63 Isaac Iselin, Journal of a Trading Voyage Around the World. 1805-1808 (New York, no d a t e ) , 75.

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

28

of population and the growth of towns adjacent to the ports and roadsteads where ships could lie at anchor. This trade also had a tendency to increase the burdens of the common people, who now had to supply the needs not only of the local population but of the foreign ships as well. The presence of foreigners before long manifested itself in a biological modification of the population, the introduction of new blood and the appearance of a class of part-Hawaiians. The things brought to Hawaii by foreigners were a strange mixture of good and evil. Firearms and gunpowder, cloth and clothing, furniture and household utensils, iron tools and a thousand small manufactured articles were introduced by the early traders and explorers. Goats, sheep, and new breeds of pigs were left by Cook and other early visitors; turkeys by Barkley in 1787 ; 54 cattle (from California) by Vancouver in 1793 and 1794; horses (also from California) by Cleveland and Shaler in 1803 ; 55 and the list might be extende'd. By the same means were introduced plants of various kinds, fruit trees, and garden vegetables. Among the importations were some not intended and certainly not desired, such as fleas, mosquitoes, centipedes, and scorpions. The coming of the new plants and animals, while beneficial in many respects, caused some unforeseen and unfortunate results by upsetting nature's balance in the islands.5® Besides their other gifts to the Hawaiians, the foreigners initiated them into the use of alcoholic liquors and tobacco, taught them the art of distillation, engrafted upon the primitive social order some of their own vicious habits, and were the means of bringing in diseases which started the Hawaiian people on a toboggan slide down the slope of depopulation. In the realm of ideas, the new concepts and different ways of interpreting the phenomena of nature, new points of view in regard to the relationship between social classes and in regard to the position of women, and the new economic practices inevitably raised questions and generated a skeptical attitude which weakened the foundation of the old system and prepared the way for its collapse. M

Howay, " E a r l y Relations between the Hawaiian Islands and the Northwest

11-12,M 26.

Coast,"

Richard J . Cleveland, A Narrative of Voyages and Commercial Enterprises (Cambridge, 1842), I, 223-225, 229-230. 60 On this point, see chapter on " N a t u r e ' s Balance in H a w a i i " by K. H . B r y a n , Jr., in H a n d y et al., Ancient Hawaiian Civilisation, 265-271.

CHAPTER III

KAMEHAMEHA AND THE FOUNDING OF THE KINGDOM In the history of the Hawaiian islands, the consolidation of the entire group into one kingdom was the political development of greatest significance during the forty years following the visits of Captain Cook. The founding of this kingdom and its continued existence as an independent state for nearly a hundred years are facts of particular interest in the light of the failure of other Polynesian and oceanic communities to achieve a similar status. To the creation of the kingdom various factors contributed. The presence of foreigners with their guns and advice and physical aid was one factor. Another was the feudalistic character of Hawaiian political, economic, and social organization, and the complete absence of distinct tribes with their intense divisive loyalties such as existed in New Zealand. In Hawaii, loyalties were not static; it was nothing unusual for a chief to transfer his allegiance from one overlord to another, or for a commoner to change from the service of one chief to that of another; intermarriages between the alii of different islands were very common, and one chief, either male or female, might at different times be married to chiefs of rival families. But allowing for these and other contributing factors, it may with justice be affirmed that the most important factor of all was the personality of Kamehameha, which completely dominated the period of Hawaiian history with which we are now concerned. Kamehameha is universally recognized as the most outstanding of all the Hawaiian chiefs of his own and of all other epochs. W e can, perhaps, go even farther and say that he was one of the great men of the world. Since Kamehameha's career is the line we must follow, it may be useful to mention at the outset some of his important characteristics. He was a man of powerful physique, agile, supple, fearless, and skilled in all the warlike and peaceful exercises suitable for an alii. He had likewise a strong mind—mens sana in corpore sano—well filled with the accumulated learning of his race and capable of thinking clearly and effectively. He exhibited much curiosity in regard to new things and new ideas and showed good judgment in adopting those calculated to promote his interests. But he remained faithful to the essential features of his own racial culture. He was an excellent judge of men and had, to an unusual degree, the faculty of inspiring loyalty in his followers. Ruthless in war, he was kind and forgiving when the need for fighting was past. Of the great chiefs he seems to have been the first to have an adequate appreciation of the advantages to be gained from friendly relations with foreigners, but he avoided the error of falling into their power; he had foreigners in his 29

30

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

service, some of them being trusted confidential advisers, but they were always his servants, never his masters; his was the better mind and the stronger will. Taking the visits of Captain Cook as a starting point, we shall first note the political situation existing at that time; then follow the fortunes of Kamehameha until he had brought the entire group under his control; and finally give some account of the governmental organization established by the conqueror, and various incidents of the later years of his reign. At the period of Cook's visits (1778-1779), the Hawaiian group was divided into four kingdoms: ( 1 ) the island of Hawaii under the rule of Kalaniopuu, who also had possession of the Hana district of east Maui; ( 2 ) Maui (except the Hana district) and its three dependent islands, ruled over by Kahekili; ( 3 ) Oahu, whose king was a distinguished old alii named Peleioholani j 1 ( 4 ) Kauai and Niihau, where the political scene was somewhat confused and shifting. At the time of Cook's first visit in 1778 a chief named Kaneoneo la was king of those islands; but a year later he had been deposed or was in process of being deposed by a party headed by a female chief named Kamakahelei (usually mentioned by foreigners as Queen Kamakahelei) and her recently acquired second husband Kaeokulani. The victorious party placed Kamakahelei's young son Keawe on the throne. Kaeokulani was a half-brother of Kahekili and within a few years made himself the actual ruler of Kauai. The status of Molokai was somewhat uncertain, a struggle being in progress between Kahekili and Peleioholani for the possession of that island; it belonged either to Oahu or to Maui. 2 The place of greatest interest for the story which follows was the royal court of the island of Hawaii. In this court the most important personages were the king himself, his eldest son Kiwalao, a younger son named Keoua, and the king's nephew Kamehameha. King Kalaniopuu was by the standards of his time a fairly old man, debilitated by excessive drinking of awa, and could not be expected to live many years longer. Kiwalao was of very high rank as a chief, due to the lank of his mother Kalola, and was heir presumptive to the throne. He was not at Kealakekua 1 Fornander, An Account of the Polynesian Race, I I , 290, following native accounts, states that Peleioholani died about 1770, but he is certainly mistaken on this point. Peleioholani was not seen by the members of Cook's squadron, but they heard about him and the official account of the expedition, by Cook and King, contains several references to him ( I I I , 87, 95, 154, 156). Fornander has overlooked or ignored all except one of these references and in regard to that one he states that it must refer to someone who was a "namesake of the king and an inferior chief in the Waialua district" of Oahu. Fornander, op. cit., I I , 198. It can hardly be doubted, however, that Fornander has fallen into a serious error in regard to Peleioholani. That famous chief was certainly alive in the early part of 1779. The original manuscript journals of Lieut. King and Astronomer Bayly are very clear on this point. In regard to the age of Peleioholani, Bayly says, "the natives told us he was an old man & had been a very great Warrior"; at this time he was at war with Kahekili. l a In the journal accounts of that year the name of this chief is given as Tamahano, but references the following year show that this was an alternative name for a chief better known in Kauai annals under the name Kaneoneo. - This paragraph is based on a correlation of native traditions, summarized by Fornander, with information obtained by members of Cook's squadron, of which the best record is given by Lieut. King and Astronomer Bayly. Fornander, op. cit., I I , 197, in effect denies the report of a war between Kahekili and the king of Oahu for possession of Molokai, but his view on this point results from his fundamental error in regard to Peleioholani.

KAMEHAMEHA THE

FOUNDER

31

when Cook's squadron was anchored there and we have no account of him by any foreign observer; the native traditions indicate that he was not a person of very great ability. Keoua was of lower rank among the alii than Kiwalao, his mother Kanekapolei not being as high-born as Kalola. H e was the elder of the two young princes mentioned in the journals of Cook's voyage as being present with the king at Kealakekua; at that time he was described by Lieutenant King as a very handsome youth about sixteen years of age. H e was by all accounts an energetic and ambitious prince and his natural qualities might be expected to carry him farther than his rank alone would justify. Kamehameha was of nearly equal rank with his cousin Kiwalao, after whom he stood next in line of succession to the kingship. H e was at Kealakekua during the time Cook's ships were anchored in the bay. The surgeon of the Discovery noticed him as a young man who seemed to be a favorite of King Kalaniopuu. 3 When the latter made a formal call upon Captain Cook, Lieutenant King wrote that among the chief attendants of the king was Maiha-maiha, whose hair was now plaisted over with a brown dirty sort of paste or powder, & which added to as savage a looking face as I ever saw, it however by no means seemed an emblem of his disposition, which was good natur'd & humorous, although his manner shewd somewhat of an overbearing spirit, & he seemed to be the principal director in this interview. 4

The last clause of this description is important, giving a hint as to Kamehameha's standing among the Hawaiian nobility. At this time he was, probably, not far from twenty-five years of age. 5 Kalaniopuu, from the very beginning of his reign, had made repeated attempts to conquer the neighboring island of Maui. The first attempt had won him possession of the Hana district of east Maui. In one of the last of his attacks, the Hawaii king landed a magnificent army on the shore of Maalaea bay and sent it across the low sandy isthmus of central Maui to engage the forces of Kahekili in the vicinity of Wailuku. A terrific two-day battle was fought and the invaders were utterly defeated, the flower of Kalaniopuu's army being nearly annihilated. Hawaiian traditions, as systematized by Kamakau and Fornander, date this battle in 1776; but there are strong reasons for thinking that it occurred after rather than before the epoch of Captain Cook. 6 Whatever the truth may be on this point, it can be accepted as a fact that about 1781 Kahekili was able, by a well planned campaign, to regain possession of the Hana district, and this marked the beginning of the disintegration of Kalaniopuu's kingdom. • L a w , J a n . 27, 1779. • K i n g , J a n . 26, 1779. 5 See Appendix A. • J . F. G. Stokes, " N e w Bases f o r Hawaiian Chronology," 41 H H S Report, 27-28, gives one reason. Another one is based upon the statement, in the Hawaiian traditions, that a force sent by K i n g Kahahana of Oahu aided Kahekili in this battle; now Kahahana was the second king of Oahu a f t e r Peleioholani, and the latter was still alive and ruling in the early part of 1779. See note 1 above.

32

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854 KAMEHAMEHA'S EARLY RISE TO POWER

Sometime in the year 1780 Kalaniopuu convened a council of chiefs in Waipio valley and there, in the most solemn manner, designated his son Kiwalao as his successor in the kingship and gave to Kamehameha the custody of Kukailimoku, war god of the kings of Hawaii, and placed on him the responsibility of attending to the services of the god and maintaining the heiaus dedicated to it. 7 Then, as the last important act of his career, the old king went to the southern part of his kingdom to suppress a rebellion. The rebel chieftain was captured and taken to the heiau of Pakini in Kau to be sacrificed to the war god. The sacrifice was to be made by Kiwalao as the representative of his father—so it is said—but while the prince was making the preliminary offerings, Kamehameha stepped forward, picked up the body of the captured rebel chief, and performed the sacrificial ceremony. The traditional accounts of this incident are not very explicit on some points, but it is stated, in justification of Kamehameha's action, that he considered the performance of the sacrifice to be his prerogative as custodian of the god. The incident was important for two reasons: in the first place, it caused an estrangement between the two cousins, or perhaps it merely deepened an already existing jealousy; and secondly, it resulted in Kamehameha's withdrawal from the court. For his bold act created so great a sensation and excited such a murmur against him that the king, fearing some attempt on his nephew's life, advised him to go away for a while. Kamehameha, therefore, took his family and the god Kukailimoku and retired to his home in Kohala where he busied himself with the development of his private lands. Thus it happened that almost the full length of the island lay between Kamehameha and King Kalaniopuu when the latter died in the early part of 1782 at Waioahukini in Kau. The young king, Kiwalao, appears to have fallen completely under the sway of his uncle Keawemauhili, head chief of the district of Hilo, an alii of unimpeachable blue blood and of proven ability, who saw in the redistribution of lands customary on the accession of a new king an opportunity to aggrandize himself and his friends at the expense of the chiefs of western Hawaii. The latter had good reason to fear the effect of Keawemauhili's grasping ambition; five of them, the four great chiefs of Kona, Keeaumoku, Kameeiamoku, Kamanawa, and Keaweaheulu, and a renowned warrior, Kekuhaupio, who had been Kamehameha's teacher in the profession of arms, formed an alliance to protect their own interests, and they persuaded Kamehameha to join them and to become their leader, his high rank and nearness to 7 Some accounts state that Kalaniopuu divided the lands of the kingdom between Kiwalao and Kamehameha, giving Hilo, P u n a , and Kau to Kiwalao, and Kona, Kohala, and H a m a k u a to Kamehameha, but stipulating that Kiwalao was to be king and Kamehameha subordinate to him. Dibble, History of the Sandwich Islands (1843 ed.), 54: James J . Jarves, History of the Hawaiian Islands (3 ed., Honolulu 1847), 72. F o r n a n d e r , however, discredits this story and presents cogent reasons for believing it to be a fabrication by partisans of Kamehameha. Fornader, op. cit., I I , 299-302.

KAMEHAMEHA THE FOUNDER

33

the throne, his tested qualities as a fighting man, and the identity of his interests with theirs being sufficient explanation of their choice. In due time Kiwalao set out by sea with his half-brother Keoua, his uncle and chief counsellor Keawemauhili, and a large retinue, taking the bones of the late king and depositing them in the Hale-o-Keawe, mausoleum of Hawaii's kings, at Honaunau a little south of Kealakekua bay. In the meanwhile, Kamehameha and his associates gathered at Kealakekua in order to be present when the affairs of the kingdom should be attended to. Kiwalao and Kamehameha met and wailed together, as it was proper for them to do, but several incidents occurred which had the effect of pushing the two cousins apart and confirming the suspicious fears of the Kona chiefs. In the distribution of lands, if the traditional accounts are correct, Keawemauhili had his way, to the disadvantage not only of Kamehameha and the Kona chiefs but of the young king himself and his brother Keoua. The latter took matters into his own hands and with his followers cut down coconut trees at a place called Keomo and killed some of Kamehameha's retainers, acts which amounted to a declaration of war. Kiwalao and Keawemauhili ranged themselves on the side of Keoua. The actions of the king and his brother look altogether illogical, and the only rational explanation of their course appears to be one suggested by Dr. N. B. Emerson, namely, that a plan had been preconcerted between Keawemauhili, Keoua, and Kiwalao to provoke a quarrel with Kamehameha and his associates, defeat them in battle, and strip them of their possessions. 8 However that may be, the issue was squarely joined, a battle was fought —battle of Mokuohai, 1782, probably in the summer—from which Kamehameha and his supporters came out victorious and in which Kiwalao was killed. As a consequence of the battle of Mokuohai, the island was split up into three kingdoms: Kamehameha held Kona, Kohala, and the northern part of Hamakua; Keoua possessed himself of Kau and part of P u n a ; while Keawemauhili retained Hilo and added to it the adjacent parts of Hamakua and Puna. The chiefs who had helped Kamehameha to win his present position remained faithful to him as long as they lived. With their support he was soon able to launch a campaign against his two rivals. The latter, it may be noted, received aid from King Kahekili of Maui in response to an appeal which they sent to him. Kamehameha planned a double attack, sending a fleet of war canoes around to threaten Hilo from the north, while he himself led an army by way of Kilauea to strike from the other side. The land attack was a failure, but Kamehameha and the remnant of his army escaped by going on board the war canoes and retiring northward to Laupahoehoe, where he remained for some time. While residing here, Kamehameha set out one day in a war canoe accompanied only by its crew and made a plundering raid on the coast of 8

N. B. Emerson, " M a m a l a - H o a " , 10 H H S Report, 15-29, at pp. 17-19.

34

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

Puna, where he had an encounter with two fishermen which nearly proved fatal to him. He jumped ashore and was running after them when his foot slipped into a crevice of the lava rock and held him fast ; one of the fishermen, seeing his helpless plight, turned and struck him on the head with a paddle so hard that the paddle was splintered to pieces. Kamehameha escaped, but the incident made a lasting impression on his consciousness and years later it was commemorated in the name given to one of his best known laws, the Mamalahoe Kanawai ("law of the splintered paddle"), designed to protect the innocent and helpless from wanton attacks similar to the one he had been engaged in at this time. 9 A year or two later, probably in 1785, Kamehameha began another campaign against Keoua and Keawemauhili. Fighting continued for several months, but neither side was able to deliver a decisive blow, and Kamehameha finally withdrew to his own territory. Looking now at the leeward islands, we see Kahekili enlarging his dominions and strengthening his power. He had, as we have before noticed, successfully defended Maui from the attacks of Kalaniopuu. Not long after the departure of Cook's squadron, Peleioholani, the old king of Oahu, died and was succeeded by his son Kumahana. The latter was soon deposed by a bloodless revolution and a chief named Kahahana (said to have been a protégé of Kahekili) was selected by the Oahu nobility to be their king. But Kahahana proved to be a weak and unworthy ruler and Kahekili, seeing his opportunity, invaded and conquered the island of Oahu and fixed his residence at Waikiki. 10 He and his half-brother Kaeokulani (or Kaeo, as he is more commonly called), who had perfected his control over Kauai, formed a close working alliance ; in this combination, Kahekili was the dominant figure. It looked, indeed, as though the latter chief might be the one to unite all the islands into one kingdom. At any rate, he appeared to be in a good position to meet any attack which Kamehameha might make upon his dominions. Such an attack was made in the spring of 1786, when Kamehameha attempted to regain possession of the Hana district of Maui. 11 No doubt this invasion of Maui was in part a retaliation upon Kahekili for the aid which the latter had given to Keoua and Keawemauhili. The invasion was not permanently successful. In 1786, therefore, the Hawaiian political scene was very different from what it had been seven years before. Now, the island of Hawaii was divided into three kingdoms, and all the rest of the group was ruled directly or controlled indirectly by Kahekili. But the contending factions had fought to the point of exhaustion; they needed a time of peace in which to recover their strength and prepare for the next phase of the * This is the common f o r m of t h e story. F o r other versions, see N. B. Emerson, op. cit., and C. L. Hopkins, "Mamalahoa, an Ancient Hawaiian T y aw", in Haw'n Annual, 1906, pp. 81-86. T h e two spellings of the name arise f r o m different versions of the origin of the law. 10 Fornander, as before observed, places the death of Peleioholani in 1770 and he gives 1783 as the date of Kahekili's conquest of Oahu, thus allowing a period of thirteen years for t h e reigns of K u m a h a n a and Kahahana. B u t according to the chronology here adopted, t h e combined reigns of those two kings could not have been much if any longer t h a n five years, even if Kahekili's conquest of Oahu occurred a year or two later than the date given by F o r n a n d e r . 11 T h e Hawaiian traditions about this invasion of Maui are partially confirmed by information given to Captains Portlock a n d Dixon at Kealakekua in May, 1786.

KAMEHAMEHA THE FOUNDER

35

struggle. For nearly four years peace prevailed, and this was the period in which the foreign trading ships began to make the islands a rendezvous and base of supplies. The Hawaiian chiefs, as mentioned in the preceding chapter, took advantage of this foreign intercourse to supply themselves with foreign implements of war. In the armament race of these years, Kamehameha certainly did not fall behind his competitors; the location of his territories probably gave him an advantage over them. Just at the end of 1788 Kamehameha secured a valuable ally in the chief Kaiana who returned to the islands on an English trading vessel and accepted an offer from Kamehameha to settle on Hawaii rather than go back to his former home on Kauai. Kaiana was an alii of high rank, a warrior of established repute, and his foreign travel had much enhanced his prestige; for several years he was one of Kamehameha's principal lieutenants and advisers. At the beginning of 1790, the sloop Fair American came into Kamehameha's possession in the manner described in the preceding chapter, and at the same time he acquired the services of John Young and Isaac Davis. By the spring months of 1790, Kamehameha evidently considered himself ready for another move on the checkerboard of war. This time he proposed to advance into the dominions of Kahekili; Keawemauhili, who, for some reason which can only be conjectured, had become reconciled with Kamehameha, sent a substantial contingent of canoes and warriors to aid him in the enterprise. Kahekili was living on Oahu at this time, having left his son Kalanikupule to govern Maui in his absence; Kaeo was on Kauai. Kalanikupule and the forces at his command were no match for the army of Kamehameha; they were driven finally into the narrow Iao valley back of Wailuku, where, according to native tradition, the greater part of them were slaughtered by the victorious Hawaii warriors. The dead bodies filled up the stream which flows out of the valley; hence the name that was given to the battle, Kepaniwai ("the damming of the waters"). Kalanikupule with a few companions got away over the mountains and made his escape to Oahu. After ravaging Maui and Lanai, Kamehameha went on to Molokai. His main purpose in going to Molokai was to effect a reconciliation with Kalola, kapu chiefess who was not only a widow of Kalaniopuu and sister to Kahekili but also the mother of Kiwalao and of his widow Kekuiapoiwa Liliha (half sister of Kiwalao). After the battle of Mokuohai, Kalola accompanied by Liliha and Keopuolani (infant daughter of Liliha and Kiwalao) had taken refuge with her brother Kahekili on Maui; and following the disaster in Iao valley, she fled to Molokai. Now she was ill, at the point of death, and agreed that when her life was ended, Kamehameha might take charge of Liliha and Keopuolani. He had not long to wait for the fulfilment of this promise. Keopuolani was of nearly the highest possible rank as an alii, considerably higher than Kamehameha. She afterwards became his wife and the mother of the two princes who followed him on the throne.

36

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

According to the Hawaiian traditions, Kamehameha, while waiting on Molokai, sent a messenger to Kahekili offering him peace or war, symbolically represented by two ulumaika stones, one white, the other black. Kahekili replied that Kamehameha should wait until the black kapa covered his (Kahekili's) body; then he could take possession of the dead chief's kingdom. Kamehameha sent also a messenger to a famous soothsayer of Kauai to find out by what means he could make himself master of the whole of Hawaii island. The reply was that he must build a great new heiau at Puukohola near Kawaihae for the god Kukailimoku. While Kamehameha was pursuing his victorious course on the neighboring islands, Keoua, angered at Keawemauhili for the part he had taken, invaded Hilo, defeated his uncle, and killed him. He then marched on into Hamakua and Kohala and began to lay waste the territories of Kamehameha. Therefore Kamehameha had to abandon, temporarily, his grand scheme of conquest, go back to his own island, and take up again the old struggle with his cousin. The armies of Kamehameha and Keoua came together in Hamakua and two battles were fought, but death was the only victor in these bloody combats. Kamehameha withdrew to Kohala. Keoua returned to Hilo, where he arranged for the government of that district, and then went on with his army, which was accompanied by a large number of women and children, toward his home in Kau. The path they followed ran by the crater of Kilauea. Wiiile they were encamped at that place, the volcano burst forth in a terrific explosive eruption, sending up dense clouds of smoke intermixed with stones, ashes, and suffocating gases. This was repeated at intervals for several days. Apparently, Keoua and his warriors were safe in their camp, but they were filled with terror and anxious to get away. On the third day they started out, in three divisions, but had not gone far when the most terrific eruption of the whole series took place, and the middle division of the army was caught in the midst of this appalling phenomenon and the warriors and the women and children were all killed. The reports indicate that most of them were asphyxiated but some may have been hit by falling stones. Four hundred persons are said to have lost their lives in this catastrophe. What could it mean, except that the goddess Pele was on the side of Kamehameha and had seized the opportunity to strike a blow at Keoua? 1 2 But if Keoua's morale was shaken, as well it might have been, he showed no immediate sign of weakness. He was in fact stronger by the addition of Hilo to his domain. Kamehameha assailed him on both flanks, sending Keeaumoku with a strong force to attack by way of Hamakua, while Kaiana with another division of warriors operated in Kau. But Keoua was able to beat off all these attacks. 12 Accounts of this disaster, based on statements of eye witnesses, are in Dibble, op. cit. 65-67, and in Polynesian, April 17, 1841. F o u r hundred, it may be noted, is a common Hawaiian round number. I n 1823 Wm. Ellis was told that eighty warriors lost their lives in this disaster; his i n f o r m a n t s apparently said nothing about women and children. Narrative of a Tour Through Hawaii (1917 ed.), 156, 186-187. T h e r e have been only two explosive eruptions of Kilauea in modern times, this one in 1790 and one in 1924.

KAMEHAMEHA T H E FOUNDER

37

In the meanwhile, Kamehameha gave thought to the words of the soothsayer and began the construction of the new temple for Kukailimoku on Puukohola near Kawaihae. The building of this heiau was a great and arduous undertaking. Priests were everywhere about; they selected the site, determined the orientation, the dimensions, and the arrangement of the structure, and at every stage performed the ritualistic ceremonies without which the work could not be acceptable to the gods. The common people came in relays from all parts of Kamehameha's dominions to carry stones for the walls and platforms of the heiau. The workers are said to have camped by thousands on the neighboring hillsides. Chiefs of high and low degree had a share in the labor; even Kamehameha carried stones, but his younger brother Keliimaikai was not allowed to do any menial labor, because it was necessary that one high chief should remain ceremonially clean in order to preside at the religious services. But Kamehameha was not allowed to finish this pious enterprise without interruption. War rolled back upon him from the leeward islands like a returning tide. Kahekili and Kaeo combined their forces and reoccupied Molokai and Maui, leaving Kalanikupule to govern Oahu. Embarking their warriors on a fleet of canoes, the two chieftains crossed over from Maui to the northern coast of Hawaii and committed serious depredations before Kamehameha could interpose to stop them. Realizing the seriousness of this invasion, animated as it was by a not unjustified desire for revenge and conquest, Kamehameha collected a large fleet, well manned, including double canoes armed with cannons, and the sloop Fair American; he is said to have placed John Young and Isaac Davis in command of his artillery. The leeward kings also had cannons, and foreigners to handle them, and when the two fleets came together not far from Waipio, Hawaii, the battle was long and sanguinary. It is celebrated in Hawaiian annals by the name Kepuwahaulaula ("the red-mouthed gun"). Kamehameha was victorious, and Kahekili and Kaeo went back to Maui and began immediately to prepare for the return invasion which they had every reason to expect from Kamehameha. The naval battle here spoken of occurred, probably, in April or May, 1791.13 Kamehameha took up again the building of the heiau, which held so bright a promise for his future, and that work was finished at some time during the summer. Then two of the great chiefs who had steadily supported him for the past nine years, Keaweaheulu and Kamanawa, were sent on an embassy to Keoua. Approaching him with all the customary formalities, the ambassadors urged Keoua to go with them to Kawaihae to meet Kamehameha face to face and to make peace with him; "You two shall then be the rulers." Such was the promise they made to him, according to Kamakau ; 14 but Kamakau only gives his choice of the legendary stories current in his day, and it is impossible to know definitely what u T h e date is fixed, with a f a i r degree of certainty, by statements in Quimper's diary rncntioned in Chap. 2. note 21, a n d in I n g r a h a m ' s j o u r n a l cited in Chap. 2, note 39. Both Quimper a n d I n g r a h a m were among the islands in the spring of 1791. " Op. eit., Chap. 25, in K N K , May 4, 1867.

38

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

Keaweaheulu and Kamanawa said to Keoua. But he consented to go with them, and the journey was made with all the stately and colorful pageantry which the Hawaiians know so well how to present. Keoua's action, as described in the traditional accounts, has the appearance of a fatalistic resignation to the doom which he clearly recognized as a possible issue of his journey to Kawaihae. Just before arriving at that place, he arranged his company so that he had with him in his own double canoe chiefs who would be proper death companions for him, while the others were ordered to go in another canoe with his younger brother Kaoleioku. Thus they entered the bay; on a hill overlooking it was the great new heiau; near the shore, with his retinue about him, was Kamehameha, resplendent in feather cloak and helmet. At some distance from each other the two kings exchanged greetings and then Keoua prepared to disembark from his canoe. But at that moment, Keeaumoku, who was nearby with a group of his retainers, hurled his spear at Keoua and after a brief struggle killed him. Keoua's immediate companions, those who were in his canoe, were likewise killed by Keeaumoku and his followers; then Kamehameha intervened to stop the slaughter and save the lives of Kaoleioku and those who were with him. The body of the dead chief was offered as a sacrifice on the altar of the new heiau of Puukohola. 15 There are several possible interpretations of this affair. Some accounts represent it as a bald act of treachery on the part of Kamehameha. It may have been such, but if it was, it simply shows that he belonged to the age in which he was born. On the other hand, it may be that Kamehameha was sincerely desirous of making peace with Keoua, and that his purpose was frustrated by the suspicious or vindictive impulsiveness of Keeaumoku. If Kamehameha did intend to make peace with Keoua, it could hardly have been on any other terms than an acknowledgment by Keoua of the suzerainty of Kamehameha, an arrangement similar to the one afterwards made between Kamehameha and Kaumualii of Kauai. Peace on any other basis would have been a mere truce. Upon the death of Keoua, his domain fell into the possession of Kamehameha and the latter incorporated it as an integral part of his own kingdom. Wisely, he devoted the next few years to works of peace, the organization and administration of his government, and the normal development of the resources of his territory, which now comprised the whole of the island of Hawaii. The kings of the leeward islands, after the severe defeats which Kamehameha had inflicted upon them, needed time for preparation before again challenging him. Therefore the islands enjoyed another period of peace, extending from the summer of 1791 to the summer of 1794. During this time, the foreign trade was actively cultivated, but the most interesting and significant incidents were the visits of Captain George Vancouver. 1 6 T h e death of Keoua occurred at some date between May and October, 1791, as shown by entries in Ingraham's journal previously cited. Ellis, op. cit., 156-157, gives a somewhat different account of events preceding the death of Keoua. I n regard to Kaoleioku and the relationship claimed by some writers to exist between him and Kamehameha, see the study by J . F . G. Stokes. " K a o l e i o k u : Paternity and Biographical S k e t c h , " in 43 H H S Report, 15-44.

KAMEHAMEHA THE

FOUNDER

39

VISITS OF CAPTAIN GEORGE VANCOUVER

Vancouver was in command of an official expedition sent out to the Pacific by the British government, having two main objects: ( 1 ) to receive from the Spanish authorities certain lands at Nootka Sound on the Northwest Coast of America allegedly seized from British subjects by a Spanish naval officer; ( 2 ) to complete the exploration of the Northwest Coast which had been begun by Captain Cook. Vancouver was instructed to winter at the Sandwich Islands on his way to the coast and to make a survey of this group; if he had any additional secret instructions respecting these islands, they have not been disclosed. H e had two vessels under his command, the Discovery and the Chatham, while a third ship, the Daedalus, joined the squadron twice with cargoes of supplies. Vancouver had been at the islands with Captain Cook; in the present period, he made three visits (March, 1792; February-March, 1793; January-March, 1794). 1 0 His first visit was so short that it amounted to little more than a reconnaissance ; he saw neither Kamehameha nor Kahekili; but at Kauai he met the future king of that island, Kaumualii, son of Kaeo and Kamakahelei, and gives a very pleasing account of him. During the second and third visits, Vancouver met all of the important chiefs on all the islands and formed fairly accurate estimates of their character—favorable in most cases; but he conceived a deep distrust of Kaiana and Kameeiamoku. In all his relations with the chiefs and their people, he tried to win their confidence, to keep all temptation out of their way, and to prevent any possibility of altercations or misunderstandings. H e recognized the superior position of Kamehameha and was most assiduous in cultivating his friendship, a policy that was fully and heartily reciprocated by Kamehameha. On seeing the latter for the first time after the fourteen years since his previous visit to the islands, Vancouver wrote: "I was agreeably surprized in finding that his riper years had softened that stern ferocity which his younger days had exhibited, and had changed his general deportment to an address characteristic of an open, cheerful, and sensible mind; combined with great generosity, and goodness of disposition." 17 In his subsequent relations with the Hawaiian king, Vancouver had no cause to revise this judgment; his final comment was that Kamehameha's conduct had been "of the most princely nature". 1 8 Vancouver gives us a glimpse of Kaahumanu, the young and favorite wife of Kamehameha, who afterwards played a role second only to his in 10 T h e official a c c o u n t of t h e v o y a g e is b y V a n c o u v e r h i m s e l f , A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean . . . in the Years 1790, 1791, ¡791793, '794 and 1795 . . . M y citat i o n s a r e to t h e second e d i t i o n , in six v o l u m e s ( L o n d o n , 1801). T h i s w o r k gives a v e r y l o n g a c c o u n t of his p r o c e e d i n g s w h i l e at t h e H a w a i i a n i s l a n d s . T h e f o l l o w i n g j o u r n a l s by m e m b e r s of t h e e x p e d i t i o n f u r n i s h s o m e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n : A r c h i b a l d M e n z i e s , Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago. Edited by W . F. Wilson (Honolulu, 1920). T h o m a s M a n b y , " J o u r n a l of V a n c o u v e r ' s V o y a g e t o t h e P a c i f i c O c e a n ( 1 7 9 1 - 1 7 9 3 ) " , i n Honolulu Mercury, Vol. I, J u n e , J u l y , A u g u s t , 1929. E d w a r d Bell, " I , o g of t h e C h a t h a m " , in Honolulu Mercurv, Vol. I , S e p t . , O c t . , N o v . , 1929; Vol. I I , Dec., 1929, J a n . , 1930. 11 V a n c o u v e r , op. cit.. I l l , 203. 13 O r i g i n a l s i g n e d s t a t e m e n t by V a n c o u v e r , d a t e d M a r c h 2, 1794, in A H .

40

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

importance. She was the daughter of Keeaumoku. In 1793 she appeared to the British commander "to be about sixteen, and undoubtedly did credit to the choice and taste of Tamaahmaah, being one of the finest women we had yet seen on any of the islands. It was pleasing to observe the kindness and fond attention, with which on all occasions they seemed to regard each other . . . " l s On his return the next year, Vancouver was pained to learn that Kaahumanu had gone back to her parents; Kamehameha had suspected her of a flirtation with Kaiana—which would not have been strange, since Kaiana was a handsomer man than the king. Vancouver could easily see that Kamehameha longed to have his beautiful queen back again but was too proud to make the first advance, and he describes with much satisfaction the stratagem devised and carried out by himself and the king, by which the royal pair was happily reunited. 20 Vancouver had a genuine and philanthropic interest in the Hawaiian people and studied to find means of promoting their happiness and prosperity. He was especially anxious that they should live at peace with each other and with the foreigners who visited them. His resolute opposition to the traffic in firearms and ammunition was mentioned in the preceding chapter. As he visited the different islands he was shocked by visible evidence of devastation caused by the recent wars, and he spent many hours talking with the governing chiefs about the advantages of peace. At one time when the subject was under discussion, Kamehameha said he would be willing to make peace with Kahekili if the latter would cede to him Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe—terms which Vancouver considered exorbitant and wholly impractical. After much further argument, the Hawaii king and his counsellors professed their readiness to make peace on the basis of the existing territorial division, provided Vancouver could get the leeward kings to accept that basis and to send an ambassador to Hawaii to conclude and rafify the treaty of peace. 21 The chiefs of the leeward islands were very willing to make peace on the basis mentioned, but they had an unconquerable distrust of Kamehameha and his advisors. In spite of their skepticism, however, they agreed to send an ambassador to Hawaii, who was to go armed with a letter from Vancouver to John Young. 22 They acted in good faith, but some untoward circumstance defeated the movement for peace. 23 Vancouver's vision could not penetrate the future; it wa$, no doubt, fortunate in the long run that his benevolent effort failed. In keeping with his general policy, Vancouver introduced horned cattle into the islands, thereby laying the foundation of the Hawaiian cattle industry—and incidentally, though unwittingly, contributing to the upset of nature's balance in Hawaii. Vancouver put himself to considerable trouble to effect this introduction, which he felt sure would not only be of advantage to the native people but would also enhance the value of " Vancouver, o f . cit., I l l , 204-205. 20 Ibid., V. 10-11, 40-47. "Ibid., I l l , 260-267. 22 Ibid., I l l , 300-303, 306-307, 313, 317-322, 359. "Ibid., V, 82-85.

K A M E H A M E H A T H E FOUNDER

41

the islands as a commercial depot and rendezvous. The cattle, together with some sheep, were brought from California and most of them were given to Kamehameha, who, at the demand of Vancouver, put a kapu upon them for a period of ten years. They were taken to the upland plain of Waimea, to the eastward of Kawaihae, which was stated to be very rich and productive, occupying a space of several miles in extent, and winding at the foot of . . . lofty mountains far into the country. In this valley is a great tract of luxuriant, natural pasturage, whither all the cattle and sheep . . . were to be driven, there to roam unrestrained, to "increase and multiply" far from the sight of strangers.*"

Vancouver likewise imported goats and geese, to supplement those introduced by earlier navigators, and he distributed among the chiefs on the different islands grapevines, orange and almond trees, and a variety of garden seeds.25 Vancouver established a firm basis for a British-Hawaiian entente by bringing about what he calls a "cession" of the island of Hawaii to Great Britain. The cession was made on February 25, 1794, just prior to Vancouver's final departure from the islands, but it had been discussed the year before. Vancouver mentions the 1793 discussion of the subject, 26 but his account makes it appear that the cession was a purely voluntary act on the part of Kamehameha and rather conveys the impression that the idea originated with the Hawaiian chief. But the journal of Archibald Menzies, naturalist of the expedition, records that early in March, 1793, while a great number of chiefs and natives were assembled at Kealakekua Bay, Captain Vancouver was very urgent with Kamehameha to take this opportunity of declaring himself and his subjects, together with the whole island, under the dominion of Great Britain, but this he positively declined doing unless Captain Vancouver would promise to leave one of the vessels behind at the island to assist in defending him and his people from the inroads of their enemies, which was certainly a very strong and reasonable argument."

The journal of Thomas Manby describes the same incident in very similar terms. 28 In 1794, Vancouver renewed the discussion of the previous year and at this time Kamehameha, with the approval of his chiefs, made what the British commander calls "the most solemn cession possible of the Island of Owhyhee to his Britannic Majesty, . . . and himself with the attending chiefs unanimously acknowledged themselves subject to the British crown." 29 Native Hawaiian accounts relate the matter somewhat differently; they say that "Kamehameha did not mean to give away the land but only to ask aid for Hawaii". 30 The native histories were * Ibid., I l l , 165, 191-192, 201, 204, 213; V, 17-18, 89-90, 107, 128. T h e quotation is f r o m • o l u m e V, page 107.' See the chapter on " N a t u r e ' s Balance in H a w a i i " by K. H . Bryan, J r . , in H a n d y et al., Ancient Hawaiian Civilization, 265-271. "Ibid., I , 353, 356, 401; I I I , 334. M Ibid., V, 47-48. 21 Menzies, op. cit., 93. "9 Honolulu Mercury, Aug. 1929, p. 45. Document cited above, note 18. F o r full account of the discussion and cession, see Vancouver, op. cit., V . 27-28, 47-53. 80-81. 88-97. 80 W . D. Westervelt, " K a m e h a m e h a ' s Cession of the Island of Hawaii to Great Britain in 1794," in 22 H H S Report, 19-24. T h e statement quoted is on p. 21.

42

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

written long after the event under the influence of American missionaries and may for that reason be somewhat biased. But the discussion in 1793 and the contemporary accounts of the cession by Vancouver and others leave no doubt as to what was in the minds of the Hawaiian chiefs. They wanted protection from their enemies. From their standpoint, the transaction was in the nature of a defensive alliance or it amounted to the establishment of a protectorate by Great Britain over the dominions of Kamehameha. Vancouver states that in all the speeches t h e i r r e l i g i o n , g o v e r n m e n t , a n d d o m e s t i c o e c o n o m y [ j i c ] w a s n o t i c e d ; a n d it w a s clearly understood, that n o interference w a s to take place in either; that Tamaahmaah, t h e c h i e f s a n d p r i e s t s , w e r e to c o n t i n u e a s u s u a l t o officiate w i t h t h e s a m e a u t h o r i t y a s b e f o r e . . . a n d t h a t n o a l t e r a t i o n in t h o s e p a r t i c u l a r s w a s in a n y d e g r e e t h o u g h t o f o r intended. 3 1

Nothing has ever come to light to show that the British government accepted the cession or even took any official cognizance of it until many years later when its legal force as a cession must long since have lapsed. While Vancouver consistently refused to give firearms and ammunition to the Hawaiian chiefs or to use such commodities in bartering for supplies, he nevertheless aided Kamehameha in some ways which could be turned to warlike advantage. While at Kealakekua in 1793 he rigged one of Kamehameha's largest double canoes with a full suit of canvas sails, sloop fashion, and gave him a union jack and a pennant. 32 He left in charge of John Young a dozen skyrockets and a half dozen hand grenades with the injunction that they were to be used only for the protection of Kamehameha. 33 In 1794 Vancouver ordered his carpenters to assist in the construction of a foreign style vessel for the king and furnished the ironwork, masts, and sails needed to complete and equip the vessel, which was named The Britannia.Si And there is good evidence to show that Vancouver promised Kamehameha that a man-of-war armed with brass guns and loaded with European articles would be sent to him by the British government, a promise that was redeemed many years later in the reign of Kamehameha II. 3 5 This promise is not mentioned by Vancouver, but it may very well have been one of the arguments used by him to induce Kamehameha to make the "cession" of his kingdom to Great Britain. Hawaiian tradition affirms that Vancouver talked with Kamehameha about the Christian God and told him that if he wished to worship that true God he (Vancouver) would try to have a clergyman sent from England to Hawaii. 36 Vancouver says nothing on this subject and we 31

Vancouver, op. cit., V, 94. - Ibid., I l l , 274. Ibid., I l l , 259-260. «Ibid., V, 28-30, 34, 86-88. « C a m p b e l l , Voyage Round the World (4 Am. ed.), 114-115; Daniel T y e r m a n and George Bennet, Journal of Voyages and Travels . . . between the years 1821 and 1829. Compiled f r o m original documents by James Montgomery (2 vols. London, 1831), I, 351, 392, 435-436, 479481; Gilbert F . Mathison, Narrative of a Visit to Brazil, Chile, Peru and the Sandwich Islands, during the years 1821 and 1822 . . . (London, 1825), 441. 30 Ka Mooolelo Hawaii, translation in Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 76 ( J a n . 1839). s

33

KAMEHAMEHA T H E FOUNDER

43

have no present means of discovering the historical basis of the story. In 1827, Piia, one of the widows of Kamehameha, made a statement which is, probably, nearer the truth than later forms of the tradition. In conversation with Levi Chamberlain, one of the American missionaries, she said that Vancouver had spoken to Kamehameha "concerning the true God whose dwelling was above and had told him to receive missionaries and listen to their instruction if any should ever come."37 Another Englishman, John Howel, who is said to have been an ordained clergyman and who was in Hawaii about the same time as Vancouver, is reported to have talked with Kamehameha about the Christian God.38 Of the time that Vancouver spent at the islands, far the greater part was passed in the dominions of Kamehameha and under the watchful eye and protection of that chieftain. A strong friendship sprang up between the two. Gifts were exchanged and entertainments provided. The native history, Ka Mooolelo Hawaii (1838), in its account of Vancouver's visits, includes the following details: Vancouver taught Kamehameha's men how to drill as a body of soldiers. Vancouver also said to Kamehameha, "Do not permit foreigners to settle in Hawaii. Two only should stay, Olohana [John Young] and Aikake [Isaac Davis]. Most of the foreigners are men of very bad character, evil-hearted, desiring to secure lands, but not the right people to dwell thereon. They will lead you astray.""

Vancouver himself says that he counseled Kamehameha against permitting evil-disposed foreigners to remain in Hawaii. 40 Aside, however, from the advice given by the British naval officer to the Hawaiian king, it can hardly be gainsaid that Vancouver's patronage of Kamehameha greatly enhanced the prestige of the latter and was a factor in his subsequent success. Vancouver's relations with Young and Davis had historical significance. In his book he repeatedly speaks in high praise of those humble British seamen who in a short space of time had become Hawaiian chiefs. He offered them the opportunity of returning to their native land, but heartily approved their decision to stay where they were. He believed they could be of essential service in strengthening the alliance between Hawaii and Great Britain and in helping to make the islands a safe and convenient resort for the commerce of all nations. His own conduct towards them was such as to raise them in the estimation of the natives. He strongly advised them to continue in the good course they had marked Levi Chamberlain, Journal, Oct. 4, 1827, M S in H M C S Library. T h e r e is a brief discussion of this question in H e n r y Bond Restarick, Hawaii, 1778-1920, from the Viewpoint of a Bishop . . . (Honolulu, 1924), 25-26. See also Manley Hopkins, Hawaii; 1 he Past, Present, and Future of Its Island-Kingdom. An historical account of the Sandwich Islands (Polynesia) (2 ed. London, 1866, and New York, 1869), 132-133, who asserts that the Hawaiian chiefs asked Vancouver to have religious instructors sent to them f r o m England and t h a t Vancouver brought the matter to the attention of P r i m e Minister William Pitt. Hopkins was a n Englishman who wrote about the time the English Episcopal Church was being established in H a w a i i ; his book is strongly colored by the latter circumstance. 38 Restarick, op. cit.. Chap. 2; Cleveland, Narrative of Voyages and Commercial Enterprises, I, 233-234. 39 1 follow here the translation in Westervelt, op. cit., 20. T h e translation in Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 76 ( J a n . 1839) is slightly different. 40 Vancouver, op. cit., V, 114.

44

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

out for themselves, and he obtained a pledge from Kamehameha and the other principal chiefs to accord them protection for their persons and property. 41 Vancouver's confidence was not misplaced. One of the interesting questions in Hawaiian history relates to these three Britishers ; it is difficult to tell whether Vancouver or Young and Davis had the greater influence in pointing Kamehameha in the right direction. But it must be said that none of these foreigners could have had much weight in the long run if Kamehameha's character had not been basically sound. Vancouver's intercourse with the chiefs of the leeward islands was friendly but lacked the confidential quality that characterized his relations with Kamehameha. With Kahekili Vancouver had an account to settle, for it was in his domain, at Waimea, Oahu, that two officers and a seaman of the storeship Daedalus had been killed, and Vancouver was determined that that foul deed should be atoned for. He was told that three of the natives implicated in the affair had been executed by order of KaTiekili, but three or four others were said to be still at large and Vancouver insisted that justice required their punishment as well. Kahekili readily agreed and appointed his younger brother to go to Oahu with Vancouver and see that the business was attended to."The Discovery anchored off Waikiki, and in or near that place three natives were arrested and charged with having had a part in the killing of the English officers. After an extended inquiry, the three accused men were pronounced guilty and were shot to death with a pistol in the hands of a native executioner in a canoe alongside the Discovery. Vancouver was fully satisfied of their guilt, but there is much testimony indicating rather conclusively that they were innocent and that the guiltiest person of all, a minor chief, wholly escaped punishment. 42 Vancouver intended this episode to be a useful lesson to the native chiefs and people; but occurrences at Oahu within the next year strongly suggest that it did not have the desired effect. KAMEHAMEHA UNITES THE ISLANDS

In the spring or summer of 1794, some time after Vancouver's final departure from the islands, the aged King Kahekili died at Waikiki, Oahu. His kingdom comprised the islands of Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Oahu; and he controlled Kauai indirectly, through his brother Kaeo. At his death, these extensive dominions fell to Kaeo and Kalanikupule, brother and son of the old king, but the native accounts are not in agreement regarding the division of the succession. Kamakau states that Kaeo became king of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai—retaining, of course, Kauai— and he speaks of Kalanikupule as king of Oahu. 43 Fornander, without "Ibid., I I I . 204, 235, 283-284; V, 109-113, 115-116; George Godwin, Vancouver: A Life, 1757-1798 ( N e w York, 1931), 276-277. 42 Vancouver, op. cit., I l l , 291, 296-300, 307-309, 322, 341-355; Broughton, Voyage of Discovery . . . in the years 1795, ¡796, ¡797, 1798, 42; Kamakau, op. cit.. Chap. 28, in K N K , M a y 25, 1867; Dibble, History of the Sandwich Islands (1843), 46; Jarves, History of the Hawaiian Islands (3 ed.), 85; H i r a m Bingham, A Residence of Twenty-one Years in the Sandwich Islands . . . (3 ed. H a r t f o r d , 1849), 44; H . Bingham to R. Anderson, Nov. 14, 1832, M L , V, 1418-1419. Kamakau, op. cit., Chap. 28, in K N K , May 25, 1867.

KAMEHAMEHA THE FOUNDER

45

naming his authority, says that on the death of the old king, Kalanikupule was recognized as sovereign of Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Oahu, but that Kaeo continued to govern the three first named islands, as he had done for several years, while Kalanikupule ruled over Oahu. 44 These statements suggest that there may have been a dispute over the succession. At any rate, it is fairly certain that, at the moment of Kahekili's death, Kaeo was on Maui and Kalanikupule on Oahu; and it is well known that the two chiefs very soon drifted into a war whose consequences were fatal to both. At some time during the summer or fall of 1794, Kaeo, remembering "with feelings of affection," as Kamakau puts it, "his own government, chiefs, and people on Kauai," 45 decided to return to that island, from which he had been absent for several years. After making the necessary preparations, he sailed from Maui with his chiefs and soldiers; made a short stay on Molokai; and then continued his journey, going around the northern side of Oahu. He paused off Waimanalo, across the mountains from Waikiki, planning, apparently, to land and rest in that district before crossing to Kauai. He was opposed by the forces of Kalanikupule and some fighting occurred; but presently the two kings got together and peace was restored. After a few days, Kaeo continued on around the island to Waianae, which was to be his point of departure for Kauai. While resting there, he learned that some of his chiefs were conspiring against him. To circumvent this plot and furnish an outlet for the restless and covetous energy of his followers, Kaeo proposed an attack on Kalanikupule and the conquest of Oahu. The strategem was successful and all trace of disaffection was wiped out; some Oahu warriors from Waianae and Waialua are said to have joined the invaders; and the march toward Waikiki was begun. This was about the middle of November, 1794. The campaign extended over a period of several weeks. In the first encounters, Kaeo was successful and his army advanced through the Ewa district to the vicinity of Aiea, where the decisive battle was fought on the twelfth of December. While the campaign was in progress and when the fortunes of Kalanikupule were looking rather desperate, three foreign trading vessels entered the harbor of Honolulu. 46 Two of them, the Jackall and the Prince Lee Boo, were English ships under the general direction of Cap-

are:

" Fornander, o f . ext., I I , 242, 262. " Kamakau, loc. cit. 46 F o r the happenings at Oahu, Nov. 1794-Jan. 179S, the principal sources of information

Rev. S. Greatheed. a manuscript of which we have only some extracts published in the Friend, X I X (1862), 42-43; written before 1800 and based partly on statements by participants in the events described. J o h n Boit, journal of voyage on the sloop Union, cited above. Chap. 2, note 38, entry f o r Oct. 16, 1795; based on statements of John Young. Letter f r o m George Lamport and William Bonallack, officers on the Jackall and Prince Lee Boo, to Tohn Young and Isaac Davis, dated J a n . 14, 1795, printed in Diary of Andrew Bloxam (B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 10). 93-94. Dibble, History of the Sandwich Islands (1843), 67-71; f r o m native sources. Kamakau, op. cit., Chap. 29, in K N K , J u n e 1, 1867. There is considerable discrepancy and some contradiction between these sources. I n t h e main, I follow Greatheed and the letter of Lamport and Bonallack, which I believe to be the most accurate of them.

46

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

tain William Brown, who had personal command of the Jackall.*'' The third vessel was the American ship Lady Washington, under command of Captain John Kendrick. All of these ships and their captains were well known at the islands, where they had been frequent visitors over a period of several years. Brown is believed to have been the first foreigner to examine the harbor of Honolulu and one or more of his ships the first to enter that harbor (probably in 1792 or 1793). The Jackall and the Prince Lee Boo arrived on November 21, 1794, the Lady Washington on December 3. In the emergency confronting him, Kalanikupule sought and obtained assistance from Captain Brown (and possibly also from Captain Kendrick, although this is doubtful). Brown furnished guns and ammunition, and, as Kaeo continued to advance, the mate of the Jackall, George Lamport, and eight sailors from the English ships volunteered to fight for the Oahu king. In the final battle, between Kalauao and Aiea, the Englishmen were stationed in boats along the shore inside the eastern arm of what is now called Pearl Harbor. Kalanikupule gained a decisive victory and Kaeo was killed. Captain Brown celebrated the victory by firing a salute. One of the saluting guns on the Jackall was, through an oversight, loaded with round and grape shot, and this shot passed through the side of the Lady Washington, killing Captain Kendrick and several of his crew. 48 Shortly afterwards, the Lady Washington sailed for Canton under command of James Rowan. Success inflated the ambition of Kalanikupule and his chiefs and they began to dream of conquering Kamehameha. They thought perhaps that possession of foreign ships would make them invincible— such ships as the two that still lay at anchor in Honolulu harbor. A cunning plot was formed and on the first day of January, 1795, the Jackall and the Prince Lee Boo were captured, the two captains, Brown and Gordon, were killed, and the surviving members of the crews were made prisoners. Being in possession of the ships, with a large quantity of arms and ammunition, Kalanikupule determined to strike immediately at Kamehameha. The crews of the Jackall and the Prince Lee Boo were compelled to fit the vessels for sea, and on January 12, all being ready, the king, his chiefs, and some other natives went on board and the ships were warped « I n regard to Brown's activities at the islands and his relations with the Hawaiian chiefs, a very interesting subject, see my article " A Northwest T r a d e r at the Hawaiian Islands, Sin Quarterlyo n o of the Oregon Historical Society, X X I V , 111-131 (June, 1923)- and tok< tJci n * . VS, J u I V a n i? S o n ; e N e w Speculative Phases of Hawaiian H i s t o r y , " in 42 h l H S Keport, 40-102. stokes formulates some speculative hypotheses which a r e exceedingly interesting but need considerable corroboration b e f o r e they can be accepted. It would be interesting to discuss the subject f u r t h e r but lack of space forbids.

wiuci s u u i t c s uu nui mention nenaricK a n a tne L,aay

Washington.

KAMEHAMEHA THE FOUNDER

47

out of the harbor and anchored off Waikiki. In the meantime, the two mates, Lamport and Bonallack, arranged a plan for retaking the vessels that night. It was a desperate venture but turned out successfully; the natives on board were killed or driven off, with the exception of the king, queen, and a few of their personal attendants. The ships put out to sea but at daybreak came again near the shore and placed the king and queen in a canoe; then made all sail for the island of Hawaii. There the two mates, being now in command of the ships, left a letter for Young and Davis, informing them of the recent happenings at Oahu, obtained supplies, and departed for Canton. 49 At this supreme moment of opportunity, Kamehameha was ready; he had a large army well trained and equipped, and a fleet of canoes sufficient to transport his warriors across the inter-island channels. Marshaling his forces, he moved quickly to the attack. First Maui, then Molokai fell to his possession, and from the latter island he crossed to Oahu. Just here, Kamehameha suffered the only serious defection of his whole career; Kaiana, about whose loyalty he had come to have much doubt, deserted with part or all of his followers and went over to the side of Kalanikupule. The loss while serious was not fatal. Landing at Waikiki and Waialae, Kamehameha's warriors advanced, with some skirmishes, across the plain to Nuuanu valley, where the Oahu forces elected to make a stand. The latter fought stubbornly but were dislodged from their strong position on a steep slope and driven up the valley, the retreat turning finally into a rout. Some warriors escaped over the mountain ridges on either side of the valley, a few made their way down the trail into the Koolau district, and some were simply tumbled over the pali at the upper end of the valley and dashed to destruction on the rocks below. Kamehameha's artillery, served by foreigners, played an important part in the battle. Kaiana was killed in the fighting; Kalanikupule wandered miserably in the mountains for several months but was finally captured and sacrificed to the war god Kukailimoku. 60 The battle of Nuuanu was fought in the spring or summer of 1795. After that decisive victory, Kamehameha remained on Oahu while he completed the pacification of the conquered islands and prepared for the next campaign, by which he expected to get possession of Kauai and its dependency Niihau. Visitors to the islands in October, 1795, and in the following February learned of the preparations he was making. 51 In the spring of 1796, Kamehameha attempted to transport his army to Kauai, ,fl T h e native accounts (Dibble and K a m a k a u ) say that the arms and ammunition on the ships (or at least the part that had belonged to Kalanikupule) were delivered to Kamehameha. " K a m a k a u , op. cit., Chap. 30, in K N K , J u n e 8, 1867; Fornander, op. cit., I I , 343-348; Jarves, op. cit., 91-92; Charles Bishop, Commercial Journal . . . of Ship Rubys voyage to NWt. coast of America and China, 1794-5-6, u n d e r date Feb. 28, 1796, typewritten copy in A H . Bishop gives a rather long but somewhat confused account of this campaign, some of his statements being obviously wrong. 51 Boit, loc. cit.; Bishop, toe. cit.; Broughton, op. cit., 40-42.

48

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,

1778-1854

which at the time was in a distracted condition politically. 5 1 4 Kauai had, however, a strong defense in the fact that it lies far to leeward separated f r o m Oahu by a wide and rough, sometimes tempestuous channel. A strong wind and a boisterous sea swamped many of Kamehameha's canoes and compelled him to postpone the invasion. 5 2 Thereafter, for more than a dozen years, the subjugation of Kauai remained on the agenda as unfinished business. While Kamehameha had been tarrying on Oahu, busy with his plans for adding Kauai to his dominions, a rebellion broke out on his home island led by Namakeha, brother of Kaiana. This made it necessary for him to g o back to Hawaii ( 1 7 9 6 ) in order to reestablish his supremacy there. 5 3 Maui and Oahu had been so thoroughly subdued that there was little danger of revolt on those islands. Hence Kamehameha remained on Hawaii for about six years, enjoying the fruits of his victories, organizing and directing his government, encouraging the peaceful activities of his subjects, and carrying on a trade with the foreign ships which came to the islands. A n d during these years he was getting ready for the attack on Kauai, which was to be the climactic adventure of his career. Recognizing the formidable character of the undertaking and being instructed by his previous experience, he now had his artisans make double canoes of a special type, called peleleu, long and deep, with a covered platform and foreign style sails. A vast fleet of these canoes was brought into being— Kamakau says there were more than eight hundred of them, a number which seems hardly credible. 5 4 Besides the canoes, Kamehameha had a squadron of small schooners built by his foreign carpenters; and through his trading operations he accumulated a large supply of muskets, cannons, and ammunition. 5 5 In 1802 he moved with his army and fleet to 5I « A note on Kauai developments may be useful. It will be remembered that in 1779 the boy chief Keawe was placed on the throne by his mother Kamakahelei and her newly acquired husband Kaco. Shortly afterwards, probably in 1780, a son, Kaumualii, was born to Kaeo and Kamakahelei. Thereafter, it appears, Kaeo maneuvered to place Kaumualii on the throne of Kauai. Visitors to the islands from 1786 to 1791 speak of Kaeo as king of that island. Evidently he had displaced Keawe and was perhaps acting as regent for his son Kaumualii. About the beginning of 1791, Kaeo l e f t Kauai to help his brother Kahekili and as matters turned out he did not return. In 1792, 1793, and 1794, Vancouver saw the young prince- Kaumualii and a chief named Inamoo who was acting as regent in the absence of Kaeo. Kaeo was killed in the fighting on Oahu at the end of 1794, Inamoo died, and Kaumualii thus became king. But in February, 1796, Broughton and Bishop found a civil war in progress on Kauai, where Keawe was attempting to wrest the throne from Kaumualii. When Broughton returned in July, 1796, Keawe was in full control and Kaumualii lived with him divested of all power. But within a year or two Keawe died and Kaumualii was thus restored to the throne. M Kamakau, loc. cit.; Broughton, op. cit.., 44-45, 71, 73-74. At a later time currency was given to a story originating on Kauai to the effect that Kamehameha's army landed on that island and was disastrously .defeated. A. F. Knudsen, "The Defeat of Kamehameha's Army", in Haw'n Annual, 1914, pp. 136-141. But this story is wholly discredited by J. M. Lydgate, a careful and well informed student of Kauai history (36 H H S Report, 28-31), and by J. F. G. Stokes, who has made a recent study of the subject (45 H H S Report, 30-46). 63

Kamakau, op. cit., Chaps. 30, 31, in K N K , J u n e 8, 15, 1867; Broughton, op. cit., 69-71. Kamakau, op. cit., Chap. 34. in K N K , July 20, 1867. For a description of a peleleu canoe, see The Diary of Ebenezer Townsend, Jr. ( H H S Reprints, No. 4), p. 23. 55 Urey Lisiansky, A Voyage Round the World, in the years 1S03, 4, 5, & 6, . . . in the ship Neva (London. 1814), 133. 54

KAMEHAMEHA THE

FOUNDER

49

Maui, sojourned there for a year, and then went on to Oahu, where he arrived sometime in the fall of 1803 or the early part of 1804. 56 Turning now to Kauai, we find that island under the rule of King Kaumualii. H e knew full well how seriously his independence was endangered by the ambitious designs of Kamehameha, whose activities he watched with anxious interest; but he was not yet willing to surrender without a struggle, and he made such preparations for defense as lay within the limits of his resources. Some foreigners in his service were building a ship f o r him and he had formed a desperate resolution to escape from his powerful rival, if bad came to worst, by going away in the ship to China or to some island in the south Pacific. 57 In July, 1803, Kamehameha, while still at Lahaina, sent a message to Kaumualii by the hand of an American ship captain, demanding that the Kauai king acknowledge Kamehameha as his sovereign. 58 The message was disregarded by Kaumualii. In the spring of the following year, Kamehameha, having collected his forces at Oahu, was about ready for the attack on Kauai when a terrible foreign disease made its appearance on Oahu and spread swiftly among the people, decimating the population and destroying the flower of his army. 5 9 What this disease was has never been definitely determined; the natives called it mai okuu; it has been surmised that it may have been cholera or possibly the bubonic plague. The disease took hold of Kamehameha himself but he succeeded in breaking its grip. T w o of the great chiefs who had stood by him for twenty years were carried off by it; the other members of that powerful coalition had already passed away. Necessarily, the attack on Kauai was again postponed. The next six years were an interesting period in Hawaiian history. Kamehameha did not abandon the intention of bringing Kauai under his control, and he continued to make military and naval preparations for an invasion of the western island if that should be necessary. In 1805, by exchange with an American trader, William Shaler, he obtained the " K a m e h a m e h a was on Hawaii in December, 1801. Delano, op. cit., 391. A year later he was on Maui. John Turnbull, A Voyage Round the World in the years 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, and ¡804 . . . (2 ed. London, 1813), 2C4. He was still on Maui in the latter part of J u n e , 1803. Cleveland, op. cit., I, 230. But in the early part of June, 1804, he was on Oahu, and had probably been there for several months at least. Lisiansky, op. cit., 100, 133. 67 Turnbull, op. cit., 213-214. F o r a fuller account of Kaumualii and his relations with Kamehameha, see J. M. Lydgate, "Ka-umu-alii, The Last King of Kauai", in 24 H H S Report, 21-43, and R. S. Kuyker. .lall, " N e w Light on Relations Between Kaumualii, King of Kauai, and Kamehameha, U n i t e r of Islands", in Paradise of the Pacific, Vol. X X V I , No. 8 (Aug. 1923), pp. 9-12. T h e rather flippant sub-heads in the latter article were inserted by the editor of the magazine. 68 Cleveland, op. cit., I , 232. The reference indicates that this was not the first such message sent by Kamehameha. » Lisiansky, op. cit., 111-112, 133; " H a w a i i a n Epidemics", in Haw'n Annual, 1897, pp. 95-97. Native accounts say the disease spread to the other islands and carried off more than half the population; the latter statement is probably the result of legendary exaggeration. Shaler, who was at the islands in 1803 and 1805, makes no mention of the epidemic in his j o u r n a l (cited below), which he certainly would have done if the deaths had been as numerous as t h e native accounts indicate.

50

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

Lelia Byrd, a ship of 175 tons, 60 and this ship, after being repaired, became the flagship of his navy. He kept his shipbuilders busy and Campbell reports that in the beginning of 1810 the king had more than thirty small sloops and schooners hauled up on the shore at Waikiki and about a dozen more in Honolulu harbor, besides the Lelia Byrd.61 Kamehameha tried also the effect of diplomacy and in this he was aided by the foreign traders who visited the islands. During these years the sandalwood trade was getting started and was dangling before the eyes of the Hawaiian chiefs and the foreign traders an alluring prospect of wealth, which would certainly have been injured by a renewal of war. Kamehameha was a keen trader who thoroughly enjoyed his business dealings with the haoles. The foreign traders, friendly to both the kings, were attracted by the pleasing personality of Kaumualii and sympathized with him in his desire to be independent, but at the same time they recognized the superior ability and strength of Kamehameha and his greater fitness for being the supreme ruler of the islands. Holding these views and being anxious to prevent any interruption of trade, the foreigners did their best to bring the two kings to a peaceful adjustment of their relations with each other. Much distrust had to be overcome. Messages were exchanged and ambassadors, both native and foreign, passed back and forth between the two islands. 62 As early as 1805, Kamehameha stated that he would be satisfied with Kaumualii's "acknowledging him as sovereign, and paying him an annual tribute." 63 Kaumualii professed his willingness to acknowledge Kamehameha as his superior lord, but the latter insisted that the Kauai king should go to Oahu and make his submission in person, a thing which Kaumualii, remembering, perhaps, the fate of Keoua, was very reluctant to do. 84 Finally, however, in 1810, an American trader, Captain Nathan Winship, assuming the role of mediator, persuaded Kaumualii to go with him to Honolulu to arrange matters with Kamehameha. Captain Winship is said to have left his first mate on Kauai as a hostage to guarantee the good faith of Kamehameha. The two kings met face to face and it was settled that Kauai should be a tributary kingdom and that Kaumualii should continue to govern the island, acknowledging Kamehameha as his suzerain. Some chiefs are said to have formed a secret plan to kill Kaumualii while he was at Honolulu; Isaac Davis, learning of the plot, con00 William Shaler, Journal of a Voyage between China and the Northwestern Coast of America, Made in 1804 (Claremont, Calif., 1935), 101-102. This journal is reprinted f r o m The American Register (Philadelphia), Vol. I l l (1808), pp. 137-175. 81 Campbell, Voyage Round the World (4 Am. ed.), 119-120. 62 See the accounts by Cleveland, Shaler, Delano, and Iselin previously cited. M Shaler, op. cit., 103. 6i T h e Spaniard Francisco de Paula Marin, a resident of Honolulu, records in his diary (translated extracts made by R. C. Wyllie, in A H ) Feb. 3, 1810, t h a t the king of Kauai had sent tribute to Kamehameha. Doubtless Kaumualii hoped by this means to avoid the necessity of going to Honolulu himself.

KAMEHAMEHA THE

FOUNDER

51

trived to prevent its being carried out; the plotters then turned against Davis and caused his death by poisoning (April, 1810). 8 5 A f t e r the Kauai question had been settled, Kamehameha continued to live on Oahu until the summer of 1812, when he returned to his native island of Hawaii. 6 6 During the last years of his life he resided in the Kona district of that island, his principal residence being at Kailua. Peace prevailed throughout his dominions and he had leisure for play and for work of a constructive nature. Like some modern rulers, he was an enthusiastic fisherman. A native historian, possibly with some exaggeration, says that Kamehameha's "usual occupation in his old age was fishing."07 Kotzebue gives an interesting picture of the hardships the king was willing to endure—and to inflict on his court—in order to be where the fishing was good. 0 8 But he also attended to other and more serious matters. Kamakau states that the rebuilding of heiaus was an activity with which Kamehameha busied himself during this period. 69 H e set his people a useful example by attention to agriculture, putting his own hand to its menial tasks. The last half dozen years of his life witnessed a rather marked growth of foreign trade, in which Kamehameha took a lively interest. This commercial development will be described in a later chapter. GOVERNMENT IN THE TIME OF KAMEHAMEHA This is a convenient point at which to take a brief survey of the government as it was in the time of Kamehameha. W e observe first that this great chieftain did not invent a new system of government. H e simply utilized the system already existing, with only such modifications as were required by new conditions or suggested by his own experience. The government continued to be essentially a feudal autocracy. The king's will was the supreme authority, but Kamehameha's will was not 65 T h e a c c o u n t s of t h e m e e t i n g of t h e t w o k i n g s a r e d e r i v e d f r o m n a t i v e s o u r c e s , r e p o r t e d , w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n , in Dibble, op. cit., 7 3 ; J a r v e s , op. cit. ( 3 e d . ) , 97-98; Ka Mooolelo Hawaii, t r a n s l a t i o n in Haw oiian Spectator, I I , 226 ( A p r i l , 1 8 3 9 ) ! K a m a k a u , op. cit., C h a p . 36, in K N K , A u g . 10, 1867. T h e n a m e of C a p t a i n W i n s h i p is g i v e n o n l y by K a m a k a u , w h o r e n d e r s it Uwinihepa. T h e r e were two Captains W i n s h i p ( J o n a t h a n and N a t h a n , brothers) who visited t h e i s l a n d s f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g t h i s period. S o m e l a t e r a c c o u n t s s a y t h a t it w a s J o n a t h a n W^inship w h o b r o u g h t K a u m u a l i i to H o n o l u l u , b u t a s t u d y of t h e m o v e m e n t s of t h e two b r o t h e r s , as g i v e n in a m a n u s c r i p t , " S o l i d M e n of B o s t o n in t h e N o r t h w e s t " , in t h e B a n c r o f t L i b r a r y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , a n d in H H S P a p e r s , N o . 8, pp. 20-23, in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h e v i d e n c e as t o t h e d a t e of t h e i n c i d e n t , s h o w s t h a t it m u s t h a v e been N a t h a n W i n s h i p . T h e d a t e w a s somet i m e in t h e l a t t e r p a r t of M a r c h or e a r l y p a r t of A p r i l , 1810, as i n d i c a t e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g d a t a . A r c h i b a l d C a m p b e l l l e f t H a w a i i on M a r c h 4, 1810, a n d h i s book shows t h a t K a u m u a l i i ' s v i s i t h a d n o t o c c u r r e d u p t o t h a t t i m e . I s a a c D a v i s died in A p r i l , 1810, as w e k n o w f r o m t h e inscript i o n o n h i s t o m b s t o n e . O t t o v o n K o t z e b u e , A Voyage of Discovery . . . in the years 1815-1818 ( 3 vols. L o n d o n , 1821), I I I , 258. T h e s h i p Albatross, C a p t a i n N a t h a n W i n s h i p / a r r i v e d at t h e i s l a n d s in t h e m i d d l e or l a t t e r p a r t of M a r c h , 1810, a n d l e f t o n A p r i l 13, 1810. T h e s h i p O'Cain, C a p t a i n J o n a t h a n W i n s h i p , h a d b e e n a t t h e i s l a n d s while C a m p b e l l w a s still t h e r e . 66 K a m a k a u i n c o r r e c t l y places K a m e h a m e h a ' s r e t u r n t o H a w a i i in 1811. T h e S p a n i a r d F r a n c i s c o d e P a u l a M a r i n r e c o r d s in h i s d i a r y ( t r a n s l a t e d e x t r a c t s m a d e b y R. C. W y l l i e , in A H ) t h e k i n g ' s r e m o v a l to H a w a i i , u n d e r t h e d a t e s A u g . 12 a n d 18, 1812. S h o r t l y a f t e r w a r d s , t h e k i n g visited M o l o k a i a n d M a u i ; a n d K o t z e b u e m a k e s a s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t K a m e h a m e h a v i s i t e d O a h u o n c e m o r e a b o u t 1814. O t t o v o n K o t z e b u e , Entdeckungs-Reise in die Siid-See und nach der Berings-strasse . . . auf dem Schiffe Rurick (3 vols. W e i m a r , 1821), I I , 34. T h e t h r e e v o l u m e E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n of K o t z e b u e u s u a l l y cited o m i t s t h e point h e r e n o t e d , b u t it is given in a o n e v o l u m e , t w o p a r t E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n p u b l i s h e d in L o n d o n , 1821, f o r S i r R i c h a r d P h i l l i p s & Co., page 106. «7 K a m a k a u , op. ext., C h a p . 40, i n K N K , S e p t . 7, 1867. Kotzfebue, Voyage of Discovery, I I , 190-193. M K a m a k a u , loc. cit.

52

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

arbitrarily capricious; on the contrary, it was just, and he governed his kingdom, as he governed himself, in accordance with the acceptable traditions of his race. As in other feudal states, government was closely related to the land system. In theory, the land belonged to the king and he could dispose of it as he saw fit; in practice, there was some limitation upon his exercise of this power, for he had to satisfy his supporters or run the risk of rebellion. The usual procedure was for the king to select and retain such lands as he desired for his own use and enjoyment and to divide the rest among his great chiefs, who would then hold it by a kind of revocable feudal tenure. The chiefs followed a similar course with the lands assigned to them; and thus the scale descended from the king to the great chiefs, from great chiefs to lesser ones, and finally reached the lowest rank, the tenant-commoners who cultivated the soil. David Malo, in his account of the old Hawaiian civil polity, makes the following statement: "The largest districts were not generally assigned to the highest chiefs, lest they might thus be enabled to rebel against the government. Kamehameha I., however, entrusted the largest districts to his highest chiefs." 70 Still it is to be noted that the kingdom of Kamehameha did not come into his hands full grown; it was put together piece by piece; as the islands fell successively into his possession, he distributed portions of them among his supporters. From this it resulted that the land held by each great chief consisted of pieces scattered over the several islands instead of being all together on one island. This lessened the danger of rebellion. To the same end, it was the policy of Kamehameha, especially in the earlier part of his reign, to keep the great chiefs near him and to require them to go with him when he traveled from place to place.71 He was thus enabled to keep an eye on them and to detect any signs of disaffection. As a consequence of the circumstances just mentioned, a condition of absentee landlordism extensively prevailed. The agents or subordinate chiefs who actually managed the estates and directed the labor of the common people were called konohikis. Just as the land was divided up and given into the possession of the chiefs subordinate to the king, so the local administration of government was similarly allocated. Each chief controlled the land in his possession and the tenants who lived on the land, exercising what we speak of as executive and judicial powers (there being no separate judicial department). But in a very real sense it was true that where the king was, there was the government. When he was present, his authority overshadowed that of the local chief, and he might, if he saw fit, take into his own hands the minutest details of administration and the decision of the pettiest cases. It may be noted, however, that Kauai, after it became part of the Hawaiian kingdom, was in an exceptional position. While Kame™ Mala, Hawaiian Antiquities, 257. 71 This fact was noticed by several of the foreigners who visited the islands. See, f o r example, Turnbull, op. cit., 204-205; Shaler, op. cit., 82; Iselin, op. cit., 74; Kotzebue, op. cit., I, 316; C. H . Barnard, A Narrative of the Sufferings and Adventures . . . during the years iSu, 1813, 1814, 1815, Sr 1816 . . . ( N e w York, 1829), 220.

KAMEHAMEHA THE FOUNDER

53

hameha could dictate to the king of Kauai, he had not the same direct control over the subordinate chiefs there that he had on the other islands. As the Hawaiian kingdom was finally constituted in the reign of Kamehameha, he was the supreme head of the state, having under his direction all the powers of government. But though the power to decide was his alone, he had advisers whom he consulted on all important maters and who collectively formed what was in effect a council of state. There was no formal organization of the council and it held no stated or regular meetings; its composition varied according to the particular circumstances. In the earlier years, the five great Kona chiefs, Keeaumoku, Kameeiamoku, Keaweaheulu, Kamanawa, and Kekuhaupio were the nucleus of the council, and Kamehameha would not, in fact could not have acted without their approval in any important matter. Other chiefs might be called to sit in council with these elder statesmen. After their death, younger chiefs took their places; four of these younger counsellors, Keeaumoku, Hoapili, Naihe, and Koahou, were sons of the first four of the great chiefs mentioned above. In this later period, the authority of Kamehameha was absolute; the council functioned only as an advisory body. As his principal executive officer (his kalaimoku, according to the traditional scheme of government), Kamehameha appointed a younger chief named (in modern writings) Kalanimoku; in his own lifetime, this chief was usually called Karaimoku by the Hawaiians, sometimes Kalaimoku; foreigners rendered his name Crymoku or Crimoku or gave it some similar form; he himself adopted the name of his contemporary, the great English prime minister, William Pitt, and he was frequently referred to and addressed by foreigners as Mr. Pitt or Billy Pitt. Kalanimoku was Kamehameha's prime minister and treasurer, the adviser on whom the king leaned most heavily. He was a man of great natural ability, both in purely governmental and in business matters. He was liked and respected by foreigners, who learned from experience that they could rely on his word. Thus far, the scheme of government followed the traditional pattern. Kamehameha introduced one important new feature, made necessary by the uniting of all the islands into one kingdom. The king could be on only one island at a time; hence he appointed governors to be his special representatives on the other islands (except Kauai). They were in fact viceroys. It is probable that the governorship was at first only a temporary expedient and that it became a permanent institution because of the obvious necessity for such an office under the new conditions. The governors doubtless owed their appointment to their executive ability and their tested loyalty to the king rather than to chiefly rank. The little information we have suggests that in the reign of Kamehameha they were frequently changed. Broughton, who visited the island of Hawaii in January, 1796, Kamehameha being then on Oahu, noted that " a blind chief, whose name was Mahoa, carried on the executive power of the state

54

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

under the superintendence of Young." 72 When Kamehameha returned to Hawaii toward the end of 1796, he appointed a certain Kuihelani as governor of Oahu. 73 Kamakau infers that Kuihelani was not a chief but a commoner; and elsewhere he states that Kamehameha appointed commoners as governors, being afraid to appoint chiefs, who might take advantage of such a position to conspire against him ; but Kamakau adds that he afterwards made changes. 74 All the governors in the time of Kamehameha whose names have come down to us, with the possible exception of Kuihelani, were either native chiefs or foreigners who had acquired the status of chiefs. From 1802 until 1812, during which time Kamehameha was away from Hawaii, John Young was governor of that island. Oliver Holmes served for a time as governor of Oahu. The only subordinate administrative officers of much importance were the tax collectors, who were under the direct control of the governors and the king. For the support of the king and his court, the army and the navy, a large revenue was required. Taxes were not paid in money, but in the produce of the soil and in the various articles manufactured by the people, there being no native coinage and but very little foreign money in circulation. FOREIGN RELATIONS

In his foreign relations, Kamehameha adhered to the policy foreshadowed in the so-called "cession" of the island of Hawaii to Great Britain. In a letter which he sent in 1810 to King George III, he spoke of himself as being "subject to" the British king. 75 The British government did not commit itself to much more than the maintenance of a cordial friendship with the island government; but naval officers of other foreign nations who visited the islands recognized the existence of a special relationship, which they spoke of as a protectorate or alliance, between Hawaii and Great Britain. 76 But while Kamehameha undoubtedly felt a greater interest in the British people and in British ships, he treated the people and the ships of all nations with sincere and cheerful friendliness. Necessarily, he learned of the rivalries which existed among the different foreigners who came to Hawaii; during the war of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain, he had ocular proof t>n this point, for armed vessels of both belligerents visited Hawaiian waters and several American ships were captured there by the British warship Cherub.11 One of the local legends attributes to Anglo-American rivalry the design 72

Broughton, Voyage of discovery, 34. ™ Kamakau, op. cit., Chap. 31, in K N K , J u n e 15, 1867. " Ibid., Chap. 33, in K N K , July 13, 1867. Kamaah Amaah to George I I I , Aug. 6, 1810, A H , F. O. & Ex. 76 Kotzebue, op. cit., I , 309, 325, 334; Louis de Freycinet, Voyage autour du monde . . . pendant les années 1S17, lSiS, JSiç et ¡820 . . . Historique. Tome deuxième. Deuxième partie (Paris, 1839), 536. " E. N. McClellan, "John M. Gamble," in 35 H H S Report, 32-S5.

KAMEHAMEHA T H E FOUNDER

55

of the Hawaiian national flag, which came into existence during the war period. 771 Immediately after that period, the tranquillity of the islands was disturbed by intrigues and activities of an agent of the Russian American Company. Russian interests in the north Pacific, based on the f u r resources and fisheries of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, developed rapidly after the second voyage of Bering (1741) and were consolidated by the formation of the Russian American Company, to which an imperial charter gave a monopoly of the trade, just at the close of the eighteenth century. The field base of the company was located at New Archangel (Sitka) in Norfolk Sound. The most difficult and persistent problem confronting the company was that of supplying its posts and its personnel with the things necessary to sustain life and keep the trade going. The plan worked out and followed during the early years of the nineteenth century included several features. (1) Ships were sent by the long water route from Russian ports on the Baltic Sea around to the posts and settlements in the north Pacific. (2) Goods were purchased from American and other traders who visited that bleak northern region in quest of furs. (3) An agricultural settlement was established on the coast of California just north of San Francisco (Fort Ross, 1812). (4) An attempt was made to tap the resources of the Hawaiian islands, and this is the point with which we are now concerned. 78 From American and British traders who visited both the Russian settlements and Hawaii, the governor of the Russian company, Alexander Baranov, learned something about the resources and convenient location of the islands, and Kamehameha learned something about the needs of the Russians. The general situation was obviously favorable to a useful commerce between the two places. Russian ships first visited the islands On the origin of the Hawaiian flag, a much debated subject, see Haw'n Annual, 1880, pp. 24-26; 1886, p. 37; 1921, pp. 99-101 (article by Mrs. Chas. L u c a s ) ; 6 H H S Report, 8-11 (article by W . D. A l e x a n d e r ) ; H H S Papers, No. 12. pp. 5-11 (article by H . M. Ballou); Pacific Commercial Advertiser ( H o n o l u l u ) , April 6, 1919 (article by Mrs. M a r y j a n e Kulani M o n t a n o ) ; Honolulu Advertiser, J a n . 27. 1927 (article by E . N. McClellan). 78 F o r the Russian activities a t the Hawaiian islands I have used the following general accounts; Rev. S. Whitney, "Account of an alledged attempt on the part of the Russians to take possession of the island of K a u a i , " in Hawaiian Spectator, Vol. I, No. 1 ( J a n . 1838), 48-52, based on information obtained by W h i t n e y on K a u a i ; W . D. Alexander, " T h e Proceedings of the Russians on Kauai. 1814-1816," H H S Papers, No. 6 (includes a translation, f r o m the Russian, of relevant parts of P. Tikhmenev's history of the Russian American Company) ; F. A. Golder, "Proposals for Russian Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands," in Hawaii. Early Relations with England—Russia—France. Official Papers Read at the Captain Cook Sesquicentenniai Celebration, Honolulu, August 17, 1928 (Honolulu, 1930), 39-49, based on data f r o m the Russian archives; P a u l Gronski, " L e s Russes a u x iles Hawai au début du X I X e siècle," in Le Monde Slave, Vol. I V . No. 10 (Oct. 1928). 21-39; Anatole G. Mazour, "Doctor Yegor Scheffer: D r e a m e r of a Russian Empire in the Pacific." in Pacific Historical Review, V I , 1-5-20 (March, 1937), based on a documentary article, "Tsarskaia Rossiia i Gavaiskie O s t r o v a " ( " T s a r i s t Russia and the Hawaiian I s l a n d s " ) , in Krasnyi Arkhiv, L X X . 161-186. F o r some notes f r o m t h e latter article, I am indebted to Dr. Denzel C a r r of the University of Hawaii. A good, though brief, discussion of the larger historical setting is given by R. J. K e r n e r , "Russian Expansion to America; Its Bibliographical F o u n d a t i o n s , " in Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, X X V (1931), 111-129. I m p o r t a n t contemporary information is furnished by Kotzebue, op. cit., I, 296, 303-305. 333-335, I I , 196-198, I I I , 239, 241-242; and by Peter Corney, Voyages in the Northern Pacific . . . from 1813 to 181S . . . (Honolulu, 1896, reprinted f r o m t h e London Literary Gazette of 1821), 46-48, 71-73, 83A, 88-89. Other material will be cited as used.

56

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

in 1804, but were not seen by Kamehameha. 79 A year or two afterwards, the latter made known to Baranov that he would "gladly send a ship every year with swine, salt, batatas [sweet potatoes], and other articles of food, if [the Russians] would in exchange let him have sea-otter skins at a fair price." 80 In 1807 a small Russian vessel, on a voyage from California to New Archangel, visited the islands, obtained supplies, and was well treated by Kamehameha. 81 In the following year, Baranov sent the Neva, Lieutenant Hagemeister, to the islands for a cargo of salt.82 This was the ship on which Archibald Campbell arrived at Honolulu in January, 1809. Campbell understood that the Russians intended to form a settlement at the Hawaiian islands,83 but no steps were taken at that time and it is quite possible that he was misinformed on the subject. The next five years are a blank in Russo-Hawaiian relations, partly no doubt because Baranov's attention was taken up with the organization and founding of the Fort Ross settlement in California. The latter enterprise developed slowly and in 1814 Baranov thought again of Hawaii and, to obtain from there a cargo of supplies, sent the Bering, which he had recently purchased from a group of American traders. A cargo was obtained at Oahu, but in the night of January 31, 1815, the Bering was driven ashore in a storm at Waimea, Kauai. The Yankee skipper, Captain Bennett, gave the wrecked ship to King Kaumualii in return for assistance in saving the cargo. The cargo was left in the "not very watchful care of the Kauai king and Captain Bennett returned at the first opportunity to New Archangel with the news of the disaster.84 Baranov wished to recover the cargo left on Kauai and to make some arrangement for a regular trade between Hawaii and the Russian settlements ; he probably contemplated the setting up of a permanent Russian trading post or agency at some point in the group, and he may even have had in view the acquisition of one or more of the islands if conditions proved to be favorable for such an undertaking. To carry out his plan he made use of a German doctor, Georg Anton Scheffer, who had gone to New Archangel as surgeon on one of the ships of the Russian American Company. Scheffer sailed from New Archangel, October 17, 1815, on the Isabella, an American trading vessel,85 and arrived at Kailua, where ™ Squadron of two vessels, Nadeshda and Neva, under command of Captain A. J. von Krusenstern. Three accounts of the voyage have been published: A. J. von Krusenstern, Voyage round the world in the years 1803, 1804, ¡80s, & ¡806, by order of His Imperial Majesty Alexander the First, on board the ships Nadeshda and Neva... (2 vols. London. 1813). G. H . von Langsdorff, Voyages and travels in various parts of the world, during the years 1803, ¡804, 1805, ¡806, and 1807 (Carlisle, 1817). U. I.isiansky, op. cit. *° Langsdorff, op. cit., 165 n Colder, op. cit., 40. Ibid. Campbell, op. cit., 91. 96. — M The Bering was formerly the Atahualpa, an American vessel which had been for many years in the Northwest Coast trade. A detailed account of the wreck is given in F. W . Howay, " T h e Last Days of the Atahualpa, alias Behring," in 41 H H S Report, 70-80, which quotes the ship's log for the period Jan. 30-April 11, 1815. The picture given of Kaumualii is not a very flattering one. ® Corney, op. cit., 46. Corney gives the name of the German doctor as Shefham; Whitney, op. cit., calls him Schoof. H e is the same man that Mazour calls Dr. Yegor Scheffer.

KAMEHAMEHA THE

FOUNDER

57

Kamehameha was residing, in the early part of December. 86 At first he represented himself simply as a naturalist, who wished to do some research in the islands; but then, having gained the favor of the king by his skill as a physician, he made known the mission entrusted to him on Kauai and obtained f r o m Kamehameha an order requiring Kaumualii to deliver to him the cargo of the Bering or to pay him for it. On many points the different accounts of Scheffer's activities are vague and conflicting and it is therefore impossible to be quite sure about all the details of his movements. H e remained at Kailua until sometime in January, 1816, possibly longer, 8 7 and then traveled to the leeward islands. H e may have gone first to Kauai ; 8 8 but a visitor to the islands in April met him on Oahu still playing the role of naturalist, collecting plants and minerals. 89 During the spring of 1816 three Russian vessels, the Ilmen, the Kadiak (Myrtle), and the Otkrytie (Discovery), arrived at the islands, the latter two at least having been sent by Baranov to enable Scheffer to carry out the mission entrusted to him. W i t h one or more of these vessels, Scheffer sailed to Kauai where he readily ingratiated himself into the favor of Kaumualii; by his professional skill and by working on the king's desire to be free from the overlordship of Kamehameha, he succeeded in making himself virtual ruler of the island and entangling Kaumualii in a treasonable design. By a written document signed on May 21, 1816, 90 the latter sought to place himself and his kingdom under the protection of the Russian emperor and as a sign of loyalty accepted a Russian flag. H e then entered into four agreements with the agent of the Russian American Company. By the first he granted to the company the exclusive right to export sandalwood from Kauai and the privilege of building factories and establishing plantations on the island; by the second he gave the company half the island of Oahu, but as that island was in possession of Kamehameha the company was to furnish Kaumualii five hundred men to aid in bringing it under his control; by the third agreement the company was obligated to supply Kaumualii with an armed vessel, for which, however, the latter was to pay in sandalwood and other products; and by the fourth agreement the company was to have complete control of four harbors in the island of Oahu. 9 1 F r o m the meager data available it appears likely that, after getting Kaumualii's signature on these agreements, Scheffer returned with the ships to Oahu in order to make use of the pretended rights granted to the company on that island. At Honolulu he built a blockhouse and raised the Russian flag, and is said to have laid out the ground plan of a fort. H e m Ibid., 47-48; B a r n a r d , op. cit., 219. Tikhmenev, quoted in Alexander, op. cit., states incorrectly that Kamehameha was residing on Oahu at this time; Mazour seems to have the same erroneous idea. 87 B a r n a r d , op. cit., 222, shows t h a t Scheffer was still at Kailua in the first week of January, 1816. 88 It is so indicated by Whitney, op. cit., 49; but it is clear t h a t W h i t n e y was misinformed on some points and he may have been on this one. " " V o y a g e of the Ophelia . . . f r o m the j o u r n a l of Captain Samuel H i l l " , in New England Quarterly, X, 366 ( J u n e , 1937). M This date is Russian old style and corresponds to about J u n e 2. " M a z o u r , op cit., 17-18; Colder, op. cit., 43, note 11. Tikhmenev's account, quoted in Alexander, op., cit., 8, is in substantial agreement with that given by Mazour.

58

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

or his subordinates aroused the hostility of the natives by entering one of the heiaus in violation of the kapu. Kamehameha, informed of these proceedings, sent several of his chiefs with an order "that the Russians should quit the islands instantly, and if they did not depart quietly that force must be used. The Russians not finding themselves strong enough to resist went peaceably off. The Islanders then built the fort under the direction of John Young." When Kotzebue was at Honolulu about the end of November, 1816, the fort had not been entirely completed. An Englishman, Captain George Beckley, who had been for several years in Kamehameha's service, was appointed as its first commandant.92 Scheffer retired to Kauai and proceeded to consolidate his alliance with the king of that island. He bought a ship and delivered it to Kaumualii; the latter gave Scheffer the valley of Hanalei and some other valuable tracts of land. On the bluff overlooking Hanalei on its eastern side, an earthen fortification was built and some cannons mounted. In the spring, or spring and summer, of 1817, a substantial and well designed fort was built at Waimea in a commanding position on the east side of the river, and the Russian flag was raised over it. 93 By his high handed doings, Scheffer arrayed against himself not only Kamehameha but the foreign traders, principally American, who were interested in the Hawaiian sandalwood trade and in the islands as a factor in the more general north Pacific trade. Kamehameha ordered Kaumualii to expel the Russians; the traders besieged him with their arguments; perhaps Kaumualii found the yoke of Scheffer more galling than that of Kamehameha. At any rate, he was finally convinced that the ambitious doctor was not his friend but a dangerous enemy. He ordered the Russians to depart and when they resisted drove them off by force. Scheffer escaped in a leaky ship to Oahu and from there made his way to Canton and in 1819 returned to St. Petersburg. While on Kauai, Scheffer sent reports of his proceedings and his agreements with Kaumualii to Baranov and to the directors of the Russian American Company in St. Petersburg. Tikhmenev states that Baranov virtually repudiated what Scheffer had done, because he understood that the islands were under the protection of England. 94 In far away St. Petersburg, the directors of the company were wholly unacquainted with the situation in the islands but they were intrigued by the bright picture that Scheffer held before their eyes and hopefully referred the subject to the Russian government. Czar Alexander I, however, refused to be drawn into the affair and instructed the company to confine itself 92 Corney, op. cit., 71-72; Kotzebue, op. cit., I, 303-305, 333-335. T h e quotation is f r o m Corney, who received his information at Honolulu in February, 1817. I n regard to the Honolulu f o r t , see the article by N. B. Emerson in 8 H H S Report, 11-25. w Corney {op. cit., p. 73) was at Waimea in the middle of April, 1817, at which time Scheffer appeared to be in complete control. A t this time Corney makes no mention of a fort. Eleven months later (pp. 88-89) he returned to Waimea and this time saw the f o r t and describes it in a way that leaves no doubt that it had been erected since his previous visit in April, 1817. M Alexander, op. cit., 9.

KAMEHAMEHA THE

FOUNDER

59

"to the maintenance of peaceful commercial relations with the islands." As a token of his good will, Alexander sent to Kaumualii a gold medal with the inscription, " T o Tomari, chief of the Sandwich Islands, in recognition of his friendship for the Russians," and in addition a beautifully mounted sword and a scarlet cloak with golden tassels and lace. But these presents were never delivered to Kaumualii. 9 5 A f t e r his return to St. Petersburg, Scheffer presented a memorial calling attention to the strategic and commercial advantages of the Hawaiian islands and tried to induce the Russian government to adopt a more aggressive policy; but the czar simply reiterated the decision which he had previously made. 9 6 While Scheffer was at the height of his power on Kauai, the other principal islands of the group were visited by the Russian ship Rurick, which had come into the Pacific on a voyage of discovery under the command of Lieutenant Otto von Kotzebue of the Russian imperial navy. The Rurick arrived off the coast of Hawaii in the latter part of November, 1816, and was viewed with great uneasiness by the Hawaiians until they learned that its mission was a peaceful one. Kamehameha, with much bitterness, told the Russian officer about the ungrateful and hostile acts of Scheffer. Kotzebue assured the king that Scheffer's conduct was altogether contrary to the policy of the Russian emperor. 9 7 W h e n Kamehameha had satisfied himself of the friendly disposition of Lieutenant Kotzebue and his associates, he treated them with his customary generosity and good will. At Honolulu, the Rurick was the first foreign ship to exchange salutes with the new fort, a fact which gave Kotzebue much pleasure. 9 8 The Rurick visited the islands again in the fall of 1817; at Honolulu, in the early part of October, Kotzebue was told about the expulsion of the Russians f r o m Kauai and that Scheffer had sailed f o r Canton only a few days before the arrival of the. Rurick.90 The exploring expedition did not touch at Kauai either in 1816 or in 1817. The conduct of Kotzebue and his officers was such as to offset in great measure the ill effect of Scheffer's acts. The visits of the Rurick are of special interest because the artist attached to the expedition, Louis Choris, made several portraits of Kamehameha which have come down to us, from which we are able to see what the greatest of the Hawaiian kings looked like in the later years of his life. 1 0 0 A year after Kotzebue's final departure, another Russian naval officer, Captain Golovnin, visited the islands (October, 1818) and received a ** Ibid., 9-10; Golder, op. cit., 43. 1,1 Alexander, op. cit., 9-10, 12-14; Golder, op. cit., 43-44. Kotzebue, op. cit., I. 292-305. Ibid., I, 355. 00 Ibid., I I , 196-198. 100 See the articles, " K a m e h a m e h a ' s P o r t r a i t , " by IIuc-M. Luquiens, in 45 H H S Report, a n d " K a m e h a m e h a ' s Portraits Elusive and Ubiquitous," by J . F. G. Stokes, in Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 7, 1937. These articles do not exhaust the subject. O n e other artist, the Russian Tikhanoff attached^to the Golovnin expedition which visited Hawaii in 1818, is known to have m a d e a portrait of Kamehameha, but there is some question as to whether it has survived; recent research has failed to show its whereabouts.

60

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

friendly welcome from Kamehameha, who was then in the last year of his life. 101 In regard to the old king, Golovnin wrote: He is still strong, active, temperate and sober. He does not use liquor or eat to excess. We can see in him a combination of childishness and ripe judgment. Some of his acts would do credit to a more enlightened ruler. His honesty and love of justice have been shown in numerous cases. The petty faults which we may find in the old King will not obscure his great merits. He will always be considered as an enlightener and reformer of his people. One fact which shows his good sense is this. None of the foreigners visiting his country enjoy any exclusive privileges, but all can trade with his subjects with equal freedom. Europeans are not allowed to own land. They receive it on condition that after death it shall be returned to the King, and during their lifetime it is not transferable from one to another.102 101 "Golovnin's Visit to Hawaii in 1818," in Friend ( H o n o l u l u ) , L I I (1894), 50-53, 60-62, being a translation of extracts f r o m Golovnin's account of his voyage round the world, published at St. P e t e r s b u r g in 1822. Ibid., 51. 52."

CHAPTER IV

1819 In the history of every nation there are certain years which stand out conspicuously because they are turning points in national development or because of important or spectacular events which happened within them. In the history of Hawaii, 1819 was such a year: Kamehameha died; the kapu system was overthrown; a crucial battle was fought. In this year was put to the test the question whether the Hawaiian kingdom could survive the shock of the death of its creator. Behind the glamor with which the achievements of Kamehameha have been surrounded, stands the hard fact that the kingdom was created by force and that it was held together by force. All through his reign, Kamehameha had been faced with the danger of disaffection. The desertion of Kaiana, the revolt of Namakeha, and Kaumualii's dalliance with the Russians were overt acts showing clearly how unwillingly some of the chiefs submitted to his authority. When Vancouver was at Kealakekua in January, 1794, he was told by Kamehameha that there were many persons on that island "very ill disposed to his interest" who would gladly seize any opportunity to cause trouble between him and the Englishmen. 1 The historian Kamakau more than once refers to the fear of disaffection felt by Kamehameha ; 2 and the same point was noted by Kotzebue, whose visits to Hawaii in 1816 and 1817 were mentioned in the preceding chapter. 3 As the king grew to old age, the actual break-up of the kingdom when he passed on was seen as a possibility and was even predicted. Adelbert von Chamisso, a well known German naturalist who was with Kotzebue, wrote that "after the death of the old hero, his kingdom, founded and kept together by force, will fall to pieces, the partition of it being already decided upon, and prepared." Chamisso went on to state the proposed division: Kalanimoku was to have Oahu, Keeaumoku was to have Maui, Kaumualii would keep his kingdom of Kauai, while Kamehameha's heir, "the weak, dull-minded" Liholiho, would be limited to the hereditary island of Hawaii. 4 During his reign Kamehameha very wisely managed the internal affairs of the kingdom in such a way as to minimize the danger of revolt. His relations with the chiefs, disposition of lands, and arrangement of the government all tended to thwart disruptive influences, to weld the discordant elements into a unity, and to create a sort of national feeling; 1

Godwin, Vancouver, 250-251. a Kamakau, op. cit., Chaps. 35. 37. in K N K , Aug. 3, 17, 1867. 3 Kotzebue, Voyage of Discovery, I, 308, 316, 349. » Ibid., I l l , 240-241.

61

62

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

and he made such arrangements as seemed likely to insure the peaceful succession of his son Liholiho. Kamakau states that in the fifth year of Liholiho he was made heir to the throne, . . . and to him was given the kapu of the temples. Kamehameha also made him head of the office of caretaker of the gods, and he was carried by his guardians to announce the kapu of the temples and houses of the gods on Maui and Oahu."

In 1816 a foreigner in the service of Kamehameha informed Kotzebue that this prince, as successor to the throne, had already begun to exercise the rights of his father, which consist in the fulfilling of the most important taboos. T a m a a h m a a h has ordered this from political motives, that no revolution may arise after his d e a t h ; for as soon as the son fulfills the most important taboo, he is sacred, is associated with the priests, and nobody dare dispute the throne with him."

Kamakau suggests that Kamehameha endeavored to extend and strengthen the English alliance because he saw in it a powerful prop supporting his dynasty; and that his just and generous treatment of foreigners was actuated to some degree by the same motive.7 As he approached the evening of life, Kamehameha set his house in order and definitely fixed the succession by giving out publicly in the presence of the chiefs and people his charge, that . . . Liholiho was to be the heir to the kingdom a f t e r his death, which charge was observed by kapus to the gods in the temples. It was his real wish that Liholiho take charge of the kingdom after his death. His other charge was that the god Kukailimoku be given to . . . Kekuaokalani. The kingdom and the god were alike in nature, and were considered objects of great responsibility in the olden days. This was so in the days of Liloa, for he passed the two to his sons, the kingdom to Hakau and the god Kukailimoku to Umi, but the son who took possession of the kingdom failed to do the right thing, so the son who had the god came in possession of the kingdom."

The writer just quoted might have added that Kalaniopuu made a similar arrangement before his death, giving the kingdom to Kiwalao and the god to Kamehameha, and that in this case also the prince having the god soon possessed himself of the kingdom. With two such historical examples before him, Kamehameha might well have hesitated to repeat the experiment; but the outcome justified his action. Liholiho and Kekuaokalani were cousins; if we may judge from the little information that we have about the latter, he was a brave chief who clung to the old kapus and religion as faithfully as Kamehameha. DEATH OF KAMEHAMEHA

On the eighth of May, 1819, Kamehameha died at Kailua, Hawaii. Until his final illness, he had preserved his strength and the use of his • Kamakau, op. cit., • Kotzebue, op. cit., • Kamakau, op. cit., 8 Ibid., Chap. 40, in

Chap. 34, in K N K , July 20, 1867. X, 308. Chap. 41. in K N K , Sept. 14, 1867. K N K , Sept. 7, 1867.

1819

63

faculties. According to the native accounts, the king was ill for a long time before his death, but whether that means some weeks or some months we do not know very definitely. The Spaniard Marin, who had some medical knowledge, noted in his diary, April 15, that a ship arrived at Honolulu that day from Hawaii seeking him "to cure the king" ; Marin reached Kailua four days later and stayed there until after the death of the king; his services proved ineffectual. The few details given by Marin corroborate in a general way the native accounts of the passing of Kamehameha. 9 When the serious nature of the king's illness was recognized, all the powers of the kahuna, both religious and medical, were brought to bear upon it, but without avail. A house was built for his god—the king became more feeble. The priests proposed a human sacrifice, but the dying king forbade it, saying, "the men are kapu for the king," meaning his son Liholiho. As was customary at such times, the high chiefs gathered about and among them was the king's foreigner, John Young. They endeavored to get from Kamehameha his dying charge, but before it was fully given his strength failed, and in a little while the spirit was gone. In the mourning for the departed chief and in the disposition of his body, the old customs of the country were followed, with this exception: there was no human sacrifice. At the proper time the bones of the great king were taken by Hoapili and his man Hoolulu and concealed in a cave whose exact location was never revealed. "Only the stars of the heavens know the resting place of Kamehameha." Immediately after the death of the old king, his son Liholiho, heir to the throne, went away with his personal attendants to Kohala, where he remained until Kailua, defiled by death, had been purified. After about a week 10 he returned for the purpose of being proclaimed king. The ceremony of installation was a gorgeous spectacle. Along the shore, partly on the sand and partly in the water, was a great throng of the common people; facing them, a group of chiefs, resplendent in feather cloaks and helmets, with the dowager Queen Kaahumanu occupying the central position. Into this assemblage came the prince, a superb figure, wearing the royal feather cloak and helmet, beneath which gleamed the red and gold of an English uniform. Two chiefs accompanied him, bearing the kahili and other emblems of his rank. As Liholiho came before the circle of chiefs, he was met by Kaahumanu, who addressed to him these words: "Hear me, O Divine one, for I make known to you the will of your father. Behold these chiefs and the men of your father, and these your guns, and this your land, but you and I shall share the realm together." Liholiho assented; and thus he became king (with the title Kamehameha >Ka Mooolelo Hawaii, translation in Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 227-231 (April, 1839); Kamakau, op. cit., Chap. 41, in K N K , Sept. 14, 1867; W . D . Westervelt, " T h e Passing of Kamehameha I " , in 31 H H S Report, 29-36. 10 T h e native accounts say that Liholiho remained away f r o m Kailua about ten days, but this is probably an error. Marin, who had returned to Honolulu, records the arrival of K a a h u m a n u at that place on May 17 (unless Wyllie made a mistake in his translation), and it is highly improbable t h a t she would have l e f t Kailua b e f o r e t h e formal installation of the new king.

64

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

I I ) , Kaahumanu became kuhina-nui, and a unique system of dual government was thereby instituted. 11 It may be useful to insert here a brief explanation of the position of the kuhina-nui and the relationship between that functionary and the king. The word kuhina-nui is commonly translated into English as "premier" or "prime minister", but neither of these expressions correctly indicates the nature of the office, which has no counterpart in any European or American government. The authority of the kuhina-nui was greater than that of a premier or prime minister as those words are usually understood. The term prime minister describes fairly well the office of Kalanimoku, who continued to hold, during the reign of Kamehameha I I and the early years of Kamehameha III, the position he occupied under Kamehameha I. If we keep in mind that the government was a nearly absolute monarchy, it is not far from the truth to say that the supreme executive power was about equally divided between the king and the kuhina-nui. Technically and ceremonially, the king was the highest officer in the state; in the routine administration of the government, the kuhina-nui was ordinarily more active than the king. In the constitution of 1840, the office of kuhina-nui is explained in the following manner: All business connected with the special interests of the kingdom, which the King wishes to transact, shall be done by the Kuhina-nui under the authority of the King. All documents and business of the kingdom executed by the Kuhina-nui, shall be considered as executed by the King's authority . . . The Kuhina-nui shall be the King's special counsellor in the great business of the kingdom. The King shall not act without the knowledge of the Kuhina-nui, nor shall the Kuhina-nui act without the knowledge of the King, and the veto of the King on the acts of the Kuhina-nui shall arrest the business. All important business of the kingdom which the King chooses to transact in person, he may do it but not without the approbation of the Kuhina-nui. 12

The creation of the office of kuhina-nui appears to rest upon Kaahumanu's statement of the will of Kamehameha I at the time of the installation of Liholiho as king. It has been hinted by some writers that Kaahumanu simply made up that statement out of her own imperious imagination and by that means usurped the authority subsequently exercised by her. 1 3 But it may be observed that there were other chiefs in position to know what the will of Kamehameha was; and there is no evidence that the authority of Kaahumanu as kuhina-nui was ever challenged. So that, even if it were true that she usurped her authority, it could truthfully be 11 Westervelt, op. cit., 33-34; W . D. Alexander, " O v e r t h r o w of the Ancient Tabu System in the Hawaiian Islands", in 25 H H S Report, 39-40; Jarves, History of the Hawaiian Islands (3 ed.), 107-108; Ka Mooolelo Hawaii, translation in Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 334 (July, 1839); Kamakau, op. cit., Chap. 42, in K N K , Sept. 21. 1867; D. Baldwin to R. C. Wyllie, March 24, 1847, A H , F. O. & Ex. 12 I n this quotation, I have substituted the H a w a i i a n . w o r d Kuhina-nui for the English word Premier which is used in the English translations of the constitution. It seems better to use the Hawaiian word as it is in the native version of the constitution. " Jarves, op. cit., 108; Fr. Reginald Yzendoorn, History of the Catholic Mission in the Hawaiian Islands (Honolulu. 1927), 18.

1819

65

said that the usurpation amounted to a bloodless revolution and was legitimated by the universal acquiescence which it received. ABOLITION

OP KAPU

SYSTEM

After the induction of Liholiho into the kingship, the next important episode in this year 1819 was the abolition of the kapu system, which occurred in the early part of November. It would be interesting to follow in detail the developments from May to November, but the data are not adequate for the purpose and it is not possible to fix precisely the chronology. In the accounts of the overthrow of the kapu system it is said that at the time of the installation of Liholiho the abolition of the kapus was discussed by some of the higher chiefs at Kailua, but the time was not ripe for such a revolutionary change. Liholiho had first to make sure of the loyalty of his subjects and to settle some other questions of policy. In August, a company of French scientists and explorers headed by Captain Louis de Freycinet visited the islands in the French warship I'Uranie. Captain Freycinet subsequently wrote a long account of the voyage and from his book we are able to get a picture of the situation at the time of his visit. 14 From John Young and from others, Freycinet learned that the political affairs of the country were in a state of very unstable equilibrium. Young informed him that some of the chiefs of the factions conquered by Kamehameha continued to be secret enemies of the king and had not lost the hope of regaining their independence. Among the disaffected chiefs, Kekuaokalani especially distinguished himself by his animosity towards Liholiho. This chief, it will be recalled, was the cousin of Liholiho to whom Kamehameha had committed the care of the war god Kukailimoku ; it is hardly possible to study the history of this period without feeling that Kekuaokalani remembered the historical precedents and pictured himself in the role of Umi and Kamehameha. Young went on to say that Kekuaokalani's animosity was such that he talked of nothing less than overthrowing the royal power and of slaughteri n g all t h e E u r o p e a n s e s t a b l i s h e d in t h e S a n d w i c h I s l a n d s ; t h e s e w e r e t h e o n e s , according to him, w h o had contributed most t o enslave them and to concentrate the s o v e r e i g n t y in t h e h a n d s of a s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l . N o a c t of h o s t i l i t y h a d a s y e t t a k e n place, but w a r w a s f e a r e d , a l t h o u g h t h e y o u n g k i n g a n d h i s f r i e n d s w e r e m a k i n g e v e r y e f f o r t t o a v e r t it.

A council of the chiefs had been held at Kawaihae, where the young king was residing, at which various grievances had been talked over and 31 Louis de Freycinet, Voyage autour du monde . . . exécuté sur les corvettes de S. M. I'Uranie et la Physicienne, pendant ¡es années 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1S20 . . . Historique. Tome deuxième. Deuxième partie (Paris, 1839), pp. 517-622. Another, somewhat journalistic and cynical account of this voyage is contained in the book of J. Arago, Narrative of a Voyage . . . during the years 1817, 1818, 181Ç and 1820 (2 vols. London, 1823). T h e r e is also a shorter account by Captain Freycinet's wife, Journal de Madame Rose de Saulces de Freycinet d'après le manuscrit original accompagné de notes par Charles Duplomb (Paris, 1927). A translation by V. S. K. Houston of extensive extracts f r o m Madame de Freycinet's account is printed in Paradise of the Pacific, Vol. X L V I I I . No. 11 (Nov. 1936), and Vol. X L I X , Nos. 1-4 (Jan.April, 1937).

66

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

an attempt made to adjust matters to the satisfaction of all. One of the principal grievances was the monopoly of the sandalwood trade, which Kamehameha had arrogated to himself. Ultimately, Liholiho was obliged to give the chiefs a share in this lucrative trade. Young appealed to Captain Freycinet to offer his friendship and protection to Liholiho. The French officer accepted the suggestion and threw the weight of his influence squarely on the side of the young king. 15 A few days after his conversation with John Young, Freycinet had an interview with the king about the affairs of his government and said to him: "I am not ignorant of the alliance which exists between the king of the Sandwich Islands and the king of Great Britain; the latter being also the friend and ally of the king of France, I declare that the ship which I command and those which come hereafter to the Sandwich Islands under the same flag will always be disposed to give to you the assistance calculated to maintain the tranquillity of your state and the force of your authority." I added that the evil designs of some of the chiefs . . . were known to me and if he believed that my declaration could have any useful influence over them, I would authorize him to make it known to them.

At the request of the king, Captain Freycinet repeated this declaration in a council of chiefs called for that purpose, which the disaffected chief Kekuaokalani refused to attend. Freycinet added some remarks on the disastrous effects of civil war and the blessings which spring from peace, commerce, and the progress of civilization. At the conclusion of his speech, Kaahumanu called attention to a report which she said was being circulated to the effect that the French officer had demanded a cession of the islands to France and that a cession had actually been made. Freycinet denounced the report and declared that he could not be a party to any such transaction, "even if Liholiho himself, on his own initiative, had expressed a wish to make his country a dependency of France." 1 6 These declarations of Captain Freycinet gave great satisfaction to the king and his supporters. How much effect they had on the local situation it is impossible to say. What we do know is that there was no immediate outbreak against the authority of King Liholiho. The rebellion came a few months later, after the overthrow of the kapu system. The train of circumstances leading up to the final act of abolition of the kapus and the old religious system cannot easily be traced in detail. The accounts are conflicting and about all we can do is to attempt a rather general sketch of the movement. At the outset it must be emphasized that this revolution, affecting as it did the fundamental beliefs of a whole people fixed in their consciousness by centuries of observance, was not the work of a day or of a few weeks and was not the mere capricious act of an absolute monarch. As Alexander and other writers have pointed Freycinet, op. cit522, 532-534. Freycinet's account makes no mention of the kapu question, but it is almost certain that Kekuaokalani knew about the discussions on that subject which had taken place at Kailua, and it is altogether probable that this had something to do with his rebellious attitude at this time. " Ibid., 536-538.

1819

67

out, it was the result of "deep-seated and widespread causes which had been at work for more than a quarter of a century." 17 The example of the foreigners, their disregard of kapu, and their occasional efforts to convince the Hawaiians by argument that their system was wrong, were the most potent forces undermining the beliefs of the people. There were incidents related by visitors to the islands showing that some of the people were willing to disregard the kapus if they could do this without being seen by the priests and chiefs. Some of the people evidently sensed the fact that the gods would not punish them if the priests knew nothing about their violations of kapu. Kaahumanu had eaten bananas secretly without any ill consequences. Her brother Keeaumoku is known to have spoken contemptuously of the whole system even before the death of Kamehameha I. The Hawaiians had heard of the overthrow of the kapu and religious system in the Society Islands by King Pomare and this no doubt had influence in Hawaii. It is said that a certain priest Kapihe, in the presence of Kamehameha I, had foretold the fall of the kapus. The overthrow of the old system is symbolized by the free eating (ai noa)—as opposed to kapu eating (at kapu)—which was the first overt manifestation of the change. This question of eating takes a large place in the history of the movement. The eating kapus were most irksome and humiliating to women; at this time there were two female chiefs who had a very powerful influence in the affairs of the nation: Keopuolani, mother of Liholiho and the highest ranking alii in the kingdom; and Kaahumanu, who shared the government with Liholiho. After the death of Kamehameha I, both of these powerful chiefesses favored the overthrow of the old system. Some authorities state that immediately after the installation of Liholiho as king, Kaahumanu proposed to him that the kapus be disregarded and she announced her own intention to disregard them. The king, it is said, remained silent and withheld his consent. Then Keopuolani, who was present, "was touched with love for Kaahumanu because her proposal was refused. She thought perhaps that the proposal might eventually bring upon Kaahumanu the extreme vengeance of violated tabu." Keopuolani therefore sent for her son Kauikeaouli, the younger brother of Liholiho, and ate with him in defiance of the kapu. Liholiho permitted this, but refrained from any violation of the kapu himself. 18 One interesting and significant point during this period is the attitude of Kekuaokalani. That chief was not present in Kailua when Liholiho was invested with the kingship. Kamakau in one place says that this was 17 Alexander, op. cit., 38. Alexander's article is based in part upon statements by John P a r k e r , who was a n eyewitness of much t h a t he described. Other basic accounts of the overthrow of the kapu system: M H , X V I (1820), 167-168 (based on statements of two American ship captains, eyewitnesses); M H , X X I I I (1827), 247 (statement by K a a h u m a n u ) ; W . Ellis, Narrative of a Tour through Hawaii (Honolulu. 1917), 94-96; Ka Mooolelo Hawaii, translation in Hawaiian Spectator, I I . 334-337 (July, 1839); Dibble, History of the Sandwich Islands (1843), 141-152; Kamakau, op. cit.. Chaps. 44-46, in K N K , Oct. 5, 12, Nov. 2, 1867. W i t h chapter 46, the title of K a m a k a u ' s work is changed to Ka Moolelo o na Kamehameha. " A l e x a n d e r , op. cit., 40-41; Dibble, op. cit., 148-149. T h e quotation is f r o m Dibble.

68

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

because Kekuaokalani was sick at Kawaihae, 19 but in another place he says it was because Kekuaokalani feared the free eating that was already going on at Kailua. 20 Kekuaokalani tried to dissuade Liholiho from going back to Kailua, and when Liholiho announced that he was going, Kekuaokalani advised him not to indulge in free eating. At first, Liholiho followed this advice, but as the weeks and months passed the pressure upon him to declare in favor of free eating became stronger and stronger. From all the evidence it seems not unlikely that the young king was confronted finally with a dilemma: on the one side, he could go with Kekuaokalani and stick to the old customs, upholding the ancient religion and the kapus; or he might, on the other hand, go with the party of Kaahumanu and Keopuolani and indulge in free eating, which of course was only a symbol for the abandonment of the old system. It was not an easy question to decide. It must not be forgotten that Liholiho's training and chiefly prerogatives would naturally lead him to uphold the kapu system as his father had done. From that standpoint, the abolition of the kapus was contrary to his interests. He talked with his kahuna-nui, Hewahewa, and the latter told him that it would be a good thing to abolish the kapus and abandon their gods. 21 When the young king had finally made his decision and was on the point of putting it into execution—a course requiring no small amount of courage on his part—he caused a feast to be prepared at Kailua, to which all the leading chiefs and several foreigners were invited. Two tables were set in the European fashion, one for men and one for women. A f t e r the guests were seated, and had begun to eat, the king took two or three turns round each table, as if to see what passed at each; and then suddenly, and without any previous warning to any but those in the secret, seated himself in a vacant chair at the women's table, and began to eat voraciously, but was evidently much perturbed. The guests, astonished at this act, clapped their hands, and cried out, "At noa,—the eating tabu is broken."**

When the meal was over, Liholiho issued orders to destroy the heiaus and burn the idols, and this was done from one end of the kingdom to the other. The date of this event can be definitely determined by contemporary notices to fall within the first week of November, 1819. The diary of the Spaniard Marin shows that on November 6 orders were received in Honolulu from the king directing that men and women should eat together and should eat equally of foods formerly prohibited to the women; on the following day Marin noted that women ate pork and the heiaus were destroyed.23 It is true that the revolution was not complete. There were a large " K a m a k a u , op. cit., Chap. 42, in K N K , Sept. 21, 1867. » / M d . , Chap. 45, in K N K , Oct. 12, 1867. a M H . X V I I (1821), 117; Maria S. (Mrs. Elisha) Loomis, Journal, April 6, 1820, M S in H M C S Library. 22 This is f r o m an account given by K a a h u m a n u to Rev. A. Bishop in 1826. M H , X X I I I (1827), 247. " See also the statements by Captains Blair and Clark reported in M H , X V I (1820), 167-168.

1819

69

number who refused to cast aside their old practices; and many idols, instead of being burned, were merely hidden from sight. Even among those who outwardly conformed to the new order were many who secretly clung to their idols; the old gods of Hawaii had their devotees for a long time after 1819. Kekuaokalani looked upon the action of his cousin as a most heinous offense. With him agreed most of the priests, as was natural, and many of the common people. The disaffected chief took his position at Kaawaloa and a formidable party gathered about him. While matters were in this state, an insurrection broke out among the people of Hamakua. Thus the royal court at Kailua was menaced from both sides. A council was held to decide on a course of action. Some were for making an attack on the Hamakua rebels, but Kalanimoku said: It is not good policy to carry on the war in that quarter; for Keakuaokalani, the source of the war, is at Kaawaloa. To that place let our forces be directed. The rebellion at Hamakua is a leaf of the tree. I would lay the axe at the root; that being destroyed, the leaves will of course wither.24

This advice was approved. First, however, an embassy, of which the kapu chiefess Keopuolani volunteered to be a member, was sent to Kaawaloa to reason with Kekuaokalani. But all conciliatory efforts failed and the question at issue was put to the test of battle at Kuamoo between Kailua and Kaawaloa. The king's army led by Kalanimoku was victorious. Kekuaokalani was killed fighting bravely; his heroic wife Manono stood by his side and shared his fate. After this battle, the insurrection in Hamakua was put down without much difficulty. The military operations, both in Kona and in Hamakua, occurred, probably, in the latter half of December. 25 The appeal to arms had confirmed the decree of the king, and the old religion as an organized system was abandoned; the old kapus were no longer enforced. Believers in the old order were confounded by the apparent inability of its gods to stem the tide of infidelity; but, as mentioned before, the old beliefs lived on in the consciousness of many of the people; and many an idol secretly preserved was secretly worshipped. Discontinuance of the formal religious services in the heiaus and of the makahiki celebration left a kind of vacuum in the social life of the nation. Finally, it may be remarked that while the revolution did certainly weaken 24

Dibble, op. cit., 154. 28 Basic accounts of the revolt of Kekuaokalani, in chronological o r d e r : Ellis, op. cit., 9294; Ka Mooolelo Hawaii, translation in Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 337-340 (July, 1839); Dibble, op. cit., 152-157; Kamakau, op. cit., Chaps. 46. 46 bis, in K N K , Nov. 2, 9, 1867. T h e following notes f r o m the diary of Francisco de Paula M a r i n (translated extracts, by R. C. Wyllie, in A H ) are of interest in this connection: Dec. 2, 1819. T h e king's ship Bordeaux Packet arrived at Honolulu f r o m H a w a i i ; it came to get " c a n n o n s and muskets & powder and flints." Dec. 12. " T h i s day they took on shore 900 muskets [purchased] f r o m Capt. L u i s . " Dec. 27. " A canoe arrived f r o m V a j i [ H a w a i i ] , with a letter & order f o r 200 barrels of powder & 600 muskets for V a j i . " Dec. 30. " T h i s day arrived a boat f r o m V a j i with the news that they had killed the e n e m y . " See also extracts f r o m the log of Capt. Alexander A d a m s printed in Haw'n Annual, 1906, pp. 73-74.

70

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

very greatly the power of the priests, it did not altogether destroy their power; and the power of the chiefs was scarcely touched. Thus we come to the end of the year 1819, but before closing this brief review of its memorable history, two other facts need to be mentioned. (1) At the very time that the people of Hawaii were discarding their old religion, missionaries were on their way from the United States, zealously intent on persuading the Hawaiians to embrace the teachings of Christianity. (2) In October, 1819, two whaleships visited the islands, the vanguard of a vast fleet whose hulls and sails became familiar sights to the island people. Whalers and missionaries were destined to play roles of outstanding importance on the stage of Hawaiian history. That they came at nearly the same time is a striking coincidence; and it is still more remarkable that they came just when the Hawaiians were themselves preparing the way for a new order of things. Their work and their influence will be described in later chapters.

CHAPTER V KAMEHAMEHA II Kamehameha II (Liholiho) was not, by comparison with his father, a very strong ruler, but the slighting opinion of him so frequently expressed needs some revision.1 Educated in the priestly order that he might perform the temple service required of a king by the old Hawaiian cult, one of his first acts was to abolish that cult and thus render useless much of his own education. He was restless, unstable, indulging in what seemed to his foreign contemporaries to be mere madcap pranks; but when some of these acts are examined in a disinterested spirit, it appears that, if they were mad, at least there was method in them. His brief reign was an interlude between two stronger rulers; this circumstance makes him appear lgss impressive than otherwise might be the case. The period savored of the character of the king—there was a restless uncertainty about it; rumors were constantly afloat, suggestions of impending revolution in the government, threats to expel all the foreigners, reports that the Americans were planning to take possession of the country, and other equally baseless canards. Nevertheless there was much purposeful activity. It was the flush time of the sandalwood trade. The American missionaries were quietly but certainly getting a foothold in the country. The whaling ships came every year in larger numbers, making the islands a base for their operations. These developments are described in other chapters; the present one will deal with the political history and the foreign relations of the country during the reign of Kamehameha II. The disaffection that confronted Liholiho soon after his accession to the throne has been described in the preceding chapter, together with the train of incidents culminating in the battle of Kuamoo. The victory of the royal power and the fate of Kekuaokalani might well have discouraged any other chieftain from raising the standard of revolt. But the spirit of unrest was not altogether quieted if we can believe the testimony of foreign visitors and foreign residents. Peter Dobell, an Irish adventurer who became a Russian citizen and claimed to have a consular appointment from the Russian government, visited Hawaii in the winter of 1819-1820.2 In a book written at a later time he describes the peace of the islands at the period of his visit as in danger of being broken by a gen1 Ellis, Narrative of a Tour through Havaii (1917 ed.), 337-338, gives a very favorable estimate of Liholiho's character. See also A. P. Taylor, "Liholiho: a Revised Estimate of H i s Character," in H H S Papers, No. 15 (Honolulu, 1928), 21-39. * Dobell came to the islands f r o m Kamchatka in the brig Sylph, owned by himself but commanded by Captain Alexander Adams, who was for many years a resident of Honolulu. H e arrived a t Hilo, Nov. 17, 1819, visited Kailua where he saw the young king and the royal family, and arrived at Honolulu on Dec. 15. Capt. Alexander Adams, " E x t r a c t s f r o m a n Ancient L o g , " in Haw'» Annual, 1906, pp. 73-74. The printed copy gives the date of arrival at Hilo as Oct. 17, but the context shows that it should be Nov. 17. T h e Spaniard Marin noted in his diary the arrival of Dobell at Honolulu under the date Dec. 14, 1819. The discrepancy of one day between this and Adams' record is probably due to the f a c t that the international date line had not yet been established.

71

72

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

eral insurrection and names Kalanimoku, the prime minister, as the principal instigator of the impending revolt. The last part of this statement sounds fantastic, but Arago, who was at the islands with Freycinet only a few months earlier, reports a rumor that Kalanimoku was to seize the supreme power; he somewhat obscurely hints that England was really to get control through Kalanimoku.8 Dobell relates how he himself as representative of a friendly power was appealed to by the young king to attend a council of the chiefs and give support to the royal cause. He did so and his speech to the assembled dignitaries produced the desired effect; Kalanimoku and all the other chiefs threw themselves at the feet of the king with fervent protestations of loyalty. Dobell's visit to the islands is sufficiently well attested, but the rest of his story needs possibly some confirmation. His description of the council and his own part in it sounds remarkably like Freycinet's account of the council meeting in which he participated some months earlier. After leaving Hawaii Dobell became fired with the idea of adding these islands to the Russian empire and wrote at length to the Russian minister of foreign affairs, Count Nesselrode, on the subject. He asserted that in the hands of Russia the islands would become the richest in the Orient; by taking them Russia would strengthen her colonies, secure an impregnable base, a central point for the commerce of the whole Pacific, and a strategic place from which to command the ocean and keep the balance of power. This was the second attempt by a foreign adventurer to induce Russia to take possession of the Hawaiian islands. Fortunately the imperial government was no more impressed with the Irishman Dobell's scheme than it had been with the German Scheffer's. No attention was paid to Dobell's representations.4 During 1822 and 1823 the letters of J. C. Jones, one of the American traders, contain frequent references to rumors of revolution. These are usually associated with the supposed ambition of Kaahumanu. In one of his letters (Decenfber, 1822) Jones suggests another reason for the prevalence of these reports. "There appears," he writes, "to be some fears that Karhamano and Tamoree [Kaumualii] intend to take possession of the Islands. I am endeavoring to make them [the king, Kalanimoku, and Boki] believe this will be the case in order that we may sell our powder and muskets."6 James Hunnewell, another trader at the islands during the same period, makes no mention of revolutionary dangers, but reports some threats to expel all or part of the white people. The king maintained his right to control the residence of foreigners; in the fall of 1820 he • Arago, Narrative of a Voyage, II, 108-109. * Pierre Dobel, Sept Annees en Chine (Paris, 1842), 237-239, 334-335; F. A. Colder, "Proposals for Russian Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands," 46-48; "Letter of Katnehameha I I to Alexander I, 1820," in American Historical Review, XX, 831-833 (July, 1915). •Letters by J. C. Jones dated Nov. 16, Dec., 1822, May 31, Oct. 12, 24,1823, in Josiah Marshall Manuscripts, Harvard College Library (hereafter cited as Marshall MSS). Extensive extracts from Jones' letters during this period are printed in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Oct.-Nov., 1920, pp. 29-47. Elisha Loomis, Journal, Nov. 25, 1822, notes "rumors of a rebellion." Copies of the various Loomis journals are in HMCS Library; one of the original journals, covering the period May 17, 1824-Jan. 27, 1826, is in the University of Hawaii Library.

K A M E H A M E H A II

73

despatched his secretary to Honolulu with orders to send out of the country foreigners who did not hold land. The missionaries were exempted from this order by permission previously given them to remain for a year. Hunnewell learned from the natives that certain British residents, whom he names, were trying to get the Americans expelled from the islands. It may be concluded that the attitude of the natives was influenced to some degree by national rivalries among the foreigners. 6 Hunnewell's letters point to the existence of a crime wave during 1821 and 1822. He refers specifically to cases of robbery, arson, and murder, and hints that some of these were winked at by the highest authorities of the nation. There was obviously much laxity in the administration of government. 7 Foreigners who became permanent residents of the country, substantially naturalized citizens, did so with the express or tacit permission of the king. They—and all other foreigners—if they received land, held it by the same precarious tenure as native subjects, simply at the pleasure of the king. Should he be displeased, the land may be taken away tomorrow. White men, who hold extensive lands, derive little benefit from them, unless they cultivate their ground themselves. A fare, precarious and coarse, is the portion of most foreigners, who reside here: yet none, who have any sobriety or industry, are in danger of starving.

This was written in November, 1820.8 The property of foreigners, in common with that of natives, was subject to confiscation by the native authorities. This right was seldom exercised against foreigners, yet Chamberlain in September, 1823, records the fact that "notice has been received today that Karaimoku and Boke [then at Lahaina] have ordered Marine, Mr. Warren, Mr. Navarro and Mr. Temple to be stripped of their property. A large number of kanakas entered Mr. Marine's house this morning to put the order into effect." 9 Until the end of 1820 the principal residence of the king—one of several—was at Kailua, Hawaii. On September 10, 1820, the chiefs held a council at that place and it was agreed that the king should settle at Oahu. Kalanimoku made an address "pointing out the evils which had resulted from the king's not being fixed in any particular place, and the benefits which might be expected from the measures now agreed on." 10 The transfer was made in easy stages; in November the king and his attend• Letters of James H u n n e w e l l dated J u l y 15, 20, Aug. 2, 6, Sept. 21, 1820, in Hunnewell Manuscripts, part of these manuscripts a r e in H a r v a r d College Library ( W i d e n e r ) and part in Baker Library of H a r v a r d University Graduate School of Business Administration (cited- herea f t e r as Hunnewell M S S ) ; Loomis, Journal, Aug. 8, 1820; Bingham, Residence of Twenty-one Years in the Sandwich Islands, 112-113, 118-119. The latter work will be cited hereafter as Bingham, Residence. ' H u n n e w e l l to Blanchard, J a n . 26, 1822, Hunnewell M S S ; H u n n e w e l l to Thacher, J a n . 13, 1823, ibid. • M H , X V I I (1821), 283. See also M H , X V I I I (1822), 207; Friend, L I I (1894), 52 (statement of Golovnin, 1818); T y e r m a n and Bennet, Journal of Voyages and Travels (London, 1831), I , 380. • Levi Chamberlain, J o u r n a l , Sept. 22, 1823, M S in H M C S Library. 10 E . Loomis, Journal, Sept. 11, 1820.

74

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

ants sailed to Lahaina where they remained for a while and then went on to Honolulu in the early part of February, 1821. The voyage from Lahaina was made in the recently purchased yacht Cleopatra's Barge. The vessel arrived off Honolulu in the night and was greeted with a roar of saluting guns from the fort near the harbor and from a battery on Punchbowl. For weeks the people had been preparing for the king's reception, practicing the hula and collecting supplies to meet the expected demands of the court. 11 While the king's removal to Honolulu was doubtless a concession to the growing importance of that place and made it in a sense the seat of government, it did not result in the king's residing there permanently. Visitors to the islands in 1822 remarked that "Rihoriho has no fixed residence, but moves about from place to place, and island to island, as humor prompts." Traders and missionaries agreed in attributing to the young king a roving disposition. Hunnewell wrote in October, 1821, "The young King continues carousing and wandering about from island to island, taking many chiefs and men with him which embarrasses themselves and those who have to do with them." But traveling about through their dominions was a common practice of Hawaiian chiefs, as well as of rulers of more advanced nations. Liholiho may have carried the practice to an extreme. In 1822 Kaahumanu, the kuhina-nui, and her husband Kaumualii, with a train of chiefs and servants numbering about a thousand persons, spent several months in making a tour of nearly the whole kingdom. Such tours were sometimes a hardship on the people, for the traveling court lived off the land and frequently left a partial famine behind them as they moved along.12 On the other hand, this journeying to and fro had some beneficial results, enabling the rulers to become acquainted with the people and the various parts of the kingdom and making it difficult for conspiracies and insurrections to get into motion. RELATIONS WITH KING KAUMUAIJI

In July, 1821, Liholiho visited Kauai and had a friendly meeting with Kaumualii under circumstances which might have been disastrous. On the eighteenth of that month, the king (Liholiho) went on horseback from Honolulu to Waialua in order to look after the cutting of sandalwood on thé western end of Oahu. On the twenty-first, finding conditions favorable, he set out from Waialua in a small sailing vessel, accompanied by Boki, governor of Oahu, Naihe and his wife Kapiolani, and about thirty servants ; the king ordered the helmsman to steer the heavily loaded vessel out across the wide and dangerous channel toward Kauai. Through the day and far into the night they sailed on ; several times the little vessel was v Ibid., J an. 13, Feb. 3, 4, 1821; MH, X V I I I (1822), 204-206; Bingham, Residence, 123-126, 132; Mr». Lucy G. Thurston, Life and Times of . . . (Ann Arbor, 1882), 51-54. Of Mrs. Thurston's book there have been two later editions, in which the pagination is substantially the same as in the first edition. " T y e r m a n and Bennet, op. cit., I, 421, 477-478, 481-486; Hunnewell, letters dated Oct. 6, 1821, Aug. 28, 1823, in Hunnewell M S S ; J. C. Jones, letters dated Oct. 5, Dec. 23, 1821, in Marshall MSS; Chamberlain, Journal, 1823 passim; Bingham, Residence, 145.

K A M E H A M E H A II

75

nearly swamped by the waves and the king's companions begged him to return, but he refused and declared that if they turned back he would swim to Kauai. Before daylight next morning they arrived off Waimea, where they received a friendly welcome from Kaumualii, tributary king of Kauai. Boki's wife Liliha followed him to Kauai in an outrigger canoe propelled by four paddlers aided by a small sail, and reached Waimea on the twenty-third. A vessel was despatched to Oahu with news of the king's safe arrival and orders for two of his wives and other attendants to follow him. Kaumualii treated his superior as befitted the relationship between them. In the presence of a number of foreigners, he said : "King Reho-Reho, hear;—When your father was alive, I acknowledged him as my superior. Since his death, I have considered you as his rightful successor, and, according to his appointment, as king. Now I have a plenty of muskets and powder, and a plenty of men at command,—these, with the vessels I have bought, the fort, the guns, and the island, all are yours. Do with them as you please. Send me where you please. Place what chief you please as governor here."

There was silence for some minutes; then Liholiho replied: "I did not come to take away your island. I do not wish to place anyone over it. Keep your island, and take care of it just as you have done, and do what you please with your vessels." Rev. Hiram Bingham, who was present, wrote at the time: Thus, without noise or bloodshed, the treaty, made with the late king, is recognized and ratified with his son and successor,—a treaty, which allowed [Kaumualii] the peaceful possession of the leeward islands, as tributary king. In this transaction it is difficult to say which of the two has shown the most sagacity or magnanimity.13

But when, some weeks afterward, Liholiho returned to Oahu, he took Kaumualii with him. The latter retained the title of king, but from this time on he was a virtual prisoner of state. The imperious dowager queen and kuhina-nui, Kaahumanu, was charmed with the handsome and gentlemanly Kauai king and on October 9, 1821, took him for her husband. The missionaries say that they were told, on their arrival at the islands, that this marriage was contemplated, but they do not inform us how the idea originated. 14 Shortly afterward Kaahumanu added a second husband to her train in the person of Kaumualii's son Kealiiahonui. 15 Levi Chamberlain gives us an interesting glimpse of this family group. Writing in his journal, March 31, 1824, he says, The stated weekly service . . . was well attended this afternoon. Kaahumanu rode up in great stile in a carriage brought out by Capt. Wildes. The coach was drawn by 10 or a dozen natives by means of a long rope fastened to the tongue of ls E . Loomis, Journal, J u l y 13, 18, 23, 24, 25, 30, 1821; Friend, XCV (1925), 226-227 (journal of Rev. S. Whitney) ; M H , X V I I I (1822), 242-245 ( j o u r n a l of Rev. H . B i n g h a m ) ; J. C. Jones to Marshall & Wildes, Oct. 5, 1821, Marshall M S S . I n the account of Liholiho's departure for Kauai, I follow Loomis and Whitney rather than Bingham, who gives a different story. Loomis was on Oahu and was more likely to know what happened on that island than Bingham, who was on Kauai. " E . Loomis, Journal, Oct. 10, 1821; M H , X V I I I (1822), 278; Thurston, op. cit., 64. " Jarves, History of the Hawaiian Islands (3 ed.), 116.

76

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

the carriage. She was posted on the driver's seat, Keariiahonui occupied the place of the footman behind and Taumuarii thus royally attended occupied the interior alone. This is the first vehicle of the kind which has moved on the Sandwich Islands.

While the episode of Liholiho's visit to Kauai exhibits elements of recklessness, the king's conduct nevertheless indicates a measure of statesmanship. There were many reasons why he might wish to test the sincerity of Kaumualii's allegiance. The latter's relations with the Russians suggested what he might do if another favorable opportunity knocked at his door. His son George was greatly displeased with the existing status and might create trouble at any time. 16 There had been much talk of possible war between the two kings. 17 Despite the suddenness with which he made the journey, Liholiho had long contemplated going to Kauai and apparently had been deterred only by the opposition of both chiefs and foreigners. 1 8 H e seized the first opportunity that presented itself to carry out his design. The outcome must have been exactly what he wished, and unquestionably his position was greatly strengthened. In foreign relations Liholiho carried on the policy of his father, regarding his domain as being under the protection of Great Britain. The first occasion for an open expression of this policy occurred in 1822 upon the arrival from New South Wales of a small schooner, the Prince Regent, armed with six guns, built at Sydney by direction of the British government f o r presentation to Kamehameha in fulfilment of Vancouver's promise. The schooner was delivered to Liholiho at Honolulu, May 1, 1822, by Captain J. R. Kent of the cutter Mermaid, in whose care it was brought to Hawaii; and on his departure from the islands a few months later Captain Kent was made the bearer of a letter in which the Hawaiian king thanked the ruler of the British empire for the gift of the Prince Regent, and informed him of the death of Kamehameha and his own succession to the throne. H e added: "The whole of these islands having been conquered by my father, I have succeeded to the government of them, and beg leave to place them all under the protection of your most excellent Majesty; wishing to observe peace with all nations, and to be thought worthy the confidence I place in your Majesty's wisdom and judgment."

The king doubtless voiced the sentiments of the Hawaiian people as a whole, or at least of such part of them as gave any thought to the subject. 1 9 LIHOLIHO'S V I S I T TO E N G L A N D

Liholiho's voyage to England, which was, next to the abolition of the kapus, the most noted of his acts, was closely related to the policy of an English alliance. This voyage, like the one to Kauai, was not made on a " B i n g h a m , Residence, 97-98; M H , X V I I (1821), 283; X V I I I (1822), 249; Mathison, Narrative of a Visit tn Brazil, Chile, Peru and the Sandwich Islands, 444. " M H , X V I I I (1822), 275; E. Loornis, Journal, J u l y 30, 1821. " M H , X V I I I (1822), 243, 274. " T y e r m a n & Bennet, op. cit., I , 381, 392, 435-436, 479-481; Ellis, op. cit., 38; E. Loomis, Journal, Apr. 9, 1822; Mathison, op. cit., 441; Jarves, op. cit., 117, 118, Bingham, Residence, 264.

KAMEHAMEHA II

77

mere sudden impulse, but was the fulfilment of a long cherished desire. The death of his mother Keopuolani, in September, 1823, removed one of the objections to his going. In October the subject was discussed in a council at Lahaina and it was decided that the king and his suite should go to England in the English whaleship L'Aigle. Various reasons have been suggested for this voyage. Two missionaries, the American Bingham and the Englishman Ellis, were consulted by the chiefs about the preparations and each wrote a letter at the time. Bingham said: T o gain information, political and commercial, to gratify curiosity, to achieve by the tour something great in his own estimation, & eventually to increase his wealth & power are doubtless the principal objects that come within the scope of his present designs, . . . H e desires to have an interview with the king & court of England, to obtain some advice, & perhaps assistance, to enable him the better to govern his own people and to maintain a better regulated intercourse with foreigners who visit or reside in his islands."

Ellis believed that Liholiho's purpose in making the journey was to visit his Majesty the King [of England], to receive friendly counsel and advice for the Government of these far-distant isles, to increase their acquaintance with the world, enlarge their views of human society, and observe the laws, customs, institutions, religion, and character of the country beneath whose guardian friendship and protection they and their countrymen who remain have chosen with confidence to place themselves. 3

When the party arrived in England a London newspaper reported the fact with the statement that "the King of the Sandwich Islands has come to England for the purpose of placing his dominions under the protection of Great Britain, in consequence of his apprehending some hostile intentions on the part of Russia." 22 From other sources we learn that the king likewise apprehended danger from the United States, due to the recent .large influx of Americans, both traders and missionaries. 23 The king sailed from Honolulu, November 27, 1823, accompanied by his favorite wife Kamamalu, Governor Boki of Oahu and his wife Liliha, Kekuanaoa, Kapihe, Mantiia, James Young Kanehoa, a few servants, and his secretary and interpreter John Rives. A great throng of chiefs and commoners and foreigners crowded the shore to bid them farewell. The parting scene was one of intense emotion, with a vague undercurrent of foreboding. The strains of "Aloha Oe," written by a later queen of the isles, were not heard on this occasion, but their place was taken by the 20

Bingham to Evarts, Nov. 21, 1823, ML, I, 75-80. Ellis to [directors of London Missionary Society], Nov. 22, 1823, clipping f r o m London newspaper, 1824, A H . 22 Clipping in ATT. Note also the statement of K a a h u m a n u , quoted in Bingham Residence, 204, that Liholiho "went to Britain to seek a hakuaina, a landlord." 23 M H , X V I I (1821), 118: X V I I I (1822), 206; T y e r m a n & Bennet, op. cit., I, 471-472; Byng Planta, March 4, 1826, B P R O , F. O. 58/4. 21

78

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

poetical words uttered by the young queen Kamamalu just before she stepped from the shore: "Ye skies, ye plains, ye mountains and great sea, Ye toilers, ye people of the soil, my love embraces you, To this soil, farewell! Yea, land for whose sake my father was eaten by deep sorrow—farewelll alasl farewell I"

Then apostrophizing her deceased father Kamehameha, she added: "We both forsake the object of thy toil. I go according to thy command: Never will I disregard thy voice. I travel with thy dying charge, Which thou didst address to me.""

In the meetings of the king and chiefs preceding the king's departure, arrangements were made for the government of the country during his absence. His younger brother Kauikeaouli (at this time about nine years old) was designated to succeed him in the event of his death abroad and for the meantime a regency was established, the queen dowager Kaahumanu taking the office of regent in addition to that of kuhina-nui. Kalanimoku continued to be the principal minister of state. 25 For practical purposes the reign of Kamehameha II ended with his departure for England, but it is necessary to follow him and his suite on the journey, since some of its incidents have an important bearing on the history of the country. The ship L'Aigle arrived at Portsmouth, England, about May 18, 1824. The Hawaiian party was conducted to London by the master of the vessel, Captain Valentine Starbuck. As soon as the government learned of their arrival, it immediately assumed the charge and direction of their entertainment. They were lodged in a fashionable hotel, Osborne's Caledonian Hotel, Adelphi, and the Honorable Frederick Byng was appointed to attend constantly upon them. The most respectful and courteous treatment was accorded them; they were taken to see the important public buildings and places of interest; they visited the principal theatres, occupying the royal boxes; Mr. Canning, secretary of state for foreign affairs, held a reception in their honor. Arrangements were made for them to be received in audience by King George IV, but before the audience could take place, several members of the party, including the king and queen, were stricken with measles. King George sent his own physicians to minister to them. In the case of Kamamalu the disease was complicated by an inflammation of the lungs and she died on the eighth of July. Liholiho, grief-stricken and discouraged by the death of his wife, failed rapidly and passed away on the fourteenth. 26 M Ka Mooolclo Hawaii, translation in Polynesian, Aug. 8, 1840; Dibble, op. cit., 192; Tarves, op. cit., 122; Bingham, Residence, 202-204. Several translations of Kamamalu's farewell have been given by different writers. T h e rendering in the text is taken, the first part f r o m a translation by Edith Rice Plews in H a n d y et al., Ancient Hawaiian Civilization, 189; the last part f r o m Bingham. 28 See Appendix B. " Certificates of t h e attending physicians a r e on file in A H .

KAMEHAMEHA From (Photograph

the lithograph London, by Honolulu

II

by John 1824 Academy

Hayter of

Arts)

K A M E H A M E H A II

79

By the death of the king, Governor Boki became the leader of the party. After they had all regained their health and arrangements had been completed for their return to Hawaii, an interview was held (September 11) with King George IV, who was accompanied by Secretary Canning and some other officials. As to what was said on this occasion we have the later testimony of three who were present. The fullest account is contained in a statement of Kekuanaoa written, probably, about 1839. He says that after some preliminary conversation, The King then asked Boki what was the business on which you and your King came to this country? . . . Then Boki declared to him the reason of our sailing to Great Britain. We have come to confirm the words which Kamehameha I gave in charge to Vancouver thus—"Go back and tell King George to watch over me and my whole Kingdom. I acknowledge him as my landlord and myself as tenant (or him as superior and I inferior). Should the foreigners of any other nation come to take possession of my lands, then let him help me." . . . And when King George had heard he thus said to Boki, "I have heard these words, I will attend to the evils from without. The evils within your Kingdom it is not for me to regard; they are with yourselves. Return and say to the King, to Kaahumanu and to Kalaimoku, I will watch over your country, I will not take possession of it for mine, but I will watch over it, lest evils should come from others to the Kingdom. I therefore will watch over him agreeably to those ancient words.""

James Young Kanehoa, who served as interpreter at the interview, in a letter written in 1851, corroborates the foregoing statement and adds, "this affair of the protectorate formed the chief topic of the interview."28 One of the English gentlemen who was present testifies that "George the 4 did promise (in my presence) the Islanders his protection."29 Further light is thrown on the attitude and policy of the British government at this time by certain documents existing in the Public Record Office in London. On July 14, 1824, a few hours after the death of Liholiho, Secretary Canning penned a note to King George IV, informing him of that event, and adding: Mr. Canning humbly presumes that Your Majesty will not disapprove of a Ship of War being allowed to carry back the Suite of the deceased Chief, with the remains of himself and his wife, to the Sandwich Islands:—an Attention perhaps the more advisable as the Governments both of Russia and of the United States of America are known to have their Eyes upon those Islands: which may ere long become a very important Station in the trade between the N. W. Coast of America and the China Seas.

The suggestion contained in this note was approved by King George.30 " T r a n s l a t i o n , in handwriting of W m . Richards, in A H , printed in Polynesian, Oct. 18, 1851. I have altered the punctuation slightly. " J . Y. Kanehoa to R. C. Wyllie, J a n . 31, 1851, in Polynesian, Oct. 11, 1851. • B P R O , F. 0 . 58/6. Cf. Voyage of H.M.S. Blonde to the Sandwich Islands, in the years x t i 4 - i t i s . . . (London, 1826), 153. *> B P R O , F. O. 5 8 / 3 , printed in Report of the Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawaii . . . December 31, 1914, p. 33.

80

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

The visit of the Hawaiian king to England occurred at a time when there existed in commercial circles in England a lively interest in the possibilities of trade with the inlands of the Pacific. Captain Richard Charlton had recently returned to England from a long cruise in that quarter of the globe, with reports and prospects which led to his being fitted out again, with a brig and a cutter, to take up his residence in the Pacific in order to foster trade between the islands and British manufacturers. These facts were brought to the attention of the government. The board of trade and the admiralty as well as private interests recommended to the foreign office the appointment of Charlton as British consul for the Sandwich, Society, and Friendly Islands; and the appointment was made on September 23, 1824. Charlton was in England during the period of the sojourn of Liholiho and his suite; he visited them in a friendly way and was of some service to them. The king before his death made known his wish that Charlton should have land in Honolulu on which to reside and on which to establish his office. 31 Canning's note to King George IV bore fruit in the decision to dispatch the 46-gun frigate Blonde to the Sandwich Islands to carry back to their native land the surviving members of the Hawaiian party together with the bodies of their late king and queen. The splendid coffins containing the royal remains were removed from the vault of St. Martin's church, where they had been temporarily placed, to the frigate on September 8. Three weeks later the Hawaiian chiefs and their attendants boarded the vessel at Portsmouth and sailed for their distant homeland. The Frenchman Rives was no longer with them; after the death of Liholiho he had fallen into disfavor and been dismissed from the party; he disappears for a little while from the stage of Hawaiian history. The commander of the Blonde was Captain the Right Honorable (George Anson) Lord Byron, R.N. To him the British government f u r nished secret instructions for his guidance in the delicate business committed to him. He was directed to deliver the bodies of the king and queen at Hawaii with the proper and acceptable marks of respect; he was then to make himself acquainted with the conditions, political and otherwise, existing in the islands, "as well as with the influence and interests which any foreign Powers may have in them"; in the internal affairs of the country he was to endeavor to maintain a strict neutrality and to cultivate a good understanding with the native authorities with a view to the protection of present and future interests of British subjects. Lord Byron was furnished with the published accounts of the voyages of Cook, Vancouver, u Byng to Planta, May 25, 1824; Palmer to Byng, J u n e 16, 1824; Croker to Planta, J u l y 5, 1824; K O. to Charlton, J u l y 7, 1824; Charlton's appointment, Sept. 23, 1824; all of these documents are in B P R O , F. O. 5 8 / 3 ; J. B. Rives to Francisco de Paula Marin, J u l y 2, 1824, in A H , Historical and Miscellaneous file; Memorandum f r o m British Foreign Office respecting Charlton, enclosed in G. H . Phipps, H . B . M . Consul at Honolulu, to A. P . Taylor, L i b r a r i a n of Hawaiian Archives, J a n . 7, 1929.

K A M E H A M E H A II

81

and Kotzebue and with an essay on the commerce of the Pacific by Captain Macconochie (sic),3'2 from which, the instructions read, you will be apprized of the position in which these Islands stand with regard to the Crown of Great Britain, and that H i s M a j e s t y [ K i n g George I V ] might claim over them a right of sovereignty not only by discovery, but by a direct and formal Cession by the Natives, and by the virtual acknowledgement of the Officers of Foreign Powers. T h i s right H i s M a j e s t y does not think it necessary to advance directly in opposition to, or in controul of, any native A u t h o r i t y ; — w i t h such the question should not be raised, and, if proposed, had better be evaded, . . . but if any Foreign P o w e r or its Agents should attempt, or have attempted, to establish any Sovereignty or possession . . you are then to assert the prior rights of H i s Majesty, but in such a manner as may leave untouched the actual relations between H i s M a j e s t y and the Government of the Sandwich I s l a n d s ; and if by circumstances you should be obliged to come to a specific declaration, you are to take the Islands under H i s M a j e s t y ' s protection, and to deny the rights of any other P o w e r to assume any Sovereignty, or to make any exclusive settlement in any of that group. 3 3

The quotation here given from the secret instructions to Lord Byron reveals an interesting and perhaps unique detail of British policy with respect to the Hawaiian islands. It will be observed, however, that Lord Byron was to assert the right of sovereignty over the Hawaiian islands, to which Britain at that moment held herself entitled, only in case of necessity, to forestall some other power, and then only to the extent of establishing a protectorate. In all events he was to "pay the greatest Regard to the Comfort, the Feelings, and even the Prejudices of the Natives" and to show "the utmost Moderation towards the Subjects of any other Powers," whom he might meet at the islands. How Lord Byron performed the duty entrusted to him will appear in the course of the narrative. 34 32

See t h e pamphlet r e p r i n t e d in 14 H H S R e p o r t . Secret i n s t r u c t i o n s to L o r d B y r o n , Sept. 14, 1824, B P R O , A d m . 2 / 1 6 9 3 , pp. 241-245, p r i n t e d in Report of the Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawaii . . . December jl, 1926, pp. 19-20. 34 I n addition to r e f e r e n c e s a l r e a d y given f o r t h e visit of Liholiho to E n g l a n d , t h e following m a y be n o t e d : B i n g h a m , Residence, 202-205, 259-260; J a r v e s , op. cit., 122, 127-128; Clippings f r o m c o n t e m p o r a r y L o n d o n newspapers, in A H ; Voyage of the Blonde, 52-75; L e t t e r of T . H . Davies, in 4 H H S R e p o r t , 30-32; A. J o h n s t o n e , " A n H i s t o r i c a l Side-light," in Haw'n Annual, 1911, pp. 88-93. All histories of m o d e r n H a w a i i describe t h e episode. 33

CHAPTER VI

EARLY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Up to 1830, a date selected not because it is a sharp dividing point but because it is a convenient stopping place and lies in a transition period, commercial enterprise at the Hawaiian islands depended mainly upon three commodities: furs, sandalwood, and whale oil. Of these commodities, only one, sandalwood, was produced in Hawaii; the other two were important because they brought traders and trading ships to the islands. In the interest of simplification there is a temptation to treat each one of these branches of trade separately; but that method will not give a true picture. The fur trade was the first and for a time the only branch of trade affecting the islands; but during at least fifteen years prior to 1820, furs divided the field with sandalwood in varying proportions; and in that year (1820) whaling ships entered the picture; thereafter, for a time, all three branches of trade were carried on contemporaneously. These three major interests, however, do not give the whole story, since there was some general trade that must be taken into account. Finally, the commerce of Hawaii must be considered, not as a thing apart, but in relation to the trade of the whole Pacific region, for it was only a segment of that larger trade. To gain a clear understanding of how the commerce of the Pacific (and specifically of the Hawaiian islands) originated, developed, and was carried on, it is necessary to keep in mind its geographical and historical background. Hawaii was then as now at the cross-roads of the north Pacific; in that sailing ship era its importance as a way station was even greater than it is today. To the west, paradoxically, lay the East— China and the Indies—which for hundreds of years had tempted the adventurous tradesmen and tourists and missionaries of Europe, a vast market whose doors were not yet fully open. To the east, lay the American West whose day was just beginning, and whose larger possibilities of development were hardly suspected. In 1780 the greater part of the western coast of America was controlled by Spain, the range of actual occupation extending from the middle of Chile to the bay of San Francisco in California. In the extreme north Spain's pretensions were challenged by the operations of Russian fur traders in the Aleutian Islands and Alaska peninsula; by 1800 the Russians were firmly settled in that northern region with their capital at New Archangel (Sitka) on Norfolk Sound. In 1819 the northern boundary of the Spanish possessions was established, by treaty between the United States and Spain, at 42° north latitude; by other treaties a few years later, the southern limit of Russian occupation was fixed at 54° 40' north; the intervening region (the old "Oregon country") was subject to occupation by either British or Americans, though in practice it was controlled, until after 1840, by the ! 82

EARLY COMMERCIAL D E V E L O P M E N T

83

British overland fur traders. During the early 1820's, the Spanish American colonies won their independence and four important nations came into existence along the American seaboard: Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile. In the primitive economy of the Hawaiians, commerce in the modern sense was almost non-existent, though a sort of barter was carried on among them to a limited extent. 1 The Hawaiians' intercourse with foreigners very quickly developed the idea of trade, and the law of supply and demand soon came into operation, a fact attested by complaints of high prices made by many early visitors to the islands. It is true that in the beginning the trade was intrinsically very unequal, the Hawaiians selling valuable products for trinkets and articles of slight worth; but that condition did not prevail for long. Besides the control exercised by the law of supply and demand, prices rose as a result of general enlightenment, from observation and the information imparted by foreigners who settled in the islands. After a time, when Kamehameha had completed his conquest, we find prices and the course of trade affected by artificial monopoly. Traders at the islands in 1811 reported that pork was a royal monopoly and the purpose of the monopoly, as explained to them by John Young, was the augmentation of the royal revenue.2 Sandalwood was likewise reserved for the king. Kamehameha seems to have kept a close oversight of all trade and his Yankee-like shrewdness and his honesty and fairness, were characteristics often mentioned by those who had dealings with him. While the king's monopoly may have hampered trade to some extent, it also afforded a degree of stability and responsibility. Kamehameha appreciated the advantages to be gained by foreign intercourse ; he protected traders and endeavored to have them satisfied with the treatment they received. For the security of commerce he appointed pilots at the various ports. When traders visited him at Kailua to arrange for the purchase of supplies, the king appointed agents to go with them to Lahaina or Honolulu to see that the agreements were faithfully carried out. Toward the end of his life, the old king learned that foreign governments collected harbor or tonnage dues and pilot fees from visiting ships ; he accordingly established a schedule of such fees foi the port of Honolulu. 3 At the beginning and until after 1800 trade at the islands was very simple. The commodities supplied to the ships were for the most part perishable foodstuffs—pork, fowls, and vegetables—together with wood and water, some salt, a little rope, and various minor products and curiosities. For these the traders gave a great variety of articles; in the 1 Stella M. Jones, "Economic A d j u s t m e n t of Hawaiians to European C u l t u r e , " in Pacific Affairs, IV, 957-959 (Nov. 1931); Malo, Hawaiian Antiquities, 77, 94, 105; W m . Richards to Lt. Chas. Wilkes, March 15, 1841 (Question 16), in A H . 2 A. Ross, Ad-ventures of the First Settlers on the .Oregon or Columbia River (London, 1849), 36; G. Franchere, Narrative of a Voyage to the Northwest Coast of America . . . (New York, 1854), 59-60. F o r this monopoly in 1816, see Kotzebue, Voyage of Discovery, I , 293. »"Golovnin's Visit to Hawaii in 1818," in Friend, M I (1894), 52-53.

84

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

earlier years, large quantities of firearms and ammunition passed into the hands of the Hawaiians; at one period Kamehameha received, by choice, naval stores, and in 1805 purchased a ship; over the whole period, the traders furnished to the islanders cloth and clothing, household furniture and furnishings, tools and utensils, and miscellaneous articles of all sorts. Trade at first was entirely by barter, but it was not long before money—mostly in the form of Spanish silver dollars—came into use to a limited extent. Much of this found its way into the king's treasury and did not circulate. James Hunnewell, who had a store in Honolulu in 1818, states that "all trade was in barter, as there was no money in circulation among the natives. . . . All our cash sales amounted to $104, and this was from an English captain and officers." 4 At this time and for several years longer, sandalwood was the principal medium of exchange. Before his death Kamehameha is known to have accumulated a large number of silver dollars. Freycinet, writing of conditions in 1819, remarks that the articles of trade which are customarily carried to the Sandwich Islands consist of naval stores and ammunition, cloth, spirituous liquors, and some dollars {piastres). T h e last mentioned article has given birth, among the natives, to an idea of the measure of values ; accordingly, although in reality the greater part of the sales are made by barter, the prices of the articles traded are ordinarily stated in silver money." THE FUR

TRADE

There were two factors which combined to create and maintain this early commerce at the Hawaiian islands. One was the existence of the f u r trade on the Northwest Coast of America after the last voyage of Captain James Cook and as a consequence of that voyage; the other was the expansion of American commerce immediately following the Revolutionary W a r . Many writers have explained how the Americans —good traders and good sailors, but desperately poor after the long struggle f o r independence—eagerly traveled to all parts of the world in search of opportunities for trade. They sought the markets of China, but were handicapped by the lack of silver or other articles of exchange suitable f o r that market. I n order to get such articles, they sailed on roundabout voyages, visiting different ports and countries, turning over their cargoes again and again until they had obtained what they needed f o r China. It was this circuitous trade that brought the Americans into the Pacific and led them to take a part in the maritime f u r trade. The Chinese were willing to pay high prices f o r furs, and the traders could get them at comparatively small cost—though at some risk—from the Indians. For a few years after its beginning (about 1785), traders of several nations pursued the f u r trade on the Northwest coast. Luckily f o r the Americans, the nations of Europe were soon embroiled in the * Friend, XXIV (1867), 6. * Freycinet, Voyage autour du monde . . . Historique. Tome deuxième. Deuxième partie, 617. For conditions in 1809-1810, see Campbell, Voyage Round the World (4 Am. éd.), 152, 161.

EARLY COMMERCIAL D E V E L O P M E N T

85

wars of the Napoleonic period and the merchant adventurers of the United States were left to ply this trade with very little competition for a quarter of a century. In the routine of the fur trade the Hawaiian islands occupied an important place. Ships from the United States ordinarily came into the Pacific around Cape Horn. Going north they might visit the islands or go direct to the coast. After a season's operations in collecting skins, they either sailed for Canton, stopping at Hawaii for refreshments, or spent the winter at the islands, returning to the coast in the spring for a second season. As years passed and conditions along the coast became safer, the ships ceased to winter at the islands, but they still visited them for the purpose of obtaining supplies of food or other necessaries.8 At an early date Hawaii was well established as a convenient recruiting ground for sailors, the sturdy islanders having very quickly demonstrated their fitness and their eagerness for a seafaring life. From simple traffic with the Indians along the Northwest Coast the fur traders diversified their operations. They discovered the possibilities of profit in a contraband trade with the Spanish settlements along the coasts of California and Mexico. They became a regular source of supply for the Russians in Alaska and Kamchatka, taking furs in exchange ; and entered into a combination with them, by which they gained the services of hundreds of Aleut Indians to gather otter and seal skins on the coasts and islands of Upper and Lower California. And before long they began to add sandalwood from the Hawaiian and Marquesas Islands to their cargoes of furs from the American coast. This expansion of trade increased the importance of the Hawaiian islands, which afforded a convenient base of operations. By 1812 we find at least one agent established in Honolulu to coordinate the operations of several ships and to handle the business in the islands.7 SANDALWOOD TRADE

It is not possible to determine with absolute certainty the origin of the Hawaiian sandalwood trade. 8 It is altogether probable that sticks of this fragrant wood were included in batches of firewood delivered to trading ships and that its existence on the islands was discovered by the traders in that way. Captain William Douglas of the schooner Grace left two men at Kauai in 1790 to collect sandalwood for him. Captain John Kendrick of the Lady Washington did the same thing in 1791. For some reason the business was not followed up. It is possible that the prevailing conditions in Hawaii made such an enterprise too hazardous. It is stated by Delano that the wood first taken to China was . • F. W. Howay, An Outline Sketch of the Maritime Fur Trade (reprinted from Annual Report of the Canadian Historical Association, 1932), 8. * "Solid Men of Boston in the Northwest," MS in Bancroft Library, University of California. • See Appendix C.

86

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

of an inferior variety and hence not saleable. Then too the profitable character of the f u r trade doubtless attracted the greater effort to that branch of commerce. A study of contemporary notices and other evidence indicates that the sandalwood trade of Hawaii was not of great importance much before 1810, but the wood was being exported in a small way for several years prior to that date. Its active exploitation was begun, apparently, in 1811, by three Americans from Boston, Nathan and Jonathan Winship and William Heath Davis, masters of the ships Albatross, O'Cain, and Isabella. On their way to China after a long f u r trading campaign on the American coast, these men spent two months (November and December, 1811) at the islands. Continuing their voyage on January 1, they carried to Canton a cargo of sandalwood, part of which was freighted down on the king's account. Six months later they brought back to Kamehameha a consignment of merchandise as his share of the proceeds.8» On July 12, 1812, the Winships and Davis signed a contract with Kamehameha, by the terms of which they were to have, for ten years, an exclusive monopoly of the privilege of exporting sandalwood and cotton from the dominions of Kamehameha. The king agreed to collect the wood (and cotton), and was to receive one fourth of the net proceeds, to be paid in specie or in "such productions and manufactures of China as the said Tamaahmaah, his successors or assigns, may think proper to order." 0 Intervention of the war of 1812 caused the abrogation of this promising contract. Apparently not more than one or two cargoes of sandalwood were taken to Canton under its terms, but it is not true, as sometimes stated, that the three ships belonging to the concern were blockaded at the islands all during the war. Abundant evidence shows that between July, 1812, and October, 1815, the Albatross was almost constantly on the move, visiting successively the California coast, Honolulu, China, Honolulu, the Columbia river, Marquesas Islands, Honolulu, China, Honolulu, and the Russian settlements in Alaska, with possibly one voyage unaccounted f o r ; 1 0 information about the other vessels is not so complete. The war did interfere with trade in the Pacific. The combatant nations dispatched ships around Cape Horn, regular warships as well as armed merchantmen carrying letters of marque and reprisal, to protect their own commerce and destroy that of the enemy. Several of these vessels visited Hawaii. The letter of marque schooner Tamaahmaah, sent out at the beginning of the war by a number of Boston merchants to warn their ships on the Northwest Coast and carry their furs to Canton, arrived at the islands in July, 1813, and sailed thence for Canton •« I n the Marin Papers in A H , Historical and Miscellaneous file, is a two page list of articles with the heading: " Q u e n t a de lo que Recibio cl Rey Tameamea de quento del Capitan Guinciep [ W i n s h i p ] en el ano 1812 en el mes de Julio en Retorno del Palo Olorozo que llevo a China en el mes de Diziembre de 1811." • "Solid Men of Boston." T h e Spaniard Marin in his diary u n d e r the date Aug. 4, 1812, mentions a contract made by the king with Winship and Davis " n o t to sell f r a g r a n t wood to any one but to t h e m . " 10 "Solid Men of B o s t o n " ; W . Irving, Astoria (Philadelphia, 1836), I I , 231, 233, 234, 239; D. Porter, Journal of a Cruise made to the Pacific Ocean . . . (2 ed.. New York, 1822), I I , 76, 78-81, 210, 215; Corney, Voyages in the Northern Pacific, 46.

EARLY COMMERCIAL D E V E L O P M E N T

87

in January, 1814, after having visited the Northwest Coast. The Tamaahmaah made a second visit to the Northwest Coast, in the summer of 1814, before returning to Boston from China in the spring of 1815.11 In May, 1814, an American lieutenant of marines, John M. Gamble, brought into Honolulu harbor the Sir Andrew Hammond, formerly a British letter of marque whaler, captured by Captain David Porter of the U. S. frigate Essex off the South American coast and at this time navigated by a prize crew. Shortly afterwards the British warship Cherub appeared at the islands, the Sir Andrew Hammond was recaptured, and her commander and crew made prisoners. 12 Despite these warlike activities, peaceful commerce continued. In the writings of the period we get glimpses of trading vessels here and there in all parts of the Pacific. In addition to the vessels controlled by the Winships and Davis, there are fairly detailed accounts of the operations of one of Astor's ships, the Forester (1813-1816), 18 and of a British trader, the Columbia (1813-1817), 14 which between them touched at the islands no less than six times. Oddly enough, both of these vessels, as well as the Albatross, were finally sold to Kamehameha for sandalwood. Numerous references reveal the presence of other ships engaged in trade. After the war the commerce of the north Pacific grew rapidly in volume and in competitive interest. Boston trading houses which had curtailed operations again sent their vessels out in rapid succession. John Jacob Astor of New York, having sampled the market under wartime conditions, found the prospect good enough to justify more extensive investments in the field after peace had returned. 16 At the outset the coast fur trade and the Russian settlements attracted the major attention, but ere long Hawaiian sandalwood began to assume a larger place in the calculations of the traders, as the king of the isles developed a taste for foreign goods—especially for foreign ships. In the three years 1816-1818 Kamehameha purchased six such vessels and paid for them promptly with sandalwood.16 In June, 1815, three Boston firms (J. & T. H. Perkins, S. G. Perkins & Co., and Bryant & Sturgis) combined to send out the ship Ophelia. The entire outward cargo consisted of 70,000 dollars, and the instructions for the voyage were in brief as follows: Touch at the ports of South America and purchase a cargo of copper, for which the 70,000 dollars would be about sufficient; do not engage in contraband trade; visit the Gallipagos (sic) islands for the purpose of procuring whale 11 F. w . Howay, "A List of Trading Vessels in the Maritime Fur Trade", in Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Third Ser., Vol. XXVI, Sec. II, 1932, pp. 85-86; Same author, "The Last Days of the Atahualpa, alias Behring", in 41 H H S Report, 71, 73; K. W. Porter, John Jacob Astor, Business Man (2 vols. Cambridge, 1931), I, 237-238; H. B. Morse, Chronicles of the Ealt India Company Trading to China, I I I . 214, 217, 224. H 32 " s D ' P o r t e r ' 0p~ ' 2 0 6 " 2 1 7 ' . E- N. McClellan, "John M. Gamble," in 3S H H S Report. u K. W. Porter, op. cit. (see index); Same author, "The Cruise of the Forester," in Washington Historical Quarterly, X X I I I , 261-285 (Oct. 1932). "MP . Corney, op. cit. K. W. Porter, "John Jacob Astor and the Sandalwood Trade of the Hawaiian Island*. 1816-1828," in Journal of Economic and Business History, I I , 495-519 (May, 1930). u Lydia, Forester, Albatross, Bordeaux Packet, Columbia, and Santa Rosa.

88

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

teeth to be used in the collection of sandalwood; go to the Marquesas Islands for the sandalwood, or if not successful there, go to the Sandwich islands, where 10,000 or 15,000 dollars should load the vessel with the best wood; if obliged to wait for the wood to be collected, go down to Norfolk Sound and try to purchase furs from the Russian governor and get a freight from him if possible; if all these objects fail, go to Batavia for a load of coffee; furs and sandalwood to be sold in China and proceeds invested in Chinese goods for the American market, coffee to be brought home directly.17 In 1818, Bryant & Sturgis dispatched the brig Ann from Boston on a voyage to the Sandwich Islands and the Northwest Coast. The brig was to go first to the islands, and the captain was instructed as follows: If you can sell the King any articles of your cargo on advantageous terms, to receive your pay in Sandal Wood when you return from the coast we think you had best do it, . . . you have probably double the number of muskets and more Powder than is wanted on the Coast and it would be well to dispose of some at the Islands . . . Take as many stout Islanders as will increase your crew to 21 or 22 . . . and when you return from the coast discharge and pay them off in such articles of trade as you have left. . . . When you return from the coast to the Islands, if you have any trade left, endeavour to exchange it for Sandal Wood, of which we hope you may obtain a full cargo, and to do this it may be advisable to remain some time at the Islands.18

The foregoing are but two of the many voyages during this period. At the islands, as previously remarked, the sandalwood trade was monopolized and controlled by Kamehameha. When he needed a quantity of the wood to pay for some purchase, he simply issued orders to have it cut and transported to the waterside. In 1817 the ship Columbia was purchased, to be paid for in sandalwood to the amount of "twice the full of the vessel." The wood for this purchase was furnished by Kaumualii of Kauai and the chiefs who controlled the Waimea and Waianae districts of Oahu. 19 The historian Kamakau states that when Kamehameha learned of the value of this wood, he ordered men to go out in the mountains . . . to cut sandalwood, and he paid them in cloth and bark for making native cloth, as well as with food and fish [i.e., he furnished them food and clothing while they were engaged in this work]. Men were also detailed to carry the wood to the landings. . . . The chiefs also were ordered to send out their men to cut sandalwood. Because the chiefs and commoners in large numbers went out cutting and carrying sandalwood, famine was experienced from Hawaii to Kauai. . . . The people were forced to eat herbs and fern trunks, because there was no food to be had. When Kamehameha saw that the country was in the grip of a severe famine, he ordered the chiefs and commoners not to devote all " J . & T. H . Perkins, Sam'l G. P e r k i n s & Co., and B r y a n t & Sturgis to Capt. Samuel Hill, J u n e 30, 1815, Bryant & Sturgis L e t t e r Books, Baker L i b r a r y of H a r v a r d University Graduate School of Business Administration (cited hereafter as B. & S. Letter Books). Extensive extracts from the j o u r n a l of Captain Hill covering this voyage were published in the New England Quarterly, X, 355-380 ( J u n e , 1937); he was at the Hawaiian islands in t h e spring of 1816. 18 Bryant & Sturgis to Capt. J a m e s Hale, Aug. 31, 1818, B. & S. L e t t e r Books. M Corney, op. cit., 82A-90.

EARLY COMMERCIAL D E V E L O P M E N T

89

their time to cutting sandalwood, and also proclaimed all sandalwood to be the property of the government. Kamehameha then turned and ordered the chiefs and the people under them to farm,

and he himself set them a practical example. The king is said to have placed a kapu on the young and small trees in order to conserve this natural resource.20 After the death of Kamehameha, changes occurred which had a disastrous effect. Liholiho allowed the chiefs to have a share in the traffic 21 and the restraints imposed by the old king were removed. A visitor to the islands in 1822 remarked that "instead of a divided and lawless aristocracy, the King and his Chiefs compose a united corps of peaceable merchants, whose principal object is to become rich by the pursuits of trade."-"2 Unhappily, that object was not attained, the main result of their efforts being to impoverish themselves and lay a heavier oppression on the common people. The year 1819, so critical in the history of Hawaii, was marked in the United States by a severe financial crisis which made it difficult to procure specie for the China trade. 23 The wide open market in Hawaii therefore proved an irresistible attraction to the New England traders, and they descended upon the islands in a swarm, bringing with them everything from pins, scissors, clothing, and kitchen utensils to carriages, billiard tables, house frames, and sailing ships, and doing their utmost to keep the speculating spirit at fever heat among the Hawaiian chiefs. And the chiefs were not slow about buying; if they had no sandalwood at hand to pay for the goods, they gave promissory notes. Even after sandalwood had become scarce they still kept buying, led on by a species of salesmanship at which these Yankee traders were adept. One of the missionaries describes the situation. In speaking of Governor Kaikioewa of Kauai, he says: He is remarkably fond of purchasing novelties, and almost whatever is offered by foreigners, with little regard either to the cost or the utility of the article. This propensity to buy, seems indeed, to be deeply rooted in most of the chiefs.. . . (Some of the foreigners who trade here, are too well acquainted with this trait in their character.) For however bitterly they may complain, of dilatory payments, and want of veracity, and integrity in the natives, they urge upon them things which they do not want; and for which, they have no means of paying, but by imposing new burdens upon the people."

All of this resulted in the pitiless exploitation not merely of the sandalwood but of the labor and the vitality of the common people. Three little pictures from contemporary writings—many others might be given—will illustrate what the conditions were. March, 1822. A missionary and some assistants returning to Honolulu from Pearl river. They had taken no provisions, expecting to buy from the natives as *> Kamakau, Ka Moolelo o Kamehameha I, in KNK, Aug. 24, 1867. See also Ka Mooolelo Hawaii, translation in Hawaiian Spectator, II, 227 (April, 1839): Dibble, History of the Sandwich Islands (1843), 74. 21 Tyennan and Bennet, Journal of Voyages and Travels (London, 1831), I, 41S. • Mathison, Narrative of a Visit to Braml, Chile, Peru, and the Sandwich Islands, 467. " S . E. Morison, The Maritime History of Massachusetts, 17S3-1S60 (Boston. 1921). 262. » P. J. Gulick to J. Evart», Feb. 18, 1830, ML, I I I , 814.

90

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

they went along. "But they found the people very poor, and it was with much difficulty that they could obtain any food of the natives, and then only by paying three times its value. The reasons why provisions are so scarce on this island is, that the people, for some months past, have been engaged in cutting sandalwood, and have of course neglected the cultivation of the land. Vegetables are sold at a very dear rate." 25 Spring or summer of 1822. Oahu. "On one occasion we saw two thousand persons, laden with faggots of sandalwood, coming down from the mountains to deposit their burthens in the royal store-houses, and then depart to their homes, wearied with their unpaid labours, yet unmurmuring at their bondage."2" April, 1830. Kauai. From the journal of Mr. Gulick: "Felt distressed and grieved for the people who collect sandalwood. They are often driven by hunger to eat wild and bitter herbs, moss, &c. And though the weather is so cold on the hills that my winter clothes will scarcely keep me comfortable, I frequently see men with no clothing except the maro. W e r e they not remarkably hardy, many of them would certainly perish." 27

Incidentally it may be remarked that this hard and exacting service and exposure to wet and cold undoubtedly had a weakening effect on the people and was a factor in the decrease of the native population. The chiefs, beguiled by the ease of signing notes to be paid at some future time, soon found themselves entangled in a wilderness of debts, for, in too many cases, instead of accumulating wood with which to pay the notes, they used their current collections for new purchases. The traders, who kept the accounts, were torn by conflicting desires: they wished to continue selling, but they also wished to collect what was already owed to them by the chiefs. If they pressed the chiefs too hard about the debts, current sales fell off. The keen rivalry between different traders made the situation somewhat delicate. The following extracts from traders' letters illustrate these points. Eliab Grimes wrote on March 22, 1825, to his principal, Josiah Marshall of Boston, You may expect as long as a fresh supply of goods comes to market, it will be found difficult to collect the debts, however you having by far the best establishment here, you may as well get a share of the trade as well as others, and so long as there is ready money and wood to be got you will find goods coming here.28

Dixey Wildes wrote to Marshall (his partner) on October 16, 1825: W e arrived at Owhyhee the latter part of September, stopped a few days at Kirouah, Karakakoua & Mowee sold about four thousand dollars worth of goods for Sandall Wood, and money, and came to this place [Honolulu] where we found French with goods, which he brought out in the Brig Nile which will be an injury to those who have debts due here. . . . Respecting our old debts I am at a loss what to say, our prospects darken and brighten alternately. . . . the debts are acknowledged and they promise to pay. They stand thus [a total of more than 6000 piculs of sandalwood owed to this firm], . . . I hope you and Bryant & Sturgis will make a strong representation to Government, a Ship of W a r must be sent here or I fear we shall not get all our debts.2" *39M H , XIX (1823), 184. Tyerman and Bennet, loc. cit. " M H , X X V I I (1831), 382. » Grimes to Marshall, March 22, 1825, Marshall MSS. » W i l d e s to Marshall, Oct. 16, 1825, ibid.

EARLY COMMERCIAL D E V E L O P M E N T

91

The civil war on Kauai in 1824 caused a nearly complete stoppage in the work of collecting sandalwood and interrupted all trade at the islands for several months. 30 At other times, certain of the traders complained bitterly that the operations of the missionaries interfered with business, absorbing the time and energy of the people in religious services, school attendance, and the building of churches.31 And they charged British subjects, especially the British consul, Richard Charlton, with putting ideas of repudiation into the minds of the natives, the debts being owed almost exclusively to American traders. 32 On the other hand, the dilatoriness of the chiefs in paying their debts may be partially explained and to some extent justified on the ground that some of the ships sold to them—ships being by far the largest items in the accounts— were rotten or nearly worn out at the time of sale and soon became utterly worthless on their hands. Glaring examples were the Cleopatra's Barge and the Thaddeus.33 In the traders' accounts and in promissory notes the amounts of the obligations are almost invariably stated not in dollars but in "piculs of good merchantable sandalwood," or some such expression. The picul weighs 133-1/3 pounds and a picul of sandalwood is commonly said to have been worth ten dollars; actually the value in China fluctuated between three and fifteen or eighteen dollars. The Hawaiian wood was not of the highest quality. In January, 1822, one of the traders (Hunnewell) estimated the total amount of the debts to be something between 22,500 and 23,000 piculs.34 In the course of five years this was reduced a little, but in the fall of 1826 a visiting American naval officer stated that the claims of the traders amounted to $200,000.35 The traders brought their difficulties to the attention of the United States government, with the result that in 1826 two American warships visited the islands, their commanders instructed to investigate the situation and render all proper aid to American commerce. First came the Dolphin. In a report of its visit the statement is made that the king and chiefs "by the exertions of Lieut. Percival acknowledged the debts due to American Citizens, to be Government debts," and gave assurance of their early liquidation.39 Herein we see the genesis of the national debt of Hawaii. Later in the year came the Peacock, whose commander, 80 Wildes to Marshall, Sept. 17, 1824, ibid.; J. H u n n e w e l l to J. R. Cooper, Nov. 4, 1824, Hunnewell MSS. 81 See for example, J . C. Tones to Marshall, May 5, 1826, Marshall M S S . a2 J. C . J o n e s to Dixey Wildes, Sept. 30, 1827, ibid. 33 T h e Cleopatra's Barge had not been long in the king's possession "when t h e timbers on one side were f o u n d to be decayed, and the ship altogether not seaworthy. H e had t h e r e f o r e no alternative but to dismantle and break h e r up, and in that way endeavour to make the best of a bad b a r g a i n . " Mathison, op. cit., 463. I n regard to the Thaddeus, Hunnewell wrote, " t h e old Thaddeus has been laying a dismantled hulk for two years before their eyes and they feel unwilling to pay for so useless a tool as the Brig T h a d d e u s . " Hunnewell to T h a c h e r , J a n . 12, 1824, Hunnewell M S S . 84 Hunnewell to A. Blanchard, J a n . 26, 1822, ibid. • T. ap C. Jones to Sec. of Navy S. L . Southard, Nov. 1, 1826, U . S. Navy Dept., M a s t e r commandants' Letters. " " J . C. J o n e s to Com. Isaac Hull, May 5, 1826, U . S. Navy Dept., Captains' Letters. Cf. minutes of a conversation between Lieut. Percival and the chiefs in council, March 27, 1826, in Proceedings of a Court of Inquiry &c. I n the case of Lieut. Jno. Percival, U . S. N a v y Dept., Court Martial Records, Vol. 23, No. 531, Appendix 38.

92

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

Captain Thomas ap Catesby Jones, obtained from the chiefs a renewed acknowledgment of the debts to the amount of about 15,000 piculs of sandalwood.37 To provide for the obligation, the rulers imposed a special tax upon the people of the kingdom, embodied in what is, apparently, the earliest written tax law of Hawaii, dated December 27, 1826. The law required each able bodied man in the kingdom to deliver to the proper authorities, on or before September 1, 1827, half a picul of good sandalwood, or in lieu of sandalwood, four Spanish dollars or any valuable commodity worth that amount. In consideration of this payment, each man was permitted to cut half a picul of sandalwood for himself. Each woman was required to furnish a mat, 6 by 12 feet, or tapa of equal value, or the sum of one Spanish dollar.38 The promulgation of this law resulted in a renewed and more vigorous assault on the dwindling sandalwood forests. The clause giving the common people a share in the trade lent strength to their arms and keenness to their axes. By the testimony of the agents, a great quantity of wood was cut during the succeeding year; enough, so one of them asserts, to pay the debts twice over.39 But the debts were not fully paid, and when the U. S. ship Vincennes came to Honolulu in 1829, her commander, at the solicitation of the agents, reminded the Hawaiian chiefs of their promises. New notes were signed and the people ordered out for another campaign in the forests.40 By 1829, however, the sandalwood trade was nearly at an end. The notes signed in that year were not all paid off until 1843. DIVERSIFICATION OF TRADE

Despite the feverish activity associated with the sandalwood business during the 1820's, new commercial interests entered the field and forged rapidly to the front. Indeed it may be said that, during the later years of the decade, the Hawaiian mercantile structure was being shifted to a new basis. This was due partially to the exhaustion of the sandalwood, partially to political and other changes along the American coast, but far more to the extension of the whaling industry into the north Pacific ocean. The changes in the international situation along the American coast, in particular the independence of the Spanish American states, consummated in the early part of the decade and accompanied by the abandonment of the exclusive Spanish policy, opened new opportunities for trade in that direction. A comparison of California and Hawaiian shipping lists of this period and a study of commercial correspondence disclose a growing intercourse between the two regions. Of vessels arrivSee Appendix D. " House Reports, 28 Conp., 2 sess., No. 92, pp. 18-19. For the visit of Capt. Jones to the islands, see references cited in note 61 below. - J. C. Jones to Marshall, June 29. 1827, Marshall MSS. " D o c u m e n t s in "Capt. Finch's Cruise in the U.S.S. Vincennes", U.S. Navy Dept. Archives. See also C. S. Stewart, Visit to the South Seas . . . during the years 1829 and 1S30 (New York, 1831), II, 212.

EARLY COMMERCIAL D E V E L O P M E N T

93

ing at Honolulu in 1824, seven were last from California ports. 41 In 1826 the Waverley and two consorts introduced the Hawaiian flag into those ports and, according to Bancroft, opened to the people of California "a new branch of territorial trade." 42 Besides the Hawaiian vessels, several bearing the British or American flag engaged in this trade. Honolulu had become a distributing point; cargoes brought from the United States, China, or Europe were broken up, a part being sold locally in the domestic market or to vessels stopping at the islands, and a part reshipped to California and other places in the Pacific. Conversely, commodities from different places were brought together at Honolulu and combined into cargoes for shipment to China, the United States, and Europe. Horses constituted one of the most important items in the export trade from California to Hawaii during the 1820's. Whaling ships made their appearance in Hawaiian waters in 1819, and after the discovery of the sperm whaling grounds off the coast of Japan about the same time, the Hawaiian islands became the principal rendezvous, refreshing, and recruiting point for vessels working in that region, Japanese ports being tightly closed to foreign ships. The number of such ships touching at island ports increased with great rapidity; in the year 1822 there are reported to have been no fewer than sixty, 43 and in the last four years of the decade the arrivals at Honolulu averaged more than one hundred forty annually. A characteristic of the industry was the fact that the visits of whaling ships to Hawaii were not scattered through the year but were concentrated in two seasons, of about two or three months each, in the spring and fall. At such seasons Honolulu harbor and Lahaina "roads" were crowded with vessels and the dusty or muddy streets and byways of the towns were filled with sailors cruising about in search of recreation, which to many of them meant only drunkenness and debauchery. Street brawls were frequent and there were some serious clashes between sailors and the local authorities. This point will be noticed again in later chapters. Of the ships that visited the islands, all but a small fraction were American. A good summary is given by John C. Jones, United States agent for commerce and seamen, in a letter to Captain W. B. Finch of the U. S. ship Vincennes, dated October 30, 1829: The commerce of the United States, which resorts to the Sandwich Islands, may be classed under five heads, viz.: First, Those vessels which trade direct from the United States to these islands, for sandal wood, and from hence to China and Manilla, and return to America. Second, Those vessels which are bound to the Northwest Coast on trading voyages, for furs, and touch here on their outward bound passage, generally winter at these islands, and always stop on their return to the United States, by the way of China. Third, Those vessels, which on their passage from Chili, Peru, Mexico, or California, to China, Manilla or the East Indies, stop at these islands for refreshments, or repairs, to obtain freight, or dispose of what small cargoes they may have left. Fourth, Those vessels which are owned by « Friend, I I (1844), 49. Ibid., A u g . 17, 20, 1825. a C h a m b e r l a i n , J o u r n a l , A p r . 13, 1824, r e c o r d s that M r . B i n g h a m , in a c o n v e r s a t i o n with the c h i e f s , r e c o m m e n d e d " t h e g i v i n g u p of their s p o r t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the g a m e s which a r e practiced to win m o n e y . " I n a n o t h e r place, B i n g h a m indicates that the m i s s i o n a r i e s had no object i o n to " t h e h e a l t h f u l e x e r c i s e s of s w i m m i n g , r i d i n g on the s u r f b o a r d , or on h o r s e back, or a n y athletic e x e r c i s e s to which the people a r e attached, disconnected with i m m o r a l i t y . " Bingh a m to Miller, S e p t . 26, 1831, in M I , , V , 1391. S e e also ibid., 1382; B i n g h a m , Residence, 137, 213-215, 2 2 0 ; E l l i s , Narrative of a Tour through Hawaii (1917 e d . ) , 147-149; S t e w a r t , Residence in the Sandwich Islands ( 5 e d . ) , 243-245; N . B . E m e r s o n , " C a u s e s o f the Decline o f H a w a i i a n S p o r t s , " in Friend, L ( 1 8 9 2 ) , 57-60. a C h a m b e r l a i n , J o u r n a l , Oct. 4, 1825; C h a m b e r l a i n to E v a r t s , A u g . 27, Dec. 10, 1825, A u g . 13, 1829, M L , I I , 446, 455, 562-564; E . L o o m i s , testimony in P r o c e e d i n g s of a C o u r t of I n q u i r y &c. I n the C a s e o f L i e u t . J n o . P e r c i v a l , U . S . N a v y Dept., C o u r t M a r t i a l R e c o r d s , V o l . 23, N o . 531 (cited h e r e a f t e r a s P e r c i v a l I n q u i r y ) , pp. 91-127. B i n g h a m , in a letter to J . E v a r t s d a t e d S e p t . 14, 1829 ( M L , I I , 375) a n d in a deposition d a t e d A u g . 18, 1829 (ibid., 3 8 1 ) , s a y s this k a p u w a s publicly proclaimed b y the c r i e r between the 16th a n d the 20th of A u g u s t , 1825. S o m e of the w i t n e s s e s in the P e r c i v a l I n q u i r y denied the e x i s t e n c e of the k a p u , but I t h i n k the e v i d e n c e i s conclusive on the other side.

REGENCY O F KAAHUMANU

123

armed demonstrations occurred several times during the years 1825, 1826, and 1827 ; and the chiefs felt it necessary to relax somewhat the strict enforcement of the law. It must not be supposed that all foreign sailors and all masters of whaling ships practiced or encouraged immorality and disrespect for rightful authority. There were many honorable exceptions; and though one American naval officer (Lieutenant John Percival) in the spring of 1826 threw the weight of his influence in the wrong scale, another one (Captain Thomas ap Catesby Jones) in the fall of the same year put his influence on the right side.23 Such scenes as those referred to in the preceding paragraph were not conducive to orderly progress. The development of a system or code of laws was further hampered by a division of the chiefs into two factions which ran to extremes in opposite directions. The larger and more powerful group favored and at times enforced a strict puritanical regime ; the other favored a liberal regime which in this unstable community had an incorrigible tendency to run into license and disorder. In the midst of the contending groups the king was an important but uncertain factor. His natural impulse was to go with the liberal party and much of the time he followed that impulsé. Until after 1835 he could not be depended upon to support consistently a conservative and orderly course. The division among the chiefs did not arise wholly nor perhaps fundamentally from a difference of view about the character of the laws ; dynastic and family interests and personal ambitions were involved. At times the peace of the country was threatened by this division, as when Governor Boki of Oahu in 1829 and his widow in 1831 seemed on the point of attempting to overthrow Kaahumanu. Foreigners sought to gain advantage for themselves from the differences among the chiefs and hence the domestic scene was colored by the traditional quarrel between traders and missionaries, by the rivalry of British and American nationals, and after 1827 by the Catholic question. How the matter worked out in practice can be illustrated by an account of two meetings of the chiefs which occurred in 1825 and 1827. In the early part of December, 1825, several of the leading chiefs, including Kaahumanu and Kalanimoku, were admitted to membership in the church at Honolulu. Some time before this, the Ten Commandments had been translated into Hawaiian and it occurred to some o r the chiefs that these would be a proper basis for the new laws of Hawaii. Accordingly, on December 12, 1825, a meeting of the chiefs was held in Honolulu to consider this subject. Announcement of the meeting had been made the day before (Sunday, at close of the church service), resulting in the attendance of a group of foreign residents and traders and two or three of the missionaries in addition to the chiefs. The meeting may not improperly be looked upon as a session of the Hawaiian legislature; but a great part of the time was taken up with a dispute • It seems unnecessary to go info detail about this phase of Hawaiian history. The details can be found in the writings of the missionaries and in other places, including the Percival Inquiry.

124

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

between the traders and the missionaries. In regard to the main business of the meeting, Chamberlairi's account is as follows: In the afternoon the chiefs assembled in the rear of Karaimoku's stone house for the purpose of deliberating upon the adoption of the Ten Commandments as the foundation of the laws of the land. The foreigners fearing that something was about to be done that would be to their disadvantage, having concerted together, came up to oppose the adoption of any measures that should be recommended by the missionaries.

Then followed the dispute between the foreigners and the missionaries, after which Karaimoku proposed the subject of adopting the Ten Commandments to the King and Kaahumanu recommending the adoption himself, he was supported by Kaahumanu who proposed them to the King—The King appeared diffident and unwilling to say anything—He was addressed by Boki who took part against the adoption of the law.—The King finally said he was afraid of the people, and it would be well to defer the laws. The subject was therefore dropped and the King left the circle followed by his armed guards."

Two other eye witnesses, the missionary printer Elisha Loomis 25 and one of the traders, Captain Dixey Wildes, 26 substantially agree with Chamberlain as to what happened. Captain Wildes, however, says the reason for the king's decision was "that they did not know enough yet and must stop a little longer before they did it." The incident gave rise to a charge that the missionaries were attempting to have the Ten Commandments enacted into law. It is fairly certain they did not do so at this meeting; but there is little doubt they would have approved such action if the chiefs had taken it. This is distinctly affirmed in a conversation between Governor Boki and Messrs. Loomis and Chamberlain about a year later—a conversation which also brings into relief a fundamental conflict in theory as to the location of the law making authority. Boki remarked to the two missionaries, You wished to establish the law—Mr. Loomis replied no—the commandments were translated and if the chiefs had established them we should have approved it— Who establish them? he enquired—Mr. Loomis answered, the Chiefs. He replyed no that is with the king alone,—Kaahumanu, Kalaimoku and Mr. Bingham wished to establish them, but that is not for them to do it is for the king and for him only. Mr. Loomis said we have nothing to do in deciding to whom such business belongs."

The disturbed conditions existing in 1826 and the excitement connected with the visits of the two American men-of-war (Dolphin and Peacock) left little time for law making, though it will be remembered 14 25 M

Chamberlain, Journal, Dec. 12, 1825. T h e king at this time was in his t w e l f t h year. E. Loomis, Journal, Dec. 12, 1825. Testimony of Dixey Wildes in Percival Inquiry, pp. 211-218. " Chamberlain, Journal, Nov. 13, 1826. In the course of his testimony in the Percival Inquiry, Loomis was asked, " D i d the missionaries or any of them procure the chiefs to enact the ten commandments as l a w ? " H e answered, " T h e y did not." Captain Dixey Wildes in the course of his testimony about the meeting of Dec. 12, 1825, was asked, " A t the Council you r e f e r to, did or did not the missionaries propose the T e n Commandments to be enacted or was it proposed by the C h i e f s ? " H e answered, " I t was proposed by the Chiefs, he believes; he did not hear the missionaries say a word about it."

REGENCY O F KAAHUMANU

125

that the sandalwood and tapa tax law was enacted in December, 1826, and in the same month a treaty ("articles of arrangement") between the United States and Hawaii was signed. The subject of laws was not forgotten and there is evidence28 that the older chiefs were fully determined that a code of laws should be distinctly and formally established. In the latter part of 1827 the chiefs were summoned by Kaahumanu to consult about this matter of the laws and certain other things which needed their attention. As early as November 3, Levi Chamberlain learned that one subject for consideration was to be "the act of Kamehameha in giving up the islands to the protection of Great Britain," 29 which proved to be intimately connected with the question of the laws. When the chiefs came together in council, they were able, after considerable conversation, to agree (December 7) upon five laws, prohibiting murder, theft, rum-selling, prostitution, and gambling. But before the laws could be proclaimed, difficulties arose. Boki raised the objection that no laws could be established until they had been approved by the British government. Undoubtedly this idea was put into his head by Richard Charlton, the British consul, with whom he was closely associated. To meet the objection, Kaahumanu proposed that they draw up a code of laws and send them to England and submit them to King George. "Let him strike out such as he pleases and such as he approves let him send back." She proposed that her brother Kuakini, governor of Hawaii, take the laws to England, but Boki objected again and said, "Let the Consul write to England." Kaahumanu replied do you not know that the consul is a liar and that no confidence is to be placed in anything that he says. Kuakini now spoke . . . he wished them all to listen as he was about to say something of importance. He said . . . If England gives us laws she will send men to see that they are executed. Our harbors will be filled with ships of war and our vessels cannot go out or come in without their permission. We shall not be visited by American ships without leave from Great Britain and we shall forever be their servants we shall no more be able to do as we please. These words of Gov. Adams produced a powerful effect. Kaahumanu made answer that this had been for a long time her opinion—Naihe said let us look well before we take a step. The chiefs seemed fully convinced that it would not do to send to England for laws; but that they must make them themselves."

The way was thus cleared for action, but the foreigners brought their influence to bear against certain of the five laws which had been agreed upon and a change was made. It was decided to adopt only three laws at this time, to go into effect in three months (i.e. in March, 1828). • See especially j o u r n a l of Rev. A . Bishop, at K a i l u a , Hawaii, J u l y 10, 1826, printed i n Friend. L (1892), 26-27; a n d Chamberlain to E v a r t s , J u l y 26, 1826, M L , I I , 468-469. • Chamberlain, J o u r n a l , Nov. 3, 1827. » Chamberlain to W h i t n e y a n d Ruggles, Dec. 17-27, 1827, M S in H M C S L i b r a r y . I n t h i s connection it is interesting to notice the following r e m a r k s w r i t t e n by Capt. W . B. Finch d u r i n g his visit to t h e islands in 1829: " T h e G o v e r n m e n t a n d N a t i v e s generally have dropped or do n o t admit the designation of Sandwich I s l a n d s as applied t o their possessions; but adopt a n d use t h a t of Hawaim [ i i c ] ; in allusion to t h e fact of the whole C r o u p e having been s u b j u g a t e d by t h e first T a m e h a m e h a , who w a s the Chief of the principal Island of Owhyhee, or m o r e mode r n l y H a w a i i — a n d also in contradiction of t h e assertion m a d e by some persons t h a t T a m e h a m e h a had ceded sovereignty to Capt. V a n c o u v e r , f o r a n d in behalf of t h e Rritish g o v e r n m e n t . " " C a p t . F i n c h ' s C r u i s e in t h e U . S . S . V i n c e n n e s , " in U . S . N a v y Dept. archives.

126

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

These three laws were: first, against murder, "the one who commits murder here shall die, by being hung"; second, against theft, "the one who steals shall be put in irons"; third, against adultery, for which the penalty was imprisonment in irons. Three other proposed laws, against rum selling, prostitution, and gambling, were drawn up, to be explained and taught to the people before they should be adopted. It was agreed that the chiefs should meet six months later to continue their consultation upon the subject. The three laws adopted and the three proposed were printed together on one sheet, which bears the date December 8, 1827. On December 14, the people were assembled in a coconut grove near the f o r t ; the three enacted laws were formally proclaimed, and the king, Kaahumanu, and Boki exhorted the people, both native and foreign, to obey the three laws which had been adopted and to give attention to the three which were not yet enacted. 31 This was the beginning of formal legislation by the Hawaiian chiefs. The contemporary chroniclers considered it a matter of great significance that they had made a start in this important business. The chiefs met again in June, 1828, but we have no record of what was accomplished. It is intimated that Kaahumanu had difficulty in bringing the other chiefs to the task, and one report says they referred the business to David Malo who declined to take upon himself the responsibility. 32 W e have in fact very little information in regard to the conferences of the chiefs, but we hear of new laws from time to time, 33 and on October 7, 1829, the king, in a formal proclamation, declared, "The laws of my country prohibit murder, theft, adultery, fornication, retailing ardent spirits at houses for selling spirits, amusements on the Sabbath day, gambling and betting on the Sabbath day and at all times." A general law relating to marriage, divorce, and adultery had been enacted and published a few weeks before (on September 21) and this subject is touched upon in the proclamation of October 7. 34 LAW ENFORCEMENT

So the Hawaiian rulers gropingly made their way through an unfamiliar field, slowly replacing in part the old kapus and customary laws by written statutes after the manner of foreign lands. That they did not act wisely at all times, is not strange. In law enforcement and the development of the machinery of justice the same halting progress " C h a m b e r l a i n ' s letter cited in note 30; Chamberlain, Journal, Dec. 7, 8, 14, 1827; M H , X X I V (1828), 209-210 (account by B i n g h a m ) ; Gulick. Pilgrims of Hawaii, 114-115; He Olelo no ke Kanawai (Proclamation of the L a w ) , Dec. 8, 1827, two broadsides in A H , one containing the five laws first decided on (but not enacted), the other containing the three laws enacted and the three proposed f o r later adoption, the latter three being separated f r o m the f o r m e r by a dash. A facsimile of the first broadside is printed in 16 H H S Report, 49. T h e existence of the two broadsides has led to some misunderstanding on the subject. T h e references cited above leave no doubt as to the facts. M Chamberlain, Journal, J u n e 5, 1828. "Ibid., Feb. 2, 1829; Gulick to Evarts, May 13, 1829, M L , I I I , 811-813. u T h e proclamation of Oct. 7, 1829, was printed as a broadside with Hawaiian and English in parallel columns; and is to be found in British and Foreign State Papers, X V I I , 1248-1249, in Bingham, Residence, 351-3S2, and in Stewart, Visit to the South Seas, I I , 153-156. I t is sometimes called the "cow proclamation", f r o m the incident which led to its issuance.

REGENCY O F KAAHUMANU

127

is discernible. At first the enforcement of any law depended upon the disposition of the local chief—indeed, most of the early laws were in the nature of local regulations, and it was only slowly that the idea of uniform law enforcement came to be understood. The mixed character of the population, native and foreign, created complications; the common natives, habituated to repressive kapus, submitted without much complaint to any serious enforcement of whatever laws were laid down, but foreigners raised a terrific clamor when some of the laws were enforced against them, particularly those which touched their pleasures or their profits. The subject is too large to be fully developed in this place, but it can be illustrated by some incidents along the way. In the old days and as late as 1824 capital punishment was inflicted at the will of the king or superior chief and without trial. After 1825 trial by jury was introduced and the mode of execution was fixed at hanging. The first case of this kind was in 1826.35 Chamberlain gives a detailed account of an execution by hanging in 1828, the gallows having been erected on the plain between Honolulu and Waikiki. The hanging had first been set for March 1, but shortly before that date three chiefs called on the missionaries to inquire respecting the manner of executing murderers in civilized countries. "They were told that the manner of leading the man forth and the order of execution was not the important subject. That the regularity of his trial and the certainty of his guilt was the great thing." In view of this advice a new trial was held before a jury of twelve men (natives) nominated by Kaahumanu. Governor Boki thought the prisoner should die, but the jury would not pronounce the crime murder, because of some doubt in their minds as to the intention to kill. Nevertheless, sentence of death was evidently pronounced, for the man was publicly hanged on March 18.36 Some cases involving foreigners are of interest because they show a development in procedure. In August, 1825, two foreigners in Honolulu got into an altercation over a woman and one of them fired two shots at the other. Two days later "the chiefs held a council at which all the foreigners in the village were invited to be present to decide upon the case of the two haore's [haoles] . . . They were both sentenced to depart from the islands." 37 The case clearly was one coming under the law of 1822 quoted earlier in this chapter. About two years later occurred a case of assault and battery in which one foreigner, Captain G. W. Gardner, was struck repeatedly by a certain John Lawler. Gardner applied for redress to Governor Boki who seemed disinclined to do anything. Gardner then applied to the American commercial agent who insisted that the governor take cogni" Richards to Wilkes, March 15, 1841, in A H ; Chamberlain, Journal, Dec. 18, 1826. » C h a m b e r l a i n , J o u r n a l , Dec. 14, 1827, Feb. 27, 29, March 18, 1828: Bingham to E v a n s , March 12, 1828, ML, I I , 337-338. " Chamberlain, Journal, Aug. 22, 24, 1825.

128

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

zance of the case. A trial was held and Lawler was fined $200. Chamberlain makes the following comment on this case: This appears to be the first case of the kind which has ever been tried in the islands, and it is worthy of being taken notice of especially as the court was convened to settle a difficulty between foreigners, which has heretofore been asserted belonged to foreigners alone to settle. In this case it was thought necessary to call upon the gov. of the island and not only represent the case to him but to insist on his attending to it."

In 1829 three natives stole $300 worth of goods from one of the foreign merchants and the governor requested the foreigners to state to him what they thought the punishment should be. The foreigners in reply drew up a petition "praying that measures be taken to secure their property from depredation, and that these men be punished according to their crime without specifying the exact kind, though they referred to the punishment inflicted in America and England upon the crime of housebreaking." We have no information as to how the governor disposed of the case.39 In 1831 a daring store robbery was committed by a white man (Mackey) and a negro (Cooper). Cooper confessed and Mackey was brought to trial before a jury of five (foreigners apparently). The governor (Kuakini) was the judge and the American commercial agent prosecuted the case. Mackey was found guilty and sentenced to receive one hundred lashes on his bare back and to be expelled from the country. The first part of the sentence was immediately inflicted. "He was tied to a cart's tail . . . and dragged through the streets, receiving at every square a certain number of lashes until he had got the whole."40 Foreigners frequently complained of the failure of the native authorities to bring criminals to justice, due either to indifference or to lack of energy, and there were instances which seemed to justify the complaints. Chamberlain cites the case of a native servant in one of the missionary families who was detected in repeated thefts. The missionaries brought him before the chiefs and made a formal complaint. The chiefs censured the culprit and bade him restore what he had taken, but the missionaries doubted whether he would do so and whether the chiefs would take any energetic measures to secure obedience to their commands. 41 In 1834 two natives guilty of mutiny and murder on the high seas two years earlier were brought to justice only when a British warship came at the request of the British consul to see that it was done.42 The case was a flagrant one and Bingham's comment upon it is worth quoting: Strange as the proceedings, from beginning to end, appeared, the result tended -Ibid.. Dec. 20, 1827; Chamberlain to Whitney and Ruggles, Dec. 17-27, 1827, M S in H M C S Library. » C h a m b e r l a i n , Journal, Aug. 6, 1829. Peirce to Hunnewell, May 1, 1831, Hunnewell MSS. " Chamberlain, Journal, April 4, 1825. " P e i r c e to Hunnewell, June 11, 1832, Hunnewell M S S ; Chamberlain, Journal, July 29, 1834; R. Charlton, letters dated J u n e 1. 21, 25, 27, 30, July 24, 1832, March 26, July 28, 1834, copies in A H f r o m archives of British consulate, Honolulu.

REGENCY O F KAAHUMANU

129

to convince the king and chiefs, that if they had not the energy and the will to restrain or punish such crimes, there were other powers that could and would do it for them, even if some were determined to spare the life of the murderer."

It is only fair to say that the case just noted occurred during the period of disorder following the death of Kaahumanu. In the earlier years, the apparent inattention to law enforcement was doubtless due in part to the absence of officials specifically charged with the duty of enforcement, such as sheriffs, constables, prosecutors, and district magistrates. In the early part of 1828 Kaahumanu informed the missionaries of some steps which had recently been taken "in order to carry the laws into execution by the appointment of a number of persons to investigate cases and try causes."44 From Kauai in the following year we have a report of the appointment by the governor of that island of five persons "invested with authority at least equivalent to that of a justice of the peace in America, and nearly resembling it." 46 In 1829 the famous "cow case" gave the king and chiefs an opportunity to assert positively that the laws of the country applied to foreigners as well as to natives. The circumstances were these. Cattle left to graze on the plain to the eastward of Honolulu frequently broke into cultivated enclosures, causing damage for which the poor farmers could obtain no redress. At length a trespassing cow was fired upon, made its escape onto the open plain, was pursued and killed. The cow belonged to the British consul, who with a companion (the American commercial agent) sought out the native who did the shooting, tied his hands, put a rope about his neck, and started to lead him at a rapid pace into the village. The native, unable to keep up, fell and was dragged some distance before another native cut the rope. The consul, greatly angered, incited the English residents to draw up a petition, demanding protection for their lives and property. The proclamation of October 7, 1829, previously referred to, was a reply to this petition. It opened with the statement: "This is my decision for you: we assent to the request of the English residents; we grant the protection of the laws; that is the sum of your petition." After mentioning the things prohibited by the laws, the proclamation goes on: "If any man shall transgress any of these laws, he is liable to the penalty, the same for every foreigner and for the people of these Islands, whoever shall violate these laws shall be punished." The king then gives his decision in the case of the cow in a manner that would do justice to a modern court of law. 48 The division among the chiefs affected law enforcement even more than it did law making. This was particularly true on Oahu, where tt M

Bingham. Residence. 455. Chamberlain, Journal, Feb. 28, 1828. «Culiclt to Evarts, May 13, 1829, ML, I I I , 811-813. "Chamberlain, Journal, Oct. 5, 7, 9, 1829; Stewart, Visit to the South Seas, II, 150-156; Bingham, Residence, 350-352.^ Consul Charlton transmitted the documents to his government, together with a letter in which he gives a different account of this affair and denies categorically that he dragged the native on the ground. Charlton to Aberdeen (No. 5), Nov. 28, 1829, and an unnumbered dispatch of same date, in BPRO, F.O. 58/5. But Charlton's reputation for veracity was not such as to give much credence to his statement, in face of the weight of evidence on the other side.

130

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

Boki, leader of the liberal party, was governor. Neither he nor his wife Liliha, who was acting governess after Boki left the country in December, 1829, made any serious attempt to enforce the laws which were especially objected to by the foreign residents, such as the laws against Sabbath desecration, rum selling, and gambling. They even went further and sanctioned the traffic in rum by granting licenses to sellers in direct opposition to the existing law. This laxity occasioned great dissatisfaction among the older and higher chiefs, and in the early part of 1831 in a council at Kailua or Lahaina they came to the decision, approved by the king, to remove Liliha from the governorship. When a report of this decision was received by the latter at Honolulu, she made preparations for resistance and in her attitude of defiance seems to have had encouragement from some of the foreigners in the town. From this rash step she was dissuaded by her father Hoapili who came down from Lahaina to Oahu for that special purpose. On the first of April the decision of the king and chiefs was made known in a public assembly at Honolulu. The island of Oahu was placed in the keeping of Kaahumanu who in turn appointed her brother Kuakini (the governor of Hawaii) as acting governor of Oahu. At the same meeting Kuakini announced clearly his determination to put a new policy into operation and he proceeded without delay to a vigorous enforcement of the law. The licensing of grogshops was discontinued and a strong effort made to suppress the sale of rum and to break up the gambling houses. Armed guards patrolled the streets, and a party of them entered a house where several foreigners were engaged in a game of billiards and ordered them to desist. Horses of those who rode out for pleasure on the Sabbath day were seized and held until fines were paid for their release. The heavy hand of the law came down upon foreigner and native alike. A number of the foreigners, in a petition to the king, entered a vigorous protest against what they termed "encroachments made on [their] Liberties, Religion and harmless amusements." They professed to set in these proceedings the working out of a plan to drive the foreigners to desperation and induce them to leave the islands as a means of evading the payment of the debts owed by the government to the foreigners. "As you exact obedience of us we ask justice of you; we ask are your laws intended for the Residents alone, or for Residents and natives?" They referred to the failure of the native authorities to adequately safeguard the property rights of foreigners by punishing natives who committed thefts and other offenses. They declared that good and wholesome laws which Your Majesty may enact for the regulations of your subjects and for the preservation of peace and order, the Residents will always feel in duty bound to respect and obey, but any arbitrary, unprincipled and unnecessary enactments, infringing on the rights and liberties of the Residents, they shall feel themselves justified to remonstrate against." « Wm. French et al. to King Kaulrioli [JUT], April 7, 1831, AH, F.O. & E*.

REGENCY OF K A A H U M A N U

131

Though the excesses of the former time were much abated, it proved to be impossible to maintain fully the puritanical regime contemplated by Governor Kuakini. This is clearly shown in letters written by the missionaries some months later. Rev. Hiram Bingham wrote on November 23, 1831: It remains to add that the determined supporters of the game of billiards continue their sport at the billiard table defended by the consuls, and that a number of the interested advocates of retailing spirits at this port, continue their practice, particularly in retailing to foreign residents and seamen, though neither are licensed by the government. The government undertook . . . to break up some of the sabbath day amusements of the foreigners, such as fiddling, dancing and carousing in the town and riding into the country and back. In this effort they have perhaps been more successful than in the other.' 8

Other letters written at about the same time suggest the existence of an intimate and dangerous connection between the conditions described in this chapter and the wider field of international relations. Dr. G. P. Judd wrote on September 26, 1831, from Honolulu: National affairs appear now to be in a very prosperous state as it respects the native population, good order, peace and faithful obedience to the laws are observed. But the foreigners cause the chiefs no little trouble by withstanding and throwing obstacles in the way of the execution of the laws among them, and some individuals have added personal insult and threats to their opposition. While on the one hand they use every art to entangle the chiefs in foolish bargains, and get away their land, they eagerly catch at every thing which will afford a pretext however futile on which to ground a complaint to the English or American governments. It appears to us that unless some counter influence is exerted the country will soon come under the government of a foreign power."

From Kailua, Hawaii, Rev. Artemas Bishop wrote on November 22: The determined unyielding spirit of opposition manifested by foreign residents and the numerous ships that touch here, the unwearied pains that are taken to prejudice all strangers against the rulers, the heedless manner also in which the government transact their affairs, the impositions and insults continually heaped upon the chiefs, and their almost inextricable debts to the merchants, which give them such a hold and such boldness over them, seem to indicate a crisis, perhaps a bloody crisis not far distant. . . . Things appear evidently to be tending to [the seizure of the islands] by some foreign power. And yet, the king is still running in debt !M

Taking a general view of developments during this period, it will « ML, V, 1356. 49 J u d d to [Sec. of A B C F M ] , Sept. 26, 1831, MS in H M C S Library. 00 ML, VI, 1673-1674. T h e foregoing account of the happenings of 1831 is based u p o n : Chamberlain, Journal, passim, but especially Feb. 20, 22, 23, 25, March 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, April 1, 9, 17, May 3, 1831; Chamberlain to Ruggles, Feb. 26, April 26, M a y 20, 1831, M S in H M C S L i b r a r y ; Kauikeaouli, O Ka Olelo Hoakaka a ke Alii, B Hooponopono i ke Aupuni, April 1, 1831 (statement on occasion of taking over the government of Oahu and placing it in the hands of K a a h u m a n u ) , broadside in H M C S L i b r a r y ; W m . French et al., letter cited; G. P. J u d d , letter cited; E. W . Clark to J . Evarts, Sept. 14, 1831, M L , VI, 17851786; Bingham to Evarts, Nov. 23, 1831, M L , V, 1334-1356; A. Bishop to R. Anderson, Nov. 22, 1831, ML, V I , 1673-1674; H . A. Peirce to J . Hunnewell, March 8, April 14, October 2, 1831, Hunnewell M S S . Peirce states (in letter of April 14) that the suppression of the grog shops by Governor Kuakini threw upwards of two h u n d r e d white men out of employment; there is some difficulty in believing this, since E. W . Clark, one of the missionaries, in a letter to Dr. R u f u s Anderson, April 20, 1831, indicates that there had been ten grog shops in the village of Honolulu. M L , V I , 1783.

132

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

be seen that from 1823 to 1832, that is to say during the regency of Kaahumanu, there was distinct progress in law making (though some of the laws enacted were of doubtful wisdom because of their too puritanical character) and a general tightening up of law enforcement, culminating in the vigorous rule of Governor Kuakini on Oahu. Following the death of the old regent there was a serious reaction extending over a period of two or three years.

CHAPTER IX

THE TROUBLED THIRTIES Kaahumanu died June 5, 1832. Next to Kamehameha I, she is certainly the most imposing figure among the native rulers of Hawaii. A chief of high rank and autocratic temper, she governed her people, as a contemporary observer remarked, "with a rod of iron." 1 In her later years her most striking characteristic was religious zeal; she was the firm friend and protector of the Protestant missionaries and exerted herself to the time of her last illness in spreading the Christian gospel. Henry A. Peirce, who was very critical of the Protestant missionaries and of many of the acts of the native rulers, wrote of Kaahumanu just after her death: She died a Christian. It has always heretofore been my opinion that her adherence and adoption of the Christian religion was from policy . . . but I have lately been convinced from the piety displayed during her sickness and at the hour of her death that she really believed in and practiced the principles of the Christian religion.'

Devotion to religion was coupled with vigorous support of measures of reform, even when these ran to unwise extremes. The Catholic missionaries encountered her relentless opposition, but even they recognized the purity of her intentions, and Father Bachelot wrote of her as a "woman of much character, a friend of the general good and of order," who in her attitude toward Catholicism was simply misled by the teachings of the Protestant missionaries. 3 Her successor in the office of kuhina-nui was Kinau. The latter was a daughter of Kamehameha I and a half sister of Kauikeaouli but of lower chiefly rank than the king, her mother having been of lesser rank than Keopuolani, the king's mother. She was, however, considerably older than the king. On July 5, 1832, the two rulers issued a joint proclamation, or rather, two parallel proclamations. The king on his side made known that the office formerly held by Kaahumanu now belonged to Kinau. I am superior, and my Mother [meaning Kinau] subordinate, . . . She is my chief Agent. . . . We two who have been too young and unacquainted with the actual transaction of business, now for the first time undertake distinctly to regulate our kingdom. . . . Ye men of foreign lands, let not the laws be by you put under your feet. When you are in your own countries, there you will observe your own laws.

Kinau on her side declared that the office which my mother [meaning Kaahumanu, though Kaahumanu was not her actual mother] held until her departure, is now mine. All her active duties and her Peirce to Hunnewell, Aug. 10. 18.13, Peirce to Hunnewell, June 11, 1832, . . •Yzendoorn, History of the Catholic interesting article by Gwenfread E. Allen, June, July, August. 1 2

Hunnewell M S S . ibid. Mission in the Hawaiian Islands, 79-80. See the "Kaahumanu—a Study," in Friend, X C V (1925).

133

134

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

authority are committed to me. The tabus of the king, and the law of God, are with me, and also the laws of the King. . . . My appointment as chief agent is of long standing, even from our father [Tamehameha], . . . This is another point. I make known to you; according to law [or for the violation of law] shall be the loss or dispossession of land. We are now endeavoring to make our minds mature.4

While it is not explicitly stated in the proclamations, the contemporary situation makes it clear that Kinau became not only kuhina-nui but also regent, Kauikeaouli being as yet only eighteen years of age. This is true despite the fact that the "Exposition of the Principles on which the present Dynasty is founded," in the constitution of 1840, implies that the regency terminated with the death of Kaahumanu. For several months affairs went on much as before, but about the beginning of 1833 Kauikeaouli became displeased over Kinau's refusal to sanction the purchase of a brig on which he had set his heart and which he had agreed to buy. Kinau held that the finances of the kingdom were not in condition to stand this additional heavy expense. 5 The king's resentment took the singular form of throwing off all wholesome restraints and entering upon a course of intemperance and debauchery which continued with little interruption for nearly two years. Early in March a crier was sent through the streets to proclaim the abrogation of all laws except those relating to theft and murder. The royal example was followed by thousands in all parts of the kingdom. The hula and other ancient sports and pastimes were revived and extensively practised, to the accompaniment of gambling, drunkenness, and other vices indulged in both by natives and foreigners in a strong reaction against the rigorous puritanical rule which had reached its climax in 1831 and 1832.« T E R M I N A T I O N OF REGENCY

But there was something more underneath all this than a mere youthful impulse to sow wild oats. In the revival of the hula and ancient games we recognize elements of the racial culture struggling for expression after a long period of enforced retirement. There was also during these two years (1833 and 1834) a protracted struggle between the king and the older chiefs resulting from the decision of the king Kauikeaouli and Kinau, He Mau Olelo Hoakaka no ko Maua Noho Ana. Proclamations Concerning our Office. Oahu, Iulai J, 1832. Hawaiian and English in parallel columns. •Chamberlain, Journal, Feb. 4, 1833; Bingham, Residence, 447; Jarves, History of the Hawaiian Islands (3 ed.), 148. See also Peirce to Hunnewell, March 11, 1833, Hunnewell M S S , which seems to indicate that in spite of the check to his plans, the king made some arrangement to purchase a brig at a f u t u r e time. • L a u r a Fish Judd, Honolulu: Sketches of the Life, Social, Political and Religious in the Hautanan Islands from 18*8 to 1861 (1928 ed.), 41; Jarves, op. cit., 148-150. There a r e many details in Chamberlain's journal d u r i n g 1833 and 1834, and in other missionary writings. With these may be compared the following statement by the American t r a d e r H e n r y A. Peirce: " T h e King and his party have thrown off that ecclesiastical restraint which they have been u n d e r for »0 long a time. — All their ancient games and customs are revived again — We see the Natives every where about the Village playing the Games of the Stone, the Spear—81c. &c—Every even i n g large company assemble to Sing, and dance—all in their ancient way. Nothing bad has resulted from it yet except a few of the lower class of Natives spending their time in carousing and drinking to excess—But these and such like excesses may be expected for a time a f t e r such a 'Revolution'—They are no longer a priest ridden people." Peirce to Hunnewell, March 11, 1833, Hunnewell M S S .

TROUBLED T H I R T I E S

135

to terminate the regency and from what looks like an attempt on his part to regain for the crown as much as possible of the power which had gradually passed into the hands of the council of chiefs. From this viewpoint some of the incidents of these years, taken together, constitute an important episode in a line of constitutional development. On February 8, 1833, Levi Chamberlain wrote in his journal: T h e r e a r e a good many things which look as though the K i n g meant to bring things round to his w i l l ; or at least to make the attempt. He probably feels restricted and he wishes to follow his own inclinations more f u l l y without so much regard to the chiefs as he has been heretofore under the necessity of paying.

The king's first direct challenge to Kinau and the older chiefs was his action in taking land away from several natives in disregard of the proclamation of July 5, 1832.7 His next move was to abrogate some of the laws, as mentioned above.8 Then, on March 15, he called the people together in an assembly and addressed them in substance as follows: These a r e my thoughts to all ye chiefs, classes of subjects and foreigners respecting this country which by the victory of Mokuohai w a s conquered by my F a t h e r and his chiefs—it has descended to us as his and their posterity. This is more—all that is within it, the living and the dead, the good and the bad, the agreeable and the pleasant—all a r e mine. I shall rule with justice over all the land, make and promulgate all l a w s : neither the chiefs nor the foreigners have any voice in making laws f o r this country. I alone am the one. Those three laws which w e r e given out f o r m e r l y remain still in force, viz. not to murder, not to steal, not to commit a d u l t e r y ; therefore govern yourselves accordingly.'

The king then turned to Kinau and designated her as kuhina-nui. This occasioned a little surprise, as it had been hoped by some and feared by others that he would remove Kinau and put in her place Liliha or even Kaomi, a young Tahitian who was his boon companion and principal abettor in his disorderly course. There is reason to believe that if the king had felt perfectly free to follow his own inclination, he might have appointed Liliha; he had a great fondness for her, and there was a jealousy of long standing between him and Kinau. But such an appointment was too hazardous, carrying with it the danger of civil war. The action of the king left the government in a somewhat ambiguous condition. If he meant literally to arrogate to himself all authority, then the position of Kinau as kuhina-nui and the status of the council of chiefs would of necessity be fundamentally different from what they had been theretofore. But neither Kinau nor the other chiefs had any Chamberlain, Journal, Feb. 14, 25, 1833. Ibid., March 9, 1833. • This is the version given by Henry A. Peirce in a letter to Hunnewell, April 8, 1833, Hunnewell MSS. I have corrected the punctuation and spelling in part. See also Chamberlain, Journal, March 15, 1833. 7

8

136

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

intention of yielding without a struggle.10 During the next year or more the king vacillated between the assertion of his complete independence and acquiescence in the wishes of the older chiefs. The latter kept up a steady pressure in an effort to bring him back to the constitutional position in which he had stood before March 15, 1833, excepting only the termination of the regency. Kamehameha III had not the character of an autocrat. The role of a constitutional monarch was better suited to him. In the end he yielded, and the net result of two years of confusion and uncertainty in the government was the termination of the regency, and the assumption by Kamehameha III of whatever power and authority belonged to the kingly office, but leaving the other organs of government, the kuhina-nui and council of chiefs, much as they had been before. 11 A reconciliation was effected between the king and Kinau 12 and from about the beginning of 1835 the king left the responsibility of government very largely in her hands. An interesting commentary on this fact is found in one of the official letters of the British consul, written in the latter part of 1836. Kauikeaouli (or Tamehameha) is now about twenty-three years of age and is possessed of more talent than almost any other native, but being of very indolent habits and excessively fond of pleasures he does not attend to the affairs of Government, but trusts Kinau his half sister with the reins, she is entirely governed by the American Missionaries who through her govern the Islands with unlimited sway." A N E W CODE OF L A W S

In view of the confusion of this time and the loose way in which the king had dealt with the laws, the restoration of normal conditions called for the establishment of a new code. Hence this subject received the attention of the chiefs and a set of laws was drawn up during 1834 and proclaimed by the king in a public assembly on January 5, 1835, 10 Kinau did, however, have at least one moment of deep despair. Mrs. Judd tells the story: " I n her despondency she made us [ D r . and Mrs. Judd] a visit one day, and said: " I am in straits and heavy-hearted, and I have come to tell you my thought. I am quite discouraged, and cannot bear this burden any longer. I wish to throw away my rank, and title, _ and responsibility together. bring my family here, and live with you, or we will take our families and go to America; I have money.' W e sat down by her side, told her the story of Esther for her encouragement, and expostulated with her upon the impracticability of casting off her rank and responsibility. We assured her that she was called to her present position and dignity by Divine Providence, and that she must nerve herself to fulfill her high destiny. W e knelt a r o u n d the family altar, and asked for her strength, and wisdom, and patience and for light on her darkened pathway." L. F. J u d d , op. cit., 41-42. 11 O u r most enlightening source for the history of this period (1833-34) is the j o u r n a l of Levi Chamberlain, which must be used with due recognition of his missionary point of view. See also: Peirce to Hunnewell, March 11, April 8, Oct. 4, 1833, Hunnewell M S S ; Charlton to Palmerston (No. 2), March 19, 1833, (No. 5), Oct. 12, 1833, B P R O , F.O. 5 8 / 7 ; Bingham t o Anderson, March 20, May 7, J u n e 1, Aug. 16, 1833, M L , V, 1466-7, 1439, 1445, 1448; E . W . Clark to Anderson, March 30, 1833, M L , VI, 1795. Secondary accounts in Bingham, Residence, Chap. 18; Jarves, op. cit., 148-150; L. F. Judd, op. cit., 41-48. As bearing on the jealousy between Kauikeaouli and Kinau, see an interesting note in Chamberlain, Journal, April 4, 1829. 12 An important factor in this reconciliation was the act of the king in adopting, as his son and prospective heir, the child of Kinau, Alexander Liholiho, who was born Feb. 9, 1834. L. F. J u d d , op. cit., 47. This prince a f t e r w a r d s ascended the throne as Kamehameha I V . 13 Charlton to Palmerston (No. 15), Nov. 23, 1836, B P R O , F.O. 5 8 / 8 . On the king's love of amusements, see the account by W. S. Ruschenberger, A Voyage round the World . . . in JS$5, '836, and 1837 (Philadelphia, 1838), 458-459. Ruschenberger was surgeon of the U . S . S . Peacock, at Honolulu in September and October, 1836. An abridged edition of his book was published in London in 1838 in two volumes with a slightly different title.

TROUBLED T H I R T I E S

137

the execution of the laws being entrusted to Kinau. 14 This little penal code15 is in five chapters or divisions, each signed by Kauikeaouli. The first deals with murder and lesser degrees of homicide, providing penalties graded according to the offense. The second deals with theft, calling for a fine of twice the amount stolen, imprisonment, or lashing on the bare back, the number of strokes being proportioned to the amount stolen. The third chapter relates to unlawful sexual intercourse and also to divorce; the fourth has to do with fraud and false-witness; the fifth with drunkenness and offenses committed while in a state of intoxication, with graduated penalties. DIFFICULTIES WITH FOREIGNERS: T H E CATHOLIC MISSION

The Hawaiian rulers composed their domestic difficulties not a moment too soon, for the next few years brought them a multiplicity of troubles with foreigners and foreign governments. The really serious difficulties with foreigners revolved around such questions as the right of foreigners to enter the country, to reside there, to engage in business (trade, agriculture, missionary work, etc.), to acquire house lots and land by lease or otherwise, to build houses on the land so acquired, and to transfer their property either by sale, lease, will, or inheritance. In spite of a good deal of loose talk, no responsible person ever seriously denied the right of the Hawaiian government to restrict foreigners in any or all of these respects. The advisability of restriction was a different matter. It came to be recognized that any general rights which aliens might acquire along these lines would have to be based upon treaties. Hence arose the zeal of various naval officers in the making of treaties and conventions during the years 1836-1839. There was an earlier treaty, the "articles of arrangement" negotiated by the American naval officer, Captain T. ap C. Jones, in 1826, but it had been designed primarily to protect trade and the whaling industry and was not well suited to the needs of foreigners permanently domiciled in the country. Still, it was appealed to on several occasions as a guarantee of various privileges claimed by American residents.16 Before 1820 the foreigners who became residents of Hawaii and who acquired land were predominantly of a humble status, commonly sailors. They conformed, in matters of property, to the customs of the country. After 1820 conditions changed. The number of foreigners increased. Many of them were of higher station in life, merchants, " B i n g h a m to [ABCFM], Jan. 6, 1835, ML, V, 1494; MH, XXXI (1835), 149; W. F. Frear, "Hawaiian Statute Law", 31-32; W. D. Westervelt, "Hawaiian Printed Laws before the Constitution", 48-49. 15 He olelo no no kanawai, o ko Hawaii Net pae aitta. Na Kauikeaouli ke alii. Oahu: Mea pai palapala a na misionari. 1834. This first edition, now very rare, is in 15 pages. A second edition was printed in 1835 in 11 pages with different paragraphing. Though commonly called the laws of 1834, they are more properly laws of 1835, since they were not proclaimed until Jan. 5, 1835. u On this point see H. W. Bradley, "Thomas ap Catesby Jones and the Hawaiian Islands, 1826-1827," in 39 H H S Report, 25-26, and references cited by present writer in ibid., 60, note 29.

138

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

mechanics, missionaries, agriculturists, professional men. These later comers did not always understand the native system, and even when they did understand, many of them had little respect for it. Foreigners began to deal with their property as they would have done in their home countries; in doing so they sometimes violated Hawaiian customs. On the other hand, the native authorities treated the property of foreigners as they did that of their own subjects, thus creating much dissatisfaction. 17 Before 1830 the difficulties between foreigners and the government had to do mainly with moral laws and mercantile debts; after 1830 there were many cases arising out of alleged violations of the land and property rights of foreigners. Foreigners began to deny the right of the government to arbitrarily dispossess them of land or to prevent the transfer of property from one foreigner to another, and they appealed to their own governments for protection—successfully in some instances. After about 1830 several new elements entered into the situation. One was the effort by the British consul and other Englishmen to counteract or offset the American influence in the government which was evidently growing from year to year with the increase of American commercial interests and missionary enterprise. A curious detail of this effort was a pamphlet published in London in 1832, containing a letter addressed "to a Noble Lord" by T. Horton James "on the importance of settling the Sandwich and Bonin Islands . . . on the plan of a proprietary government . . . " 1 8 Another new factor was the growing interest and activity in agriculture and industry, to be described in a later chapter. A third new element was the attempt of Catholic missionaries to establish themselves and their work in Hawaii. This was a French enterprise and toward the end of the decade it obtained the active support of the French government. The best picture of the foreign impact during the 1830's will be gained by describing the more important incidents in chronological order. But it is necessary first to go back and bring up the history of the Catholic mission to the vear 1831. The Catholic mission in Hawaii finds its origin in activities and ideas of the young Frenchman John Rives, boon companion and secretary of Kamehameha II. As related in an earlier chapter, Rives went to England with Liholiho in 1823. H e was with the king to the moment of the death of the latter in July, 1824, but subsequently, for some reason which is not clear, fell out of favor with the surviving members of the party and separated from them. It appears that Rives had taken with him to Europe the idea of utilizing the favor and the property which had been bestowed upon him, by Liholiho and his father, to promote a commercial enterprise in Hawaii and to introduce into the islands 17 C f . J a r v e s , op. fit., 154. T w T i ? n P a m p h l e t ' S r e P r i n 1 t e 4 i n !5 H H S R e p o r t , 36-51. I n 1831 a B r i t i s h g e n t l e m a n , Capt. u li • • t s p e n t s o m e m o r l t h s l n H a w a i i a n d d u r i n g t h a t time r e c o m m e n d e d to t h e c h i e f s to a s k t h e B r i t i s h g o v e r n m e n t to appoint a Resident f o r t h e S a n d w i c h I s l a n d s . B i n g h a m to E v a r t s , Sept. 8, 1831, M L , V, 1332-33. F o r a brief discussion of t h e supersession of British by A m e r i c a n influence in H a w a i i in t h e period 1820-1840, see a n article by t h e p r e s e n t w r i t e r in 39 H H S K e p o r t , 48-67.

TROUBLED THIRTIES

139

a Catholic mission. After attempting without success to interest English capitalists in his commercial scheme, Rives went over to his native country. He could hardly have selected a more opportune moment for presenting his projects in France. There were capitalists willing to embark on distant trading enterprises ; Church and State were in close alliance in consequence of the accession of the clerical minded King Charles X ; there existed in Catholic and missionary circles a strong interest in the islands of the Pacific and a determination to establish there Catholic missions in order to combat the errors of both heathenism and Protestantism ; 19 a young and zealous religious order, the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, stood ready to undertake such a mission as Rives suggested. H e had, therefore, little difficulty in interesting merchants and capitalists, government officials, and Catholic missionary authorities. The result was the organization of two commercial expeditions and a religious mission. The first to get under way was a trading enterprise undertaken by the bankers Lafitte of Havre and Paris, which sailed from Havre in April, 1826, in the ship Héros. Its first objective was trade along the western coast of America. The second enterprise was organized under the patronage of the French government by the Bordeaux firm of Monneron, which was already engaged in trade along the Pacific coast of America. The expedition was to consist of a trading venture and a permanent agricultural settlement in the Hawaiian islands; and with it was to be associated the Catholic mission, though the two enterprises had no organic connection. This second expedition sailed from Bordeaux in November, 1826, in the ship Comète. The missionary party consisted of three priests, Fathers Alexis Bachelot, Abraham Armand, and Patrick Short, a choir brother and two lay brothers, Theodore Boissier, Melchior Bondu, and Leonore Portal; Father Bachelot was head of the mission with the title of apostolic prefect. The agricultural settlers were three or four in number, headed by a young French lawyer, Auguste de Morineau, who expected ultimately to be appointed French consul at Honolulu. 20 The success of all these projects depended to a vital degree upon the favor which Rives promised to obtain for them from the Hawaiian M " P o u r remonter aux origines de l'action catholique e n Océanie, il suffit de rappeler le rapport adressé en 1824, par Duperrey au ministre de la marine. Cet éloge, sans restrictions, des missions protestantes, eut en F r a n c e un grand retentissement. Des polémiques de presse eurent pour effet de créer u n mouvement d'opinion dans le parti catholique, qui résolut de prendre sa revanche à bref délai." Soulier-Valbert, L'Expansion Française dans le Pacifique Sud, 96, 80, quoted in W . A. Young, Christianity and Civilization in the South Pacific, 126, note. See also V. Piquet, Histoire des Colonies Françaises, 190, 253; H . Russier, Le Partage de L'Ocêanie, 125. 20 F o r t h e trading and settlement projects, see G. V. Blue, " T h e Project for a French Settlement in the Hawaiian Islands, 1824-1842," in Pacific Historical Review, I I , 85-99 (March, 1933), and the same author's " T h e Policy of France toward the Hawaiian Islands f r o m the Earliest Times to the T r e a t y of 1846," in The Hawaiian Islands . . . Papers read during the Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Celebration . . . içiS (Honolulu, 1930), especially pp. 58-61. F o r the history of the missionary enterprise, the standard authority is the well documented work of F r . Reginald Yzendoorn, History of the Catholic Mission in the Hawaiian Islands (Honolulu, 1927). A n interesting but not altogether reliable original source is A. de Morineau, Notice Historique sur les Iles Sandwich (Poitiers, 1834), a pamphlet of 31 pages. See also A. B. d u Hautcilly, Voyage autour du Monde (Paris, 1834). Relevant documents in the French archives are used and cited by Blue.

140

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

authorities; but that prop proved to be a broken reed. The death of Liholiho left Rives without any influential friend among the Hawaiian chiefs ; stories designed to discredit him were brought back by the survivors of Liholiho's party ; Kaahumanu turned against him. Rives had sailed from Havre on the Héros ; learning on the coast of California of the change in his standing at the islands, he did not return to Hawaii. For lack of the support expected from him, the agricultural settlement project was a complete failure, and the missionary enterprise was seriously handicapped. The Comète arrived at Honolulu July 7, 1827. The priests, perhaps fearing a refusal, made no formal request for permission to land and remain in the country. Kaahumanu ordered the captain of the ship to take them away, but he sailed without doing so, and no serious objection seems to have been raised against them for a year or two. They rented a small enclosure containing three huts and there the entire company of missionaries and agriculturists lived until November, when Morineau obtained a grant of a small piece of land (part of the premises now occupied by the Catholic mission in Honolulu), where a house was built, and in January, 1828, the priests opened a little chapel to the public. In October, 1827, two of the settlers went back to France and Morineau followed them about the beginning of 1828. The latter hoped to get a re-enforcement and backing for a commercial establishment, but he was unsuccessful and hence did not return to the islands. 21 During the first few months the priests kept rather out of sight and devoted themselves principally to the business of learning the language. They talked to such as came to them, but made no special effort "to spread their teachings until they were better prepared to do so. To the end of 1828 they had baptized no adults, but during the succeeding year they began to gather some fruits of their labors. By the end of July, 1829, they had baptized 65 adults and a number of children, and they had a group of catechumens under their instruction. T o the Protestant missionaries this invasion, by priests of the detested Catholic faith, of a field which they had pretty fully occupied, was a disquieting development. At first they believed—at least it appears that some of them believed—that the Hawaiians would recognize in the Catholic doctrines those things which were, from the Protestant viewpoint, fundamental errors and evils, and that consequently the Catholics would make little or no headway. But they did not for that reason neglect to inform the Hawaiians what their own views were in regard to Catholicism. 22 T o the Hawaiian chiefs, who by 1827 had made Protestant Christianity practically a state religion, the action of any of their a For a time, in 1830, Morineau seemed on the point of realizing his hopes, including an appointment as French consul at Honolulu, but delays intervened and the July (1830) Revolution in France "put an end to whatever likelihood of promotion the original project had ever possessed." Blue, "Project for French Settlement", 95. _ 12 E. W Clark to R. Anderson, Nov. 10, 1830, ML. VI, 1777-81: "The [Protestant] missionaries of course, signified to the chiefs and others their decided disapprobation of them [the Catholics] and their religion. This had been done from the very first." The whole letter is interesting and important. See also Yzendoorn, op. cit., 44-49.

TROUBLED THIRTIES

141

subjects in embracing the Catholic faith was nothing less than insubordination ; and they also professed to see in the rites of the Catholic church a revival of the idolatry which had been proscribed in 1819, and to fear a division in the state if two religions were allowed. Alike, therefore, to the ruling chiefs and to the Protestant missionaries the activities and the initial successes of the Catholics presented a serious problem. They seem at first to have had different ideas as to how this menace to the existing order should be met. The chiefs, who had some fear of taking harsh measures against foreigners, 23 thought to deal with it by forbidding their subjects to attend the Catholic services or to embrace the Catholic faith and by punishing them if they disobeyed these orders. The Protestant missionaries, however, saw the futility of such measures and frowned upon persecution for conscience sake; to them it was clear that the evil could be cured—if at all—only by striking at its roots, by removing the Catholic priests from the islands and preventing their return. 24 The same view was taken by an English gentleman, Captain J. W. Hill, said to have been a member of the church of England, who was in Hawaii in 1831 and who, besides talking with the chiefs, tried to convince the priests that they should go away voluntarily. The latter listened to his arguments but declined to follow his advice. 25 In the end the Hawaiian authorities used both the methods suggested above. During the greater part of the ten years from 1829 to 1839, native Catholics were subjected to punishments, some of them harsh and cruel, which must certainly be looked upon as persecution on account of their religious beliefs and practices. 28 The authorities likewise expelled the Catholic priests from the islands. This act and the subsequent refusal of the king to permit the priests to return ultimately brought down upon the Hawaiian government the displeasure of France and brought in its train various evil consequences. The anti-Catholic policy, carried on by Kaahumanu, was hampered to some extent by the division among the chiefs which has been already several times referred to. Boki, in a strategic position as governor of Oahu, and his partisans were more or less disposed to favor the Catholics, " Clark to Anderson, N o v . 10, 1830, loc. cit. M I think this is clear from the resolutions adopted by the Protestant missionaries in 1830 and 1831 and from various statements of individual missionaries. Tile resolutions of 1830 are in Minutes oi the General Meeting of that year, pp. 31-33; those of 1831 in ibid., 1831, pp. 15-16. T h e resolutions of 1830 are reproduced in Yzendoorn, op. cit., 46-47. T h e resolutions of 1831, which seem to have escaped the attention of Yzendoorn, are quoted in part farther along, in note 33. Chamberlain records a conversation between Kekuanaoa, one of the leading c h i e f s on Oahu and husband of Kinau, and three of the missionaries in reference to the treatment of n a t i v e Catholics. H e says: "I stated my opinion that they had better act' very warily and treat them kindly and do all they could to win them to the truth. I said the c h i e f s had a right to forbid them teaching others or attending upon the instructions of the Catholics and that they also had a right to proscribe their teachers [i. e. the Catholic priests] particularly as they had never given consent to their dwelling in the islands." Chamberlain, Journal, July 29, 1830. T h e word "proscribe" here used by Chamberlain evidently means to banish. See also Clark t o A n d e r s o n Nov. 10, 1830, loc. cit., and Chamberlain. Journal, Dec. 10, 1830. 25 Bingham to Evarts, Sept. 8, 1831, ML, V, 1332-3; Chamberlain, Journal, Dec. 13, 1831; Bingham's journal. Dec. 24, 1831, ML. V, 1369; Joint letter of missionaries at Honolulu. Jan. 17, 1832, M H , X X V I I I ( 1 8 3 2 ) , 351; Clark to Anderson, Sept. 6, 1832, M L , V I , 1792; Yzend o o m , op. cit. 64-67. T h i s Capt. Hill was the same man who is mentioned in note 18 above. 29 Details of this persecution are g i v e n in Yzendoorn. op, ext.. and in Suppliment [JJV] to the Sandwich Island Mirror ( H o n o l u l u , Jan. 15, 1840. A 100-page pamphlet.) Technically it w a s said that they were punished for disobeying the orders of the king or for violating the kapu against idolatry, but this can hardly be looked upon as a n y t h i n g more than a quibble.

142

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

if for no other reason because the latter were opposed by Kaahumanu and her supporters. Perhaps because of this, the regent moved slowly, but she was too powerful to be defied and Boki was obliged to render at least lip service to her commands. Kaahumanu first began to be seriously concerned about the doings of the Catholics in the summer of 1829. On August 8 she caused Boki to proclaim in the streets of Honolulu an order prohibiting all natives from attending the services of the Catholic priests. 27 Chamberlain states that on the same day she instructed Boki to tell the priests to stop holding meetings and baptizing the people and to warn them that if they did not desist they would be sent away from the islands. 28 As the Catholic writers make no mention of such a warning, it is possible that Boki failed to carry out this part of his orders. It was about this time that the persecution of native Catholics began, and only a few months later that Boki went away on his ill-fated sandalwood expedition. 29 On the third of January, 1830, Kaahumanu herself personally forbade the priests to teach the Catholic religion, to which Father Bachelot replied "that he could not refuse instruction in the only true religion to those who asked for it." 30 Though the persecution of native Catholics continued throughout 1830, no further action was taken against the priests until the beginning of the following year, when a formal order of banishment, dated January 8, 1831, was drawn up at Kaawaloa, Hawaii, where the chiefs were temporarily residing. From statements by Chamberlain and Bingham, who were well informed of what was going on, we are led to believe that it was the chief Kaikioewa, governor of Kauai, who took the initiative in promising the expulsion of the Catholic priests. 31 It is perhaps something more than a coincidence that the decision to expel the priests was formed at about the same time as the decision to remove Liliha from the governorship of Oahu. The decree of banishment was announced to Fathers Bachelot and Short on April 2, after the chiefs had returned to Honolulu. It required them to leave within three months, on pain of confiscation of their property if they were not gone at the end of that period, and of imprisonment if they lingered until the fourth month. 32 The priests did not depart within the time prescribed, but the penalties promised in that event were not imposed upon them. When it became evident that the priests had no intention of departing unless compelled to do so, the chiefs decided to fit out one of their own vessels, the brig Waverley, in which to convey them to California. Fathers Bachelot and Short were placed on board and the vessel sailed from Honolulu, December 24, 1831. The two priests were landed at San Pedro near Los Angeles and made their way to " Yzendoorn, op. cit.. 50. A reference to this and a later order is made in a letter of the Spaniard Francisco de Paula Marin to Tomas Mehedre, dated March 14, 1830, in which he says: "Compadre estaraos aqui en unas Vorucas muy Grandes pues el Govierno ha prohivido de que los catolicos tengan Yglesia." AH, Marin Papers. » Chamberlain, Journal, Aug. 8, 1829. ® It may be noted that on Nov. 1, 1829, one of the priests, Father Abraham Armand, left Honolulu en route to France. Yzendoorn, op. cit., 33, note 23. m Ibid., 54. a Chamberlain, Journal, Dec. 10, 1830; Bingham, Residence, 404-405. M Yzendoorn, op. cit., 60; Report of Minister of Foreign Relations, 1851, Appendix, p. 273.

TROUBLED THIRTIES

143

the Mission San Gabriel. They remained in California, laboring at various Missions, until 1837, awaiting a favorable time to go again to the islands. With their departure the Catholic enterprise in Hawaii was left in charge of Brother Melchior Bondu, who had its sole care until October, 1834, when a second brother joined him. One who studies the question fully and with an open mind can hardly escape the conclusion that the action taken by the chiefs was a direct result of the operation upon their minds of the teachings of the Protestant missionaries. It is certain that the latter were well pleased at the removal of the Catholic missionaries. They disapproved of the persecution of the native Catholics but in their writings they sometimes explained that measures of that kind were taken by the chiefs for political reasons. 33 The expulsion of the two priests, one of whom was a French subject, the other British, lends special interest to a discussion which occurred in September, 1831, upon the question of the right of foreigners to enter the country to reside and engage in business and upon the manner in which entry was to be effected. The issue depended on the interpretation of articles III and V of the treaty ("articles of arrangement") negotiated by the American Captain Jones in 1826. 34 An American and an English 88 In the general meeting of the Protestant missionaries in June, 1831, they adopted a set of resolutions on the subject of their duty in reference to the Roman Catholic Mission, in part as follows: "3. T h a t we fully subscribe to the principles recognized in our report, presented at the last general meeting, relative to the right of private judgment and conscience, on the one hand, and the right of the civil government in regard to foreigners, on the o t h e r ; therefore, "4. T h a t we cordially approve of the spirit of the rulers of this nation in the measures which they have devised to banish f r o m this country an evil so threatening in prospect to their highest interests. Nevertheless, "5. Resolved, t h a t while we approve of the chiefs sending away the Jesuits [jtV] f r o m these islands, as soon as may be, we caution them against adopting any measures which can rationally be interpreted as persecution for conscience sake; that they also be forbearing, but still decided and energetic. "6. Resolved, that we all feel ourselves at liberty, if circumstances shall require it, to w a r n the people f r o m the pulpit, and on other occasions, to beware of this common foe; and that we redouble our diligence as teachers of the Christian Religion . . Minutes of General Meeting, 1831, pp. 15-16. On this and other points involved, see the various letters and statements cited in preceding notes and, in addition, the following: Chamberlain to Goodrich and Ruggles, Aug. 21, 1827, M S in H M C S L i b r a r y ; Chamberlain, Journal, Dec. 31, 1828, March 4, July 4, 7, 1829, Sept. 20, 21, 25, Oct. 18, 1830, Sept. 8, Nov. 5, 1831, Sept. 24, 1841; Bingham, Clark, and Chamberlain to Evarts, J a n . 1, 1829, ML, I I I , 1017-18; Clark to E v a r t s Sept. 14, 1831, ML, V I , 1786-87; Clark to Anderson, March 30, 1833, M L . V I , 1796; Bingham to Evarts, Feb. 6, 1832, ML, V, 1394-96; Bingham to Anderson, Feb. 16, 1832, ML, V, 1360-1371. F o r views of A B C F M , see Anderson to S. I. Mission, Nov. 16, 1831, J u n e 30, 1838, in General Letters. I n the latter communication, written a f t e r the 1837 incident, Dr. Anderson says: " O u r earnest prayer to God is, that the Catholic priests may not be permitted to sow their tares among the people of the Sandwich Islands. I n a mere political point of view, it' is certainly the only wise course for the government of the islands to send them away as fast as they come and whoever may object. . . . T h e king and chiefs should be exhorted to a firm, uncompromising, not persecuting policy, in respect to the Catholics." M a n y of the same points are involved in the happenings of 1836, 1837, and 1839. Bingham is the principal target of Catholic writers. They even accuse him of being responsible for the persecution of native Catholics. On this subject, William Richards stated (about 1839 or 1840), " M r . Bingham did (as I have heard the chiefs repeatedly say) frequently advise the chiefs to punish no one for his religious opinions, and on one occasion he talked so strongly to K a a h u m a n u , that she was quite offended. This I have f r o m Kekauluohi, the present Queen mother and Premier of the kingdom." Memo, unsigned, in reply *.o questions of S. N. Castle. A H , F.O. & Ex., Aug. 1840. w By Art. I l l , the Hawaiian rulers bound themselves " t o receive into their ports and harbors all ships and vessels of the United States, and to protect . . . all such ships and vessels, their cargoes, officers and crews, so long as they shall behave themselves peacefully, and not infringe the established laws of the land; the citizens of the United States being permitted to trade freely with the people of the Sandwich Islands." Art. V reads: "Citizens of the United States, whether resident or transient, engaged in commerce or trading to the Sandwich Islands, shall be inviolably protected in their lawful pursuits . . . "

144

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

trader contended that the treaty gave to American citizens the right, without any special permission f r o m the Hawaiian government, to enter the country to reside or engage in trade, and that, since the rulers allowed all foreigners the same privilege, it followed that non-American foreigners had the same right. Bingham, who reports the discussion, "maintained that so long as no foreigner owned a foot of land on the Sandwich Islands, the owners of the soil most certainly have a right, if they choose to exercise it, to object to any foreigner gaining a residence in their country" and that the treaty did not restrict this right. On inquiry it was ascertained that Kaahumanu and the king held the same view as Bingham. T h e latter declared that he had never discussed the question with the rulers. Kaahumanu said that the Hawaiian authorities were "entangled" if the treaty really had the meaning ascribed to it by the traders. 3 5 In the summer of 1832, the U.S. frigate Potomac visited Honolulu and Commodore Downes, in addition to discussing with the chiefs certain debts due to American traders, took pains to express to the king his disapproval of the policy pursued by the Hawaiian authorities toward the Catholics, both the expulsion of the priests and the punishment of native adherents of that faith, as being contrary to the practice of enlightened governments. 3 6 Partly no doubt as a result of Commodore Downes' representations and partly for other reasons, the persecution of native Catholics was discontinued in September, 1832, and was not renewed until some time in 1835. 37 In the latter year opened the second act in the Catholic drama. F o r its better understanding we must note certain features of the ecclesiastical organization of the Catholic missions in the Pacific. In 1833 a decree of the Holy Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide) created the Vicariate Apostolic of Eastern Oceania and committed it to the care of the Order of the Sacred H e a r t s ; the whole vicariate was divided, at the equator, into two prefectures; over the northern one, including the Hawaiian group, Father Bachelot was confirmed as apostolic prefect; over the whole vicariate was placed a vicar apostolic in the person of Bishop Rouchouze. T h e earliest mission in the southern prefecture was at Mangareva, and from there, in 1835, the Bishop sent Brother Columba M u r p h y to investigate the situation in Hawaii and the possibility of success for a new attempt to establish the mission. Murphy visited Honolulu in the fall of 1835, going thence to California with the intention of sending Fathers Bachelot and Short back to the islands immediately; but various circumstances prevented their return at that time. Murphy went on to Valparaiso, and the prefect residing in that city resolved to send to Hawaii a young priest named Father Arsenius (Robert A.) Walsh, who had recently come into the R i n g h a m to F,varts, D c c . 13, 1831, M L , V, 1372-83. 30 J . N. R e y n o l d s , Voyage of the United States Frigate Potomac . . . in the years 1831, 1832, 1833, and 1834 ( N e w Y o r k , 1 8 3 5 ) , 414, 418-419: F. W a r r i n e r , Cruise of the . .' . Potomac . . . 1831-34 ( N e w Y o r k , 1 8 3 5 ) . 2 3 3 - 2 3 6 ; C h a m b e r l a i n , J o u r n a l , A u g . 14, 1 8 3 2 ; Clark t o A n d e r s o n , Sept. 6, 1832, M L , V I , 1792-1793. V Y z e n d o o r n , op. cit., 82-83, 88.

TROUBLED THIRTIES

145

Pacific for work in the missions being carried on by the Order of the Sacred Hearts. It was thought that he, being a British subject, would have a greater chance of success than a French priest. Father Walsh arrived at Honolulu September 30, 1836. After a brief hesitation on the part of the rulers, he was ordered to depart, but the timely arrival of the French ship-of-war La Bonite created a diversion in his favor, which will be described a little farther along in the narrative. 38 At the moment when Father Walsh landed in Honolulu, there lay at anchor in the harbor the U.S.S. Peacock, having on board Commodore E. P. Kennedy, returning from a cruise in Asiatic waters. The Peacock had arrived on the seventh of September. On October 8, one day before her departure, the French warship La Bonite (Captain A. N. Vaillant) arrived at Honolulu, and on the day of La Bonite's sailing, October 24, the British ship-of-war Acteon (Lord Edward Russell) put in her appearance. The Acteon remained until November 19. During these two months and a half there was a round of entertaining, but of greater moment was the fact that each of the officers named had some business to discuss with the rulers touching the interests of foreigners. Besides a number of petty complaints, there were two or three fundamental issues. In Commodore Kennedy's conferences with the king and chiefs, extending over four successive days, the main subjects discussed were the tenure by which foreigners held land and other property, whether they had the right to transfer such property, and the privilege desired by them of leasing land for agricultural purposes. The surgeon of the Peacock states that when the question was brought up as to "whether the king had a right to prevent American residents from transferring houses, etc., by sale or otherwise," Kinau urged, that the king had never, in any instance, alienated his right in the soil, and when lots of ground were assigned to foreigners, it was always understood, either on the departure of the individual from the islands, or at his death, such ground reverted to the king, and that it must be cleared. That the king would give his consent, were it asked, to the sale or transfer of houses, &c., provided he should deem the person to whom the transfer was to be made, respectable, and likely to be a good citizen. The next day another interview occurred, and the subject was again discussed. The king was now present. H e argued, that if he yielded the right of free transfer, . . . he virtually resigned his right in the soil, which was unalienable, as well as all authority or control over it, and thus he might be deprived of all his country. . . . The subject of leasing lands for the purpose of cultivating sugar, cotton, coffee, tobacco, or silk, was talked of, and the king expressed himself decidedly in favor of the principle; but wished to be expressly understood, that in recognizing the principle of lease, he did not feel bound to grant lands to all who might apply. H e was unwilling to give this in writing, because, he said, it was a new thing, and required more consideration than he had yet been able to give it.39 38 Ibid., 86-94. I n regard to the arrival of Walsh there is an interesting note in M a r y Dillingham F r e a r , Lowell and Abigail: A Realistic Idyl (New Haven, 1934), 108-109. 30 Ruschenberger, Voyage Round the World (Philadelphia, 1838), 496. I n the preceding year (1835) the King and the governor of Kauai had granted to the American firm of Ladd & Co. a fifty year lease of a large tract of land at Koloa, Kauai, for a sugar plantation. T h e subject will be discussed more fully in a later chapter.

146

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

Part of the discussion turned upon the interpretation of the Jones treaty of 1826, to which the non-missionary American residents attempted to give a wider meaning than the Hawaiian rulers would allow. T o clarify the matter it was proposed to add several supplementary articles to that treaty, embodying the points mentioned by Dr. Ruschenberger in the passage just quoted. 40 At one conference the king seemed ready to approve the supplementary articles, but the next day he refused to do so, and it was stated that the rulers had also determined to adhere to their policy of not allowing foreigners to have the outright ownership of land. The residents blamed the missionaries for the unsuccessful issue of the negotiations. The missionaries, however, were by no means unanimous in their views. Their lands were held by the same precarious tenure as others, and some of the missionaries were disposed to favor the effort to obtain more secure titles. A specific case then pending was brought up for consideration, a case in which one foreigner had transferred his premises to an American mercantile firm without the consent of the chief from whom the land was held. In the course of the discussions, Commodore Kennedy expressed the opinion that the treaty of 1826 pledged the Hawaiian government to allow American citizens to enter the country and engage in business without special permission in each case. Commodore Kennedy, having been unsuccessful in the major part of his negotiations, left on record, in the form of a letter addressed to the king, his views on the various subjects discussed. 41 When the French Captain Vaillant arrived in La Bonite, he was at once visited by Father Walsh who gave him an account of the expulsion of Bachelot and Short and sought the French officer's interposition in his own case. The two lay brothers of the Catholic mission likewise called upon Captain Vaillant and besought his assistance in making their situations more secure. The only authority that the captain had, applicable to the present case, was the general instruction given to him to afford protec40 T h e f i r s t o f t h e p r o p o s e d a r t i c l e s r e a d s a s f o l l o w ? : " T h e p r o p e r t y of A m e r i c a n c i t i z e n s r e s i d i n g in or t r a d i n g w i t h t h e S a n d w i c h I s l a n d s s h a l l b e held i n v i o l a b l e ; a n d s a i d c i t i z e n s , m a y f r e e l y s e l l , b e q u e a t h or o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s e o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y , w h e t h e r in t h e f o r m of g o o d s , a n i m a l s , b u i l d i n g s , t e n e m e n t s or i m p r o v e m e n t s to a n y p e r s o n or p e r s o n s w h o e v e r : b u t in a l l c a s e of t r a n s f e r of real e s t a t e or l e a s e p r i v i l e g e , t h e g o v e r n m e n t s h a l l be p r e v i o u s l y i n f o r m e d t h e r e o f ; a n d t h e g o v e r n m e n t will in n o c a s e i n h i b i t s u c h t r a n s f e r u n l e s s it b e m a n i f e s t l y i n o p p o s i t i o n to the i n t e r e s t of t h e g o v e r n m e n t . " A r t i c l e t w o r e a d s : " A m e r i c a n c i t i z e n s m a y h a v e t h e p r i v i l e g e o f l e a s i n g or r e n t i n g l a n d f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s f o r t e r m s a n d p e r i o d s w h i c h m a y be a g r e e d u p o n in e a c h c a s e . B u t , in r e c o g n i z i n g t h i s p r i n c i p l e o f l e a s e p r i v i l e g e , the g o v e r n m e n t is not b o u n d to g r a n t l e a s e s to all or e v e r y o n e w h o m a y a p p l y . A t the e x p i r a t i o n of t h e p e r i o d of l e a s e , it m a y b e r e n e w e d on t e r m s to be a g r e e d u p o n b e t w e e n t h e g o v e r n m e n t a n d the l e a s e r , b u t if t h e p a r t i e s d o n o t a g r e e , t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s a s b u i l d i n g s , t e n e m e n t s , e t c . , t h a t m a y be u p o n t h e l a n d s h a l l b e sold a s it is, o r t h e i r t r u e v a l u e to be a s c e r t a i n e d b y r e f e r e n c e to c o m p e t e n t j u d g e s , b u t shall not be d e s t r o y e d without the o w n e r s thereof b e i n g paid their v a l u e . " T h e r e w e r e t w o o t h e r a r t i c l e s o f m i n o r i m p o r t a n c e . A . d e L a S a l l e , Voyage autour du monde exécuté pendant les années 1R36 et 1837 sur la corvette La Bonite . . . Relation du voyage ( 3 v o l s . P a r i s , 1 8 4 5 - 5 2 ) , I I , 3 9 2 - 3 9 3 . « R u s c h e n b e r g e r , op. cit., 4 9 2 - 5 0 0 ; L a S a l l e , op. cit.. I I , 2 2 7 - 2 2 8 , 3 3 3 - 3 3 4 , 3 9 2 - 3 9 3 ; A . P.arr o t , " V i s i t o f the F r e n c h S l o o p of W a r B o n i t e , to t h e S a n d w i c h I s l a n d s , in 1 8 3 6 , " in Friend, V I I I ( 1 8 5 0 ) , 9 0 ( B a r r o t ' s a r t i c l e w a s p u b l i s h e d o r i g i n a l l y in F r e n c h in Revue des Deux Mondes [ P a r i s ] , A u g 1, 15, 1 8 3 9 ; it w a s t r a n s l a t e d a n d p r i n t e d in t h e Friend, volume V I I I [ 1 8 5 0 ] , in i n s t a l l m e n t s f r o m J a n u a r y to N o v e m b e r ) ; C h a m b e r l a i n , J o u r n a l , O c t . 4, 7, 1 8 3 6 ; K e n n e d y to K a u k e a u l i [.TIC], O c t . 7, 1 8 3 6 , AFT, F . O . & E x . , a n d p r i n t e d in R u s c h e n b e r g e r , op. cit.. 4 9 8 - 5 0 0 ; R . A r m s t r o n g to R . A . C h a p m a n , N o v . 8, 1 8 3 6 , A r m s t r o n g L e t t e r s in L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e s s , p h o t o s t a t c o p y i n A H . C f . t h e s t a t e m e n t o f R e v . E . W . C l a r k in Polynesian, A p r i l 2 4 , 1847.

TROUBLED THIRTIES

147

tion to French subjects and French interests wherever he found them. H e could thus properly intervene in behalf of the lay brothers, they being French subjects, but could do nothing more than use his influence in favor of Father Walsh. Before doing either, Captain Vaillant addressed himself to the task of imparting to the king and chiefs a sense of the power and greatness of France, and of winning the good will of the king. Having accomplished this object, as he believed, he next brought forward the two subjects which had been appealed to him. The king readily agreed to leave the two lay brothers in peaceful possession of their property and to afford them suitable protection; and furthermore to receive with particular good will all French subjects who might come to his dominions. As to Father Walsh, the king withdrew the order of expulsion against him and agreed to his remaining in Honolulu, but only on condition that he should not give religious instruction to any native Hawaiians. 42 The visit of La Bonite is thus of some significance for what it accomplished directly, but it is of more importance because the reports of Captain Vaillant and of Adolphe Barrot, French consul to Manila, who was a passenger on the ship, for the first time made the French government cognizant of the expulsion of Bachelot and Short. While these reports did not cause any immediate action by France, they undoubtedly had some influence in the shaping of the policy that was ultimately adopted by that government. 43 TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN (1836)

When Lord Edward Russell arrived at Honolulu in H.B.M.S. Acteon, one of the subjects in which he interested himself was the status of Father Walsh; he tried to gain greater privileges for him, but all that the king would allow was that so long as the priest obeyed the laws and refrained from teaching his religion to natives he would be permitted to remain. 44 The British consul, Richard Charlton, had accumulated a budget of complaints against the local government, which he now brought forward with the powerful backing of Lord Edward Russell. Only one of them need detain us here. It was the case of George Chapman's house. From the meagre data which have survived it would seem that the house had been seized by the authorities (possibly torn down) following an affray that occurred within it. The British officials demanded that the premises be restored to Chapman in the same or as good condition as when seized; they insisted strongly upon this being done, and the king finally assented to it. The principal matter with which Lord Russell con,a L a Salle, op. cit., I, ix-xvi; I I , 229-240, 252-274, 312-322; Barrot, op. cit., in Friend, V I I I (1850), 65; Yzendoorn; op. cit., 94-96. 43 Blue, "Policy of F r a n c e toward the Hawaiian I s l a n d s , " 61-63. M It may be remarked in passing that F a t h e r Walsh never felt himself bound by the kapu on teaching natives, and that he not only taught but also baptized a number of them. Yzendoorn, op. cit., 97. The same attitude has many times been taken by Protestant missionaries, who, in common with the Catholics, hold the command of God more binding upon them than the prohibition of earthly kings. On Dec. 6, 1836, the king addressed a note to Mr. Walsh, telling him he must not teach anyone but only remain quietly until he leaves the islands; if he teaches, he thereby breaks his word, and will be sent out of the country. A H , F.O. & Ex.

148

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

cerned himself was the making of a treaty in order to place British interests on a more secure footing. In conference on November 12 he brought forward a draft of a proposed treaty which had been drawn up by one of the British subjects residing in Honolulu. To certain of its terms the king had serious objections and he requested the privilege of submitting a draft embodying the ideas of himself and his chiefs. At the next conference the draft prepared by the chiefs was introduced, but this was unacceptable to the British consul and Lord Russell, who declared that if the local government "would not accede to principles more liberal or adopt a policy more favorable to British interests he must declare that there was an end to a good understanding between the two governments." 45 Finally, after an argument extending over two days accompanied with threats by the British consul, a form of treaty was agreed upon and signed on November 16, 1836. It was, however, as another British naval officer declared, a "clumsy affair" 4 6 and subsequently occasioned much dispute as to the meaning of the first article, which reads : English subjects shall be permitted to come with their vessels, and property of whatever kind, to the Sandwich Islands ; they shall also be permitted to reside therein, as long as they conform to the laws of these Islands, and W build houses, and warehouses for their merchandize, with the consent of the King, and good friendship shall continue between the subjects of both countries, Great Britain and the Sandwich Islands.

The dispute arose over the question as to how much of the article was qualified by the phrase "with the consent of the King." The second article assured British subjects of their right to dispose of their property "with the previous knowledge of the King," but contained the explicit declaration that "the land on which houses are built is the property of the King, but the King shall have no authority to destroy the houses, or in any way injure the property of any British subject." A third article made provision for the settlement of the estates of British subjects who died in the Hawaiian islands. 47 After the departure of the Acteon, the business of foreigners ceased to trouble the country until April 17, 1837, when Messrs. Bachelot and Short reappeared at Honolulu on the brig Clementine. They landed immediately, but their presence soon became known and Governor Keku43

Chamberlain, Journal, N o v . IS, 1836. It w a s so characterized by Capt. Bruce of H . B . M . S . Imogene, w h o visited H o n o l u l u in October, 1837. L. A n d r e w s , Journal &c, Oct. 4-13, 1837, A H , F.O. & E x . " C h a m b e r l a i n , Journal, N o v . 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 1836: K a m e h a m e h a I I I et al. to K i n g W i l l i a m I V of Great Britain, Nov. 16, 1836, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Rep. of Min. of For. Rei., 1851, Appendix, pp. 276, 329-333 (in "Mr. W y l l i e ' s Historical S u m m a r y " ) ; Charlton to K i n g Kauikeaouli, Nov. 2, 1835, Jan. 6, 1836, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Kamehameha I I I , declaration i n regard to Chapman's house, Nov. 16, 1836, ibid.; Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Other Powers, since 1825 ( H o n o l u l u , 1887), 3; Alexander Simpson, The Sandwich Islands: Progress of Events since Their Discovery by Captain Cook. Their Occupation by Lord George Paulet. Their Value and Importance ( L o n d o n , 1843), 20-22. O n Nov. 21, 1836, Rev. T. S. Green wrote from W a i l u k u , Maui, to Rev. R u f u s A n d e r s o n of the A B C F M , "The question of the political interests of this poor nation is a deeply interesting one. I know not but the fatal blow to all independence at the islands, independence of the chiefs, I mean, will be struck e v e n b e f o r e brother Richards leaves. One of his [ B r i t a n n i c ] Majesty's ships of war is n o w at H o n o l u l u threatening to blow d o w n the fort unless the c h i e f s will give up their right of soil." ML,, V I , 1767. T h i s refers, of course, to the Action. 40

TROUBLED

THIRTIES

149

anaoa ordered them to depart on the same vessel. The order was repeated by Kinau and the king, both of whom were at Lahaina. The king declared that the decree of banishment against the priests was perpetual and that they must go. Kinau returned to Honolulu at the end of April to attend to the matter. The Clementine was a British registered vessel, owned by a Frenchman, Jules Dudoit (who was, however, a British subject), and, for the voyage just concluded, had been chartered to an American merchant named Hinckley. The latter, as soon as he could discharge his cargo, returned the vessel to Dudoit, who on the tenth of May chartered it to another American, William French. French began to load the vessel in preparation f o r a voyage to the American coast. The affair dragged along until May 20, when, it having become apparent that French would soon be ready to sail, Kinau caused the two priests to be placed on board the brig, over the strong protests of the owner and charterer of the vessel and of the priests themselves. Dudoit immediately took down the British flag from the brig's masthead, abandoned the vessel, and carried the flag to the British consul, who, declaring the flag had been violated by the Hawaiian authorities, publicly burned it in the street. This affair of the Clementine created an immense excitement and a great quantity of paper and ink was used up in the writing of protests and letters in what Yzendoorn wittily denominates an "epistolary war," "enlivened by side-skirmishes in the Sandwich Island Gazette." 4 8 Dudoit and the two consuls vehemently declared that the vessel had been seized by the Hawaiian government, which would be held liable for all losses sustained by owner and charterer. N o progress was made toward a settlement of the difficulty until July, when, on the eighth and the tenth, two warships came opportunely into port, one British, the Sulphur (Captain Edward Belcher), the other French, La Venus (Captain A. Du Petit-Thouars). A f t e r a stormy interview with Kinau, Captain Belcher sent a detachment of marines to "recapture" the Clementine; Fathers Bachelot and Short were brought ashore and ceremoniously escorted to their former dwelling place by the two captains, the two consuls, and a crowd of interested spectators. The settlement of the various questions involved had to be arranged with the king, who returned to Honolulu on July 20. There followed several long conferences, in which the British consul took an active part. In spite of their serious objections to the policy pursued by the Hawaiian authorities, the two commanders were obliged to admit that the king was within his rights in excluding the priests, if he insisted on doing so. In the end the king agreed that Bachelot and Short might remain at Honolulu temporarily, but only until they could obtain passage to some other civilized port in the Pacific. Captain Belcher and Captain Du PetitThouars gave written pledges that the two priests would leave at the first Yzendoorn, op. cit., 104. 106. The Sandwich Island Gazette was a weekly newspaper published at Honolulu f r o m July, 1836 to July. 1839, which served as an organ of the opposition to the Hawaiian government and to the American missionaries. It was the first English language newspaper published at the Hawaiian islands.

150

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

opportunity. 49 Captain Belcher professed to believe that the king was giving a wrong interpretation to the Russell treaty of the preceding year and he demanded and obtained from him an agreement to interpret the treaty "in conformity with the laws of nations" and that he would not exclude any British subject from his dominions except after a fair trial and for satisfactory reasons, with due notice given to the British consul. The question of damages resulting from the alleged "seizure" and detention of the Clementine was left to be settled at a later time.60 Captain Du Petit-Thouars, though he had no authority to make a treaty, felt bound to insure what protection he could to French subjects who might come afterwards to Hawaii. He therefore proposed and the king approved a convention, signed July 24, 1837, the important clause of which was that "the French may go and come freely in all the states which compose the Government of the Sandwich Islands; they will be there received and protected, and they will enjoy the same advantages as the subjects of the most favored nation." The same right was allowed, reciprocally, to Hawaiians in France. The captain likewise appointed Dudoit to serve provisionally as French consular agent in Hawaii, and he was careful to inform the king of this appointment.01 In November the situation was complicated by the arrival of two more priests, Messrs. Maigret and Murphy, who had been sent on by Bishop Rouchouze before he learned the outcome of the attempt of Messrs. Bachelot and Short. Murphy had only recently been ordained ; the fact of his ordination was concealed and he was allowed to land and remain in Honolulu under the impression that he was not a priest, but his companion was not allowed to go on shore, in spite of the earnest arguments of Dudoit. Father Short had sailed from Honolulu at the end of October, and, on November 23, Fathers Bachelot and Maigret sailed on the schooner Honolulu, which had been purchased for the Catholic mission and renamed Notre Dame de Paix.52 Bachelot died on board this vessel less than two weeks later. On December 18, 1837, at Lahaina, King — Bishop Rouchouze, in conversation with a French naval officer at Mangareva in August, 1838, "déplorait amèrement l'issue des négociations de M. Du Petit-Thouars à Hawaii, et surtout son consentement à l'expulsion de MM. Short et Bachelot de cet archipel; il eut préf é r é que rien n'eut été fait et que ces missionaires fussent restes sous les poids de3 persécutions auxquelles ils avaient été jusqu'alors en butte; car il y avait t o u j o u r s moyen d'en appeler, mais d ' a p r è s ce qui était arrivé, il semblait qu'on eut donné l'assentiment au bannissement des catholiques." Dumont d'Urville, Voyage au Pole Sud et dans I Océante . . . pendant les années . . . Histoire du Voyage ( P a r i s , 1841-46), I I I , 191. •o T h e settlement was made in October, 1839, at the time of the visit of the U . S . ships Columbia and John Adams, commanded by Com. Geo. C. Read. The king paid Jules Dudoit $3,000 and William French $3,000 in full settlement of their claims for damages. Stephen Reynolds, Journal, Oct. 25. 1839; Certificate by W m . French dated Oct. 25, 1839, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Certificate by R. Charlton dated Oct. 26, 1839, ibid.; J . Dudoit to Kamehameha I I I , Oct. 26, 1839, ibid. »1 This was done, partly at least, in order to protect Dudoit from reprisals that the Hawaiian authorities might feel disposed to visit upon him. Du Petit-Thouars" letter of J u l y 24, 1837, quoted in Blue. "Policy of France toward the Hawaiian Islands," 67. T h e appointment of Dudoit was subsenuently confirmed by the French government and he was given the title of honorary consul. Blue, o f . cit., 73. I n regard to Dudoit, see the article by L. Jore in PanPacific ( H o n o l u l u ) , Vol. I, No. 2 (Apr.-June, 1937), pp. 47-50. M For the history of this vessel, see my article " T h e Schooner Missionary P a c k e t " in 41 H H S Report, 81-90.

TROUBLED T H I R T I E S

151

Kamehameha III issued "An Ordinance Rejecting the Catholic Religion" which reads in part : Therefore, I, with my chiefs, forbid . . . that anyone should teach the peculiarities of the Pope's religion, nor shall it be allowed to anyone who teaches those doctrines or those peculiarities to reside in this kingdom; nor shall the ceremonies be exhibited in our kingdom, nor shall anyone teaching its peculiarities or its faith be permitted to land on these shores ; for it is not proper that two religions be found in this small kingdom. Therefore we utterly refuse to allow anyone to teach those peculiarities in any manner whatsoever. We moreover prohibit all vessels whatsoever from bringing any teacher of that religion into this kingdom.

But it was a futile gesture, as events were soon to show.53 The British government, so far as is known, never took any official exception to the action of the Hawaiian government in expelling a British subject from its dominions. It was otherwise with France. That country has been traditionally the defender of Catholic missionary enterprises, but, in addition, the successive incidents in which the Catholic priests were involved were reported to the French government in such a way as to convey the impression that the Hawaiian authorities were deliberately pursuing an anti-French policy. When, therefore, word was received in Paris of the rejection of Father Maigret in defiance, as it seemed, of the convention signed by Kamehameha III with Captain Du PetitThouars, orders were sent to Captain Laplace of the frigate Artemise, expected soon to be in the Pacific in course of a voyage round the world, to visit Hawaii and inculcate on its rulers a salutary lesson in respect for France. Laplace had also a mission to fulfill at the Society Islands (Tahiti). While it is not necessary to develop the point in detail, it is important to notice that there was a striking parallel between the course of events in Hawaii and in the Society Islands between 1835 and 1840, growing out of the attempt of Catholic missionaries to establish themselves in the two groups, the only real difference being that in the Society Islands the Protestant missionaries involved were British, while in Hawaii they were American. The various incidents in the two places were as 88 T h e foregoing account of the incidents of 1837 is based upon: Yzendoorn, op. cit., 93122; Blue, "Policy of France toward the Hawaiian Islands," 63-68, and documents cited by him f r o m French archives, of the more important of which I have copies; Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, Appendix, 275-296 (in " M r . Wyllie's Historical S u m m a r y " ) ; Sir E. Belcher, Narrative of a Voyage Round the World . . . 1836-1842 (2 vols. London. 1843), I , 52-60; A. Du PetitvThouars, Voyage autour du Monde sur la frégate La Vénus pendant les années 1836-1839 . . . Relation (4 vols. Paris, 1840-1843), I, 324-353; K a a h u m a n u I I [ K i n a u ] et al. to President of the U.S., Dec. 2, 1837, U S D S , Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. I ; Chamberlain, Journal, J u l y 8, 10, 15, 21, 22, 24, 1837; Documents in A H , too numerous to list in this note, part of which are printed by Wyllie and Yzendoorn. As a specimen of the language used by the American consul, J. C. Jones, Jr., in the course of the controversy, the following may be quoted f r o m his letter to the K i n g dated J u n e 16, 1837: " A s it respects your Majesty's declaration 'that it is with you' to welcome strangers and it is with you to reject them as it may suit your pleasure;. I have only to reply that in regard to the Citizens of the Nation I have the honour to represent, that I treat it with its merited contempt; it is a privilege Sir, that will never be granted you by the United States, for her Citizens must be allowed to come and go when and where they please without i n t e r f e r e n c e or molestation f r o m Kings and Potentates; this is a right Sir, she claims f o r herself, and a right she will ever defend whilst the S t a r Spangled banner waves over her independent Republic."

152

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

alike as peas in a pod, and until 1840 anyway there was an essential unity in French policy respecting the two groups of islands. The instructions to Laplace were dated at Paris, July 21, 1838. After reciting in brief the various acts of provocation committed by the rulers in Tahiti and Hawaii, which to the French official mind indicated that "under the pretext of a religious quarrel, the calvinist American missionaries at Honolulu and the English Methodists at Tahiti" were acting as if their real object was "to establish at those points in the Ocean the exclusive influence of their nations and to monopolize to their profit the commerce which can be carried on there," the minister of the marine added that "this appears true particularly at the Sandwich Islands, where, under the name of Frenchmen, are persecuted all foreigners who give umbrage to the American missionaries." Captain Laplace was therefore instructed to visit both groups of islands with the same end in view. You will apply yourself to destroy the malevolent impression which you find established to the detriment of the French name; to rectify the erroneous opinion which has been created as to the power of France; and to make it well understood that it will be altogether to the advantage of the chiefs of those islands of the Ocean to conduct themselves in such a manner as not to incur the wrath of France. You will exact, if necessary with all the force that is yours to use, complete reparation for the wrongs which have been committed, and you will not quit those places until you have left in all minds a solid and lasting impression.''''

Laplace received these orders at Sydney in the early part of 1839. He first visited the Society Islands, and after fulfilling the spirit and the letter of his instructions at that place, went on to Hawaii. While awaiting his arrival, we may look at some other developments which were taking place during this period. " Rosamel to Laplace, July 21, 1838, A M A E ( P a r i s ) , lies Sandwich, Vol. I bis, ff. 85-87.

CHAPTER X

THE BIRTH OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT The repeated bufferings by foreign officers and ships of war, to which the king and chiefs were subjected, had two important effects. The rulers were compelled to give way somewhat before the demands of the foreigners and to put in writing in the form of treaties a statement of their concessions. From the standpoint of the foreign business men in the islands this was pure gain. Their attitude is reflected in comments of the American merchant Henry A. Peirce in August of 1837 : Property is much safer here now than formerly—the visits of the American, English and French men-of-war during these sixteen months have established inviolability of property and persons, and the natives taught and made to fear the "Laws of Nations" ; and that a sovereign and a government come under the ban of laws as well as subjects or individuals. 1

In the second place, the blows they had received made the chiefs painfully aware of their lack of knowledge and experience, and they began to see that these foreigners could neither be kept off nor treated in the way in which the Hawaiians were accustomed to being treated. In the same month in which Peirce wrote the words quoted above, David Malo expressed, in a letter to Kinau, some thoughts which recent happenings had awakened in his mind : I have been thinking that you ought to hold frequent meetings with all the chiefs . . . to seek for that which will be of the greatest benefit to this country: you must not think that this is anything like olden times, that you are the only chiefs and can leave things as they are. . . . This is the reason. If a big wave comes in, large fishes will come from the dark Ocean which you never saw before, and when they see the small fishes they will eat them up; such also is the case with large animals, they will prey on the smaller ones. The ships of the white man have come, and smart people have arrived from the great countries which you have never seen before, they know our people are few in number and living in a small country ; they will eat us up, such has always been the case with large countries, the small ones have been gobbled up. . . . God has made known to us through the mouths of the men of the man-of-war things that will lead us to prepare ourselves . . . Therefore get your servant ready who will help you when you need him.2

Some idea of this kind, either originating in their own thoughts or suggested to them by others, had led the chiefs in 1836 to ask their friends in America to send them "a teacher of the chiefs in what pertains to the land, according to the practice of enlightened countries," i.e., 1 Peirce to Hunnewell, Aug. 6, 1837, Hunnewell M S S . Peirce had been away f r o m Hawaii d u r i n g the greater part of the preceding sixteen months. a D. H a l o to K a a h u m a n u I I [ K i n a u ] and Mataio [ K e k u a n a o a ] , Aug. 18, 1837, A H , F.O. & Ex.

153'

154

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

a teacher of economics and political science.3 William Richards, one of the missionaries, who returned to the United States in 1836 for a visit, carried the request of the chiefs and interested himself in the subject, but without success. The experience of the twelve months ending in July, 1837, made more evident than before the need for a competent foreign adviser for the rulers of the nation. In the early days of August, 1837, P. A. Brinsmade, an American business man very friendly to the government, suggested to the chiefs the institution of a school "for the instruction of the King and chiefs in the science of political economy and law." He pointed out to them the importance "of their being enlightened on points of civil policy and the laws of nation—that they might know how to meet public officers and how to advocate their own cause and maintain their own rights." The chiefs thought well of the idea and invited Rev. Lorrin Andrews, principal of the high school at Lahainaluna, to become their teacher. They offered to give him a salary of six hundred dollars a year and to furnish him a house and a piece of land for cultivation. Andrews' missionary associates approved his acceptance of the proposal and it was thought that he would accept, but for some reason he failed to do so. 4 W I L L I A M R I C H A R D S I N SERVICE OF KING

When William Richards came back from the United States in 1838 and the king and chiefs learned that no teacher was coming for them in response to their request, they turned immediately to Richards himself and urgently invited him to take up the work. H e wrote, After considering the subject for several weeks and discussing the subject thoroughly with the king and chiefs I at length accepted the appointment and now act as the "Chaplain, Teacher and Translator," for the king. They also expect from me free suggestions on every subject connected with government and on their duties as rulers of the nation, and in all important cases I am to be not only translator, but must act as interpreter for the king.5

Richards hoped that his new duties would not necessitate his separation from the mission, but the Prudential Committee of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, while approving his course, decided that his connection with the board should be dissolved, as of 3 Bingham, Residence, 496. T h e missionaries, in a memorial prepared by them about the same time, pointed out the need for such a teacher. Ibid., 492. Richard A r m s t r o n g wrote in November. 1836: " T h e r e is a wide field of usefulness here for a man well acquainted with the subject of law, political economy &c, and withal truly devoted to Christ. H e wd. be of essential benefit to the chiefs in their management of affairs and might be the means of overt u r n i n g the present wretched administration of govt, u n d e r wh. we now live." Armstrong to Chapman, Nov. 8, 1836, A r m s t r o n g Letters. Cf. remarks of Capt. W . B. Finch in his letter to the Sec. of the Navy, Dec. 1, 1829. Stewart, Visit to the South Seas, I I , 275-276. T h e missionaries, while they were frequently berated for their alleged meddling in affairs of state, were sometimes criticised because they did not give the chiefs regular instruction in the science of government. Ruschenberger, Voyage Round the World (Philadelphia, 1838), 474. 4 Chamberlain, Journal, Aug. 3, 18, 1837; Reuben Tinker, Journal, Sept. 18, 1837, M S in H M C S L i b r a r y ; M. D. F r e a r , Lowell and Abigail, 119-120; R. Anderson to S. I. Mission, J u n e 30, 1838, in General Letters. « R i c h a r d s to [ A B C F M ] , Aug. 1, 1838, in Gulick, Pilgrims of Hawaii, 173-174.

CONSTITUTIONAL G O V E R N M E N T

155

July 3, 1838, the day on which he entered the employ of the king.6 It may be pointed out that Richards' position was purely instructional and advisory, and not executive or administrative ; he did not consider that he was a government officer in the ordinary sense of the term. 7 That Richards was specially qualified for his new post can hardly be maintained; he was, however, about the only one available for it, and was no doubt as well qualified as any of his associates. He had been stationed at Lahaina since his first arrival at the islands in 1823 ; he thoroughly understood the Hawaiian people and was unselfishly devoted to them; and there was probably no one who possessed the confidence of king, chiefs, and people more fully than he did. Richards' initial service in his new position was a course of lectures to the chiefs on political economy and the general science of government.8 Writing just a week after he began his new work, he stated : "I lecture to the chiefs on Political economy, every day at 10 o'clock, making use of Waylands system 9 as the foundation . . . I endeavor to propose some practical subject every day." In the letter from which this is quoted, Richards sought advice as to the feasibility of the chiefs' engaging extensively in the manufacture of sugar and entering into commercial operations.10 The question uppermost in the minds of the chiefs and to which Richards had to give immediate attention was that relating to the land and fixed property in the possession of foreigners and the privilege claimed by the foreigners of transferring these things from one to another. The subject, as shown in the preceding chapter, had first been brought home to the chiefs in 1836.11 While they had been compelled to recede a little from the extreme position taken by them at the outset, they were still determined that full title to land should not be granted to foreigners. This is clearly brought out in a document drafted by them several months before Richards returned from the United States.12 So • R. Anderson to S. I. Mission, A p r . 6, 1839, in General Letters. Anderson's letter was not received in Honolulu until the summer or fall of 1839, and until then Richards was, by himself and t h e other missionaries, still considered to be a member of the mission, though he received his support f r o m the government. T This was t r u e at least until (and probably a f t e r ) July, 1839, when the visit of the F r e n c h f r i g a t e L'Artemise made it necessary for him to identify himself more distinctly with t h e government, and he "determined to act openly and directly, not only as interpreter a n d translator, but, also to some extent, as counselor for t h e m . " Richards to [ A B C F M ] , Aug. 29, 1839, in Gulick, op. cit., 174. Cf. Charles Wilkes, Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition. During the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842 (Philadelphia, 1845), I V , 8-9. •Polynesian, Oct. 23, 1841; Jarves, History of the Hawaiian Islands (3 ed.), 169. 9 Francis Wayland, Elements of Political Economy (1837). Wayland was president of B r o v n University, a leader in the field of education, and a prolific writer. He gave courses on economics and ethics. I n economic theory he was an advocate of f r e e trade. See Applei o n ' J Cyclopedia of American Biography, V I , 397; Encyclopedia Britannica (13 éd.), X X V I I I , 10 Richards to L . Chamberlain, J u l y 10, 1838, M S in H M C S Library. ^ 1 1 See an interesting document drawn up by the king and chiefs, "Ordinances f o r t h e cities of these Islands," J a n . 8, 1838, A H , " E a r l y L a w s , " which contains the following: " B u t the sale of house lots secretly, and the giving of lots secretly on account of debts, and the sale at auction of house lots belonging to a deceased person, were the reasons why those of foreign lands caused so much trouble in thé city of Honolulu in the year of our Lord 1836. Then it was that the chiefs who own the country saw this evil caused by the foreigners." T h e document f r o m which this is quoted, though it is in the file of " E a r l y L a w s " in the H a w a i i a n archives, was only a project or suggestion and was never actually enacted and proclaimed as a law.

« Ibid.

156

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

far as we can judge from his own statements, Richards' views on this point were very nearly identical with those of the chiefs. 13 Shortly after he entered the service of the king, a project of a general law relating to foreigners was drawn up, dealing with such subjects as property rights and taxation of foreigners and the conditions under which foreigners might marry Hawaiian women. This document asserted the official view that all the land, including that occupied by foreigners, belonged to the king, but it promised that no foreigner should be deprived of his land until after he had occupied it for ten years. "And if any houselot of a foreigner is taken away, the Governor shall reimburse him for the house built by him thereon." This project, however, was not enacted into law." At about the same time, the Hawaiian authorities inaugurated a movement to place the relations between Hawaii and the United States upon a regular treaty basis, a draft of a proposed treaty being written out and signed by the king and the kuhina-nui. In this draft were included stipulations in regard to land and property very similar to those in the project of law just mentioned. The proposed treaty was sent by Richards to the attorney general of the United States, Benjamin F. Butler, 15 with the request that he lay it before the president and use his influence to have it accepted and ratified. Before Butler received the communication he had ceased to be attorney general, but he forwarded Richards' letter and the proposed treaty to the secretary of state. The documents were filed in the archives, but apparently no further action was taken on them. 16 Of greater significance than the questions at issue with foreigners were the constitutional changes which occurred within the next few years. From the time of the appointment of Richards, the course of internal development went straight on to the declaration of rights (1839) and the constitution of 1840. Before taking up those subjects it may be well to review briefly the developments which had already taken place. Until the promulgation of the constitution of 1840, the form of government was not officially defined and it was difficult, at any moment, to give a clear explanation of it because it was constantly changing. In 13 I n a letter to Chamberlain, Dec. 3, 1838, M S in H M C S Library, he said, " S u c h a course should be pursued that foreigners should p r e f e r to hold lands by lease. I t is desirable t h a t landed property now in their hands should be diminished in value. T h e Gov. must eventually have possession of lots now in their hands." " A H , " E a r l y L a w s " , Aug. 17, 1838, original in Hawaiian with an English translation; also a rough d r a f t in Richards' handwriting which differs somewhat f r o m the Hawaiian copy; sometimes r e f e r r e d to as "Alien Law of 1838". T h e Hawaiian original has an enacting clause and is signed by the king, but not by the kuhina-nui. F r o m the letters of Richards cited below in this note and f r o m the contemporary situation and records, it is clear that the document was never proclaimed or published and did not become a law. Richards to Chamberlain, Nov. 9, Dec. 3, 1838, M S in H M C S Library. Richards sought the advice of Dr. J u d d and Levi Chamberlain upon the proposed law relating t o foreigners. 16 Richards, while in the United States in 1837, had met Butler personally. T h e latter should not be confused with the general of the same name. 16 Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, edited by H u n t e r Miller, Vol. V (Washington, 1937), 623-628, quoting in f u l l Butler's letter to the secretary of state, Richards' letter to Butler, and the English version of the proposed treaty, all taken f r o m originals in U S D S , Miscellaneous Letters, Jan.*April, 1839; Hawaiian original is also in latter place; Hawaiian d r a f t and a recent English translation in A H , F.O. & Ex., u n d e r date Aug. 21, 1838; Richards to [ A B C F M ] , Aug. 1, 1838, in Gulick, Pilgrims of Hawaii, 174. There is what appears to be a r e f e r e n c e to this treaty proposal in a letter f r o m Capt. C. K. Stribling, U . S . N . , to Secretary of State John Forsyth, dated Norfolk, Va., Sept. 27, 1839, U S D S , Miscellaneous Letters, May-Sept., 1839.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

157

the time of Kamehameha the government was a feudal autocracy. The power of the king was nearly absolute, with only the limitations imposed by immemorial custom and the necessity of having subordinate executive officers. But even Kamehameha had his council of chiefs, which he consulted on important questions. In view of the weakness of his son and successor, Kamehameha instituted the office of kuhina-nui, and after his death this weakness of Kamehameha II and the long minority of Kamehameha I I I not only enhanced the importance of that office but also enabled the chiefs to encroach upon the authority of the king. From being a mere advisory council, whose advice could be totally disregarded by the king, they came to have actual legislative power. The council of chiefs thus evolved, rather rapidly, into a legislative council, of which the king and kuhina-nui were also members. In 1825 the council of chiefs settled the succession to the throne and provided for the continuance of the regency. After 1835 we find various laws enacted by the king in council with his chiefs, though they were not yet technically called a "legislative council." In some laws appears the phrase, "I with my chiefs," have enacted so and so. One law of 1838 begins with the clause, "Be it enacted by the King and Chiefs of the Sandwich Islands, in council assembled." At the same time the higher chiefs continued to constitute an advisory council. By 1838, therefore, we find the powers of the national government to be, in actual practice, divided between three agencies, the king, the kuhina-nui, and the council of chiefs. It thus appears that some part of the power of the absolute king had been transferred to the chiefs, whose status was thereby considerably improved. But up to 1839 this distribution of power had not extended beyond the chiefs. The common people were still under complete subjection to the alii and had practically no rights that the chiefs were bound to respect, except that of removing to the land of another chief. There had been no essential modification of the old feudal land system, and no formal organization of the government along lines familiar to foreigners. INFLUENCES FAVORABLE TO CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

But the minds of the king and chiefs had been prepared for further change by various influences which may be mentioned briefly. First in importance, perhaps, was the general enlightenment resulting from the teaching of the missionaries and from the contact with foreigners. Especially important was the education of young Hawaiians, both chiefs and commoners, at Lahainaluna and elsewhere, such men as Daniel Ii, John Ii, Timothy Haalilio, David Malo, Boaz Mahune, and others. These young men became companions and advisers to the king and the older chiefs. Malo has been already several times mentioned. Haalilio was for

158

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,

1778-1854

a number of years the private secretary and business manager for the king. Of him, just after his death in 1844, Richards wrote these w o r d s : Besides acquaintance with mercantile transactions, he also acquired a very full knowledge of the political relations of the country. H e was a strenuous advocate for a constitutional and representative government, and aided not a little in effecting those changes by which the rights of the lower classes have been secured. H e was well acquainted with the practical influence of the former system of government, and considered a change necessary to the welfare of the nation."

A writer, believed to be William Richards, stated in the Hawaiian Spectator that among the influences leading to the declaration of rights "not the least . . . is believed to have been the articles published in the K u m u Hawaii [Hawaiian Teacher], written . . . mostly by the graduates and undergraduates of the seminary" or high school at Lahainaluna. 1 8 Although the missionaries were by their instructions strictly enjoined to withhold themselves "entirely from all interference and intermeddling with the political affairs and party concerns of the nation," 1 9 it was not easy for men.steeped in New England traditions to observe in silence the undemocratic character of the Hawaiian political system and the abuses to which it was susceptible, 2 0 and in view of the constant and urgent appeals to them by the chiefs, it was impossible for them to avoid altogether the giving of information and advice on political matters. Some of them may even at times have exceeded the bounds of discretion in their addresses to the people. D r . J u d d wrote in October, 1838: There is much agitation on the public mind. T h e influence of the missionaries, especially those lately arrived, is very decided against the ancient system of government. The "rights of men," "oppression," "blood and sinews" are much talked of, and a sort of impatience is perceivable that changes are made so slow. The probable consequence is that the people and the chiefs will not come up to our expectations as to reform and we, at least some of us, will be looked on with suspicion.

H e then gave a translation of an article written by one of the missionaries and published in the Kumu Hawaii, in which a very sharp contrast was drawn between the condition of the people in the United States and the condition of the Hawaiian people, couched in language which, if it had come from a native, would have been little short of seditious. 2 1 Another very weighty influence was the advice received from foreign visitors and commanders of ships of war. Beginning with Captain " Polynesian, M a r c h 29, 1845. Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 345-346 ( J u l y , 1839). 18 Instructions . . . to the Sandwich Islands Mission ( L a h a i n a l u n a , 1 8 3 8 ) , 28. 2 0 S e e , for instance, the following comment of Rev. J . S . E m e r s o n a f t e r he had been eye w i t n e s s to a peculiarly f l a g r a n t act of oppression by the k i n g himself at W a i a l u a , O a h u : " I t is t r y i n g to republican nerves to see such conduct a n d say n o t h i n g . " Q u o t e d in C h a m b e r l a i n , J o u r n a l , S e p t . 19, 1833. F o r a t h o u g h t f u l and temperate view of conditions a few y e a r s later, see the d i s c u s s i o n by Rev. A . B i s h o p in Hawaiian Spectator, Vol. I, N o . 1 ( J a n . 1838), pp. 55-57. I n r e g a r d to the attitude of the m i s s i o n a r i e s a s a n o r g a n i z e d body toward the civil a u t h o r i t i e s , r e f o r m in g o v e r n m e n t , etc., see the resolutions adopted at their general meeting in 1836 and their delegate meeting in 1838. Minutes of General Meeting, 1836, pp. 13-14; The Revised Minutes of the Delegate Meeting of the Sandwich Islands Mission, June 4th to loth. 1S3S ( H o n o l u l u , 1839), pp. 24-26. 21 The Letters of Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, 1X27-1S72, preserved in the archives of the A.B.C.F.M., Boston ( F r a g m e n t s I I . F a m i l y R e c o r d s , H o u s e of J u d d . H o n o l u l u , 1911), 110-112.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

159

Finch in 1829, there was scarcely one of the foreign naval commanders who visited Hawaii down to 1838 who did not offer the king and chiefs advice on some subject. The general tenor of this advice, so far as it touched upon the political and economic institutions of the country, was that a more systematized and liberal policy should be pursued, the people be made secure in the possession of the land they occupied and cultivated, allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor, to accumulate property, and not be burdened by oppressive taxation, and that just laws be enacted and published for the information and guidance of all. 22 Even those commanders who made demands on the king usually accompanied them with suggestions as to how the rulers might prevent a recurrence of such demands in the future. Reference should likewise be made to the excellent advice given to the king by General William Miller in 1831 2 3 and by James Hunnewell in 183 5. 24 And from 1835 onward, the agricultural enterprise carried on at Koloa, Kauai, under the sponsorship of Ladd afld Company (to be described in the next chapter), furnished a practical illustration of the benefits of a more liberal system. D E C L A R A T I O N O F R I G H T S A N D L A W S O F 1839

These various influences were so far effective that when Richards in 1838 entered the service of Kamehameha I I I he was able to write that the king was "designing to make considerable change in the government in favor of the people and especially designed for encouragement of industry." 2 5 During the next year, which was comparatively free f r o m foreign troubles, the king and kuhina-nui, the chiefs and their advisers were able to give serious and sustained attention to the subject of changes in the national polity. The first fruits of their deliberations were the declaration of rights and the laws of 1839. These were published together in a small pamphlet of twenty-four pages bearing the date June 7, 1839. 26 W h a t part Richards himself had in this work is difficult to determine. In an article published in the Hawaiian Spectator, unsigned but almost certainly written by him, the following account is given of the way in which the laws were drafted. They were written by a graduate [ Boaz Mahune] of the [Lahainaluna] Seminary at the direction of the King, hut without any definite instructions as to what " See, for example, C. K. Stribling to Kenow, Oct. 1, 1836, A H , F.O. & Ex., and printed in Ruschenberger, op. cit., 500-502; L a Salle, Voyage autour du monde . . . sur la corvette La Bonite . . . Relation du voyage, I I , 268-269, 273-274. Wm. Miller, " M e m o r a n d u m , " Sept. 25, 1831, A H , F.O. & Ex. H e pointed out the necessity for "some defined form of government, and a few f u n d a m e n t a l laws that will afford security for property," and gave his opinion that one of the first objects of the government "ought to be to ameliorate the condition of the people—to do away gradually with the actual despotic feudal system, and thus convert the degraded serfs, as t h e . kanakas now may be styled, into industrious and respectable citizens." 24 Hunnewell to King Kauikaouli, Sept. 10, 1835, ibid. "Give your people good, wholesome and liberal, Written Laws, institute courts of Law and justice, give your people trials by j u r y , secure private property and encourage industry, let every man know the rent he has to pay, and how much taxes he has to pay the coming year and listen to the councils of your old, f a i t h f u l and experienced chiefs." 35 Richards to Hunnewell, Aug. 25, 1838, Hunnewell M S S . . . . . He kumu kanawai, a me be kanawoi, hooponopono waiwai, no ko Hawaii nei pae awa. Na Kamehameha I I I . I kau. (Honolulu, 1839).

160

HAWAIIAN

KINGDOM,

1778-1854

he should write. H e in the first instance wrote about one third of the present quantity of matter, and that was read to the King and several of the chiefs, who met and spent two or three hours a day for five days in succession, in the discussion of the laws, and the various subjects of which they treated. In some particulars the laws were pronounced defective, in others erroneous, and the writer was directed to rewrite them, and conform them to the views that had been expressed. This was done, and they were thus considerably enlarged, and then passed a second reading at a meeting of the King and all the important chiefs of the Islands. At this reading a longer time was spent than at the first. They were still pronounced defective, and further additions and corrections were made in the same manner and by the same person as before. They then passed their third and last reading, after which the King inquired of the chiefs if they approved, and on their saying, yes, he replied, "I also approve," and then rose and in their presence affixed his name.27 A f t e r q u o t i n g the declaration of rights, t h e article g o e s o n to say, " T h e a b o v e sentiments [i.e. the declaration] w e r e not all original w i t h t h e w r i t e r of the l a w s m e n t i o n e d above. B u t the w h o l e of the remainder [i.e. t h e l a w s t h e m s e l v e s ] is purely t h e production of his o w n m i n d , w i t h only such aid as h e received in the d i s c u s s i o n s a f o r e m e n t i o n e d . " F r o m this w e m a y perhaps conclude that R i c h a r d s had an important share in the w r i t i n g of the declaration of rights. Farther on in the s a m e article it is intimated that he took part in t h e discussion of the laws. T h e declaration of rights is not inappropriately called the H a w a i i a n M a g n a Charta. It w a s a great and significant c o n c e s s i o n voluntarily g r a n t e d b y the k i n g t o h i s people. It defined and secured the rights of the people, but it did not f u r n i s h a plan or f r a m e w o r k of the g o v e r n m e n t . I t w a s repeated, w i t h s o m e a m e n d m e n t s , in the constitution of 1840. I n its original f o r m it reads as f o l l o w s : God hath made of one blood all nations of men, to dwell on the face of the earth in unity and blessedness. God has also bestowed certain rights alike on all men, and all chiefs, and all people of all lands. These are some of the rights which he has given alike to every man and every chief, life, limb, liberty, the labor of his hands, and productions of his mind. God has also established governments and rule for the purposes of peace, but in making laws for a nation it is by no means proper to enact laws for the protection of rulers only, without also providing protection for their subjects; neither is it proper to enact laws to enrich the chiefs only, without regard to the enriching of their subjects also; and hereafter, there shall by no means be any law enacted which is inconsistent with what is above expressed, neither shall any tax be assessed, nor any service or labor required of any man in a manner at variance with the above sentiments. These sentiments are hereby proclaimed for the purpose of protecting alike, both the people and the chiefs of all these islands, that no chief may be able to oppress any subject, but that chiefs and people may enjoy the samp protection under one and the same law. Protection is hereby secured to the persons of all the people, together with their lands, their building lots and all their property, and nothing whatever shall be taken from any individual, except by express provision of the laws. Whatever chief shall 27 Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 347 ( J u l y , 1839). T h e whole a r t i c l e is r e p r i n t e d in M H , X X X V I ( 1 8 4 0 ) , 101-104. See llernice J u t l d , " W i l l i a m R i c h a r d ' s R e p o r t . . . " in 51 H H S R e p o r t , 67.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

161

perseveringly act in violation of this constitution, shall no longer remain a chief of the Sandwich Islands, and the same shall be true of the governors, officers, and all land agents.®

The laws of 1839 were not intended to replace or supersede the laws of 1835; those earlier laws comprised a little criminal code, these of 1839 were somewhat in the nature of a civil code. They were divided into thirteen sections and seven or eight minor divisions. The first section related to the poll tax, the second to the land tax (or rent), the third and fourth dealt with fisheries and fishing rights. Section five had to do with the labor t a x ; it provided that the king (i.e. the government) might require of each able-bodied man, with certain specified exceptions, three days labor each month, and the landlords three days, but this compulsory labor might be commuted by a money payment. Sections six to ten dealt with a variety of subjects looking to the welfare of the people. Section eleven contained the important provision that the governors must not enact laws for their particular islands without the consent of the national government. Section twelve related to inheritance, providing that all personal property should descend to heirs, and land also if held in small portions. "But those individuals who possess three or more divisions of land can bequeath only two thirds to heirs, and the other third reverts to the King." Section thirteen provided that water for irrigation should be allotted to the different pieces of land in proportion to the taxes paid. The minor divisions which followed the thirteen sections were in large part in the nature of advice to chiefs, land agents, and government officers; the last one required an annual meeting of the chiefs in the month of April to enact laws and transact the business of the kingdom. 29 T E M P E R A N C E M O V E M E N T A N D LIQUOR LEGISLATION

In 1838 two liquor laws were enacted, and since this fact had an important bearing on the relations with France from 1839 onward for many years, it seems desirable to give a brief sketch of the temperance movement in the Hawaiian islands. Alcoholic liquors were introduced into Hawaii by foreigners and they soon acquired an undesirable popularity. The earliest liquor legislation is attributed to Kamehameha I, who is said to have proclaimed a stringent prohibitory law in 1818.30 In this respect, as in many others, Kamehameha II failed to follow the example of his illustrious sire and during his brief reign drunkenness became distressingly common throughout the whole kingdom, but especially unrestrained in the principal towns and seaports, Honolulu and Lahaina, where foreigners were most numerous. 28

Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 347-348 (July, 1839). 21 Summary in ibid., 348-352. No translation of the laws of 1839, as such, has ever been published. Some of them reappear, with modifications, in the compilation of laws printed with the constitution of 1840. See below, note S8. 30 L A. Thurston, The Liquor Question in Hawaii, 2; J. Hunnewell to h. Chamberlain, April 25, 1832, M S in H M C S Library.

162

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,

1778-1854

During the early years of the regency the elder chiefs did something to curb the evil, and about 1826 Governor Hoapili of Maui undertook to stamp it out completely on that island and its dependencies, Lanai and Molokai, with the result that f o r many years rum-drinking was exceedingly rare in those places. 31 But at Honolulu the evil was not handled in any such vigorous fashion, in spite of the law on the subject, 3 2 until Kuakini became acting governor of Oahu in 1831. H i s efforts, described in an earlier chapter, were not entirely successful and were soon rendered nugatory by the actions of the king himself in 1833. A s part of his lapse f r o m the straight and narrow path, the latter permitted the opening of grog-shops upon payment of a license fee of forty dollars for each half year. 3 3 By this time, however, a new influence was coming into play. T h e temperance movement in the Hawaiian islands closely parallels and nearly synchronizes with the same movement in the United States. 3 4 It began in the 1820's and in the 1830's became a potent force. It took a strong hold on the Hawaiian people and on the masters of whaling ships which visited the islands. 3 5 It was doubtless the reason f o r the law against drunkenness which was included in the code of 1835, and was certainly the main cause f o r the two liquor laws of 1838. On March 13 of the latter year the king published at Lahaina a notice to the "foreigners who keep grog-shops on Oahu," stating that at the termination of the current license period ( M a r c h 31) the number of liquor licenses f o r Oahu would be reduced. "But two houses only will be left where liquors may be sold, the two houses where billiard-tables are now kept, but the most of the grog-shops are taboo, and must sell no more," under penalty of a fine of two thousand dollars or forfeiture of the house and premises. 3 6 Just a week later a "law regulating the sale of ardent spirits" was enacted and promulgated. By this law no restriction was imposed on the sale of spirits "by the barrel or large cask," but a license was required for selling at retail. 3. Any house having been licensed for retailing spirits, may sell by the glass, but not by any larger measure; and its doors must be closed by ten o'clock at night, and all visitors must go away until morning. And on Sunday such house shall not be opened from ten o'clock on Saturday night until Monday morning. 4. We prohibit drunkenness in the licensed houses.

I n accordance with the notice issued beforehand, only two licenses were 31 " A brief history of tempcrance for twelve years at . . . Maui, Molokai and L a n a i , " ML, IV, 1273-1282. 33 See the king's proclamation of Oct. 7, 1829, r e f e r r e d to in chapter 8. 33 " L a w s for the Licensing and regulation of Public Houses," March 25, 1833, A H , " E a r l y L a w s " ; Bingham to Anderson, March 20, 1833, M L , V, 1468-1469. A f t e r mentioning the king's action, Bingham says: " T h i s will probably diminish the number of petty grog-shops, which have been a sort of smuggling concern for two years, but by giving the Royal sanction to the traffic, will probably increase the consumption." M F o r a brief account of the temperance movement in the United States, see C. R. Kish, The Rise of the Common Man (1927), 260-268, or H . J . Carman and S. J. MacKee. Jr., A History of the United States (1931), I, 715-718. 35 Bingham, Residence, 478-479; Ruschenberger, op. cit., 457; Elijah Davis et al. (ship masters) to the king and chiefs, Nov. 20, 1835, A H , F.O. & Ex. 39 Kamehameha I I I , March 13, 1838, with a post-script by Kinau dated at Waikiki, March 15, 1838. Printed notice in Hawaiian and English, A H , " E a r l y L a w s . "

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

163

granted, instead of twelve or fourteen as had been the case previously. 37 Several of the foreigners whose liquor licenses were discontinued entered a vigorous but ineffectual protest against the action of the government, which they denounced as "unfair and unjust." 3 8 During the summer or at some earlier time the distillation of spirituous liquors within the kingdom was prohibited, and on August 21, 1838, a law was enacted prohibiting the importation and purchase of distilled liquors after January 1, 1839, and imposing a duty of one dollar per gallon on wines imported after that date. 39 Incidentally it may be noted that since this was the first import duty ever imposed by the Hawaiian government, the Hawaiian customs service originated at this time, in the appointment of an inspector of wines who was also collector of customs for the port of Honolulu. 40 While many of the ship masters approved the prohibitory law, 41 some of the foreign residents were greatly displeased about it. The Sandwich Island Gazette, organ of the opposition, particularly objected to the tariff on wines and expressed the opinion that the law would be ineffective as a temperance measure and that it would be an entering wedge for a general tariff on imports which it believed would hinder trade and retard the development of the country. 42 Captain Belcher of H.B.M.S. Sulphur, who visited the islands again in the summer of 1839, expressed himself as strongly opposed to the prohibition of spirituous liquors; he said it was "ungrateful, impolitic, [thus] to harass in their personal comforts" the foreigners, who by living in the country and by introducing capital had "raised it to its present character," especially since these foreign residents had been taught (so he said) "to abstain from indulgence, in excess, of wine or spirits." He suggested, as a means of preventing the natives from drinking alcoholic liquors, that a duty of a dollar a gallon be levied on both spirituous liquors and wines. 43 It remained, however, for a French naval officer to effectually quash the law in question. RELIGIOUS TOLERATION

After the promulgation of the law of December 18, 1837, "rejecting the Catholic religion," the persecution of native Catholics continued for a year and a half longer; but on June 17, 1839, the king issued orders that punishment should no longer be inflicted on the adherents of that 57 Hawaiian Spectator, I, 335-336 (July, 1838). F o r a curious method by which the law was evaded, see Yzendoorn, History of the Catholic Mission in the Hawaiian Islands, 123. M R. Charlton to the King, April 5, 1838, enclosing petition of R. Lawrence and 9 other British subjects, A H , F.O. & Ex.; R. Tinker, Journal, June 4, 1838, M S in H M C S Library. M Hawaiian Spectator, I, 389-392 (Oct. 1838). 40 Commission of Edward L. Gray as inspector of wines and collector of customs for the port of Honolulu, Dec. 5, 1838, A H , F.O. &"Ex. 41 G. F. Joy et al. (ship masters) to King Kauikeaouli, Dec. 1, 1838, ibid. « Sandwich Island Gazette, Sept. 8, Nov. 24, 1838, May 11, 1839. « Belcher to Kamehameha I I I , J u n e 14, 1839, A H , F.O. & Ex.

164

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

faith. 4 4 While this was not a repeal of the law of December 18, 1837, and did not necessarily mean that Catholic priests were to be allowed to teach their doctrines, it was certainly a long step in that direction; as a radical reversal of national policy, it requires some explanation. Why was such an order issued by the king ? There were various causes which may be noted. The advice of foreign naval officers had been uniformly in favor of religious toleration. In addition to those mentioned in preceding pages, reference must be made to Captain R. Eliott of H.B.M.S. Fly, at the islands in the fall of 1838, who protested vigorously to Kinau against the persecution of Catholics and emphatically repudiated the idea, put forward by her in a letter to him, that the Catholic ceremonies were idolatrous. He also warned her, in reply to a question, that she had better not expel Father Walsh from the country. 45 In her letter to Captain Eliott, Kinau said, "The [Protestant] Missionaries have likewise explained the subject in the same manner, that we ought not to punish our people on account of their religion." And the king only a few months later declared that several of the Protestant missionaries had objected strongly to the persecution of native Catholics, and that Richards after entering the service of the government had "disputed strongly with Kekuanaoa [governor of Oahu], urging the entire abolition of that thing." 46 Another important reason for the change was the death of those chiefs who were the strongest supporters of the anti-Catholic policy. Kinau, considered by the Catholics as their "greatest enemy," 47 whose pertinacity in sticking to her position is clearly illustrated in her correspondence with Captain Eliott, died on April 4, 1839. 48 Six days later passed away Kaikioewa, a chief who had been most active in opposition to the Catholics. The death of these chiefs removed a serious obstacle to a policy of conciliation. Still another reason, and probably the most effective one, was the fear of reprisals by France. Long before the middle of 1839 the king and « S. N. Castle, in Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 469 (Oct. 1839); Statements of Win. Richards quoted in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, Appendix, pp. 328-329 (in " M r . Wyllie's Historical S u m m a r y " ) . This is the so-called "edict of religious toleration." _ There is no evidence t h a t the order of the king was written or proclaimed; apparently, he simply gave oral instructions to some one or more of the chiefs that the persecution should be discontinued. Cf. W . F. F r e a r , "Hawaiian Statute ¿ a w , " 32-33; Bingham, Residence, 534-535; Yzendoorn, History of the Catholic Mission in the Hawaiian Islands, 129. 46 Eliott to Kinau, Sept. 29, Oct. 1, 1838, in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1852, Appendix, pp. 69-70; K i n a u to Eliott, Oct. 1 (incorrectly printed Aug. 1), 1838, ibid., 1851, Appendix, pp. 296-297. T h e original letters of Capt. Eliott are in A H , F.O. & Ex. Dr. Judd, in a letter dated Oct. 7, 1838, says that Kinau did not mean to charge the Catholics with idolatry. " S h e meant to state that the Catholics gathered persons disposed to idolatry, and t h a t those persons were isolators, that is, they practiced Roman Catholic ceremonies with the same notions they had previously cherished." Letters of Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, 1827-1872 ( F r a g m e n t s I I ) , 107-110. M Kamehameha I I I to the American Consul, Oct. 28, 1839, in Wilkes, Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition, IV, 504-506; Bingham, Residence, 553-555. T h e missionaries mentioned by the king were Messrs. Bingham, Clark, Chamberlain, Bishop, and D r . J u d d ; these were all located on Oahu, to which island the persecution was confined. 47 Yzendoorn, op. cit., 127. 48 H e r successor in the office of kuhina-nui was Kekauluohi (or A u h e a ) , daughter of a half-brother of Kamehameha I, though she was looked upon as acting f o r the i n f a n t daughter of Kinau, Victoria Kamehamalu (commonly called Kamamalu). See " T h e explanation of Kamehameha I I I respecting the descent of the authority of Kaahiimanu I I . to her heir and successor, Victoria Kamehamalu I I , in whose place, however, Miriam Kekauluohi is to act for the present," J u n e 8, 1839, printed proclamation in Hawaiian and English; printed also in Bingham, Residence, 534. Kekauluohi was the mother of King I^unalilo.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

165

chiefs had good reason to expect a visit from a French warship with no very friendly purpose. Early in February news was received in Honolulu of the proceedings of Captain Du Petit-Thouars at Tahiti in August and September, 1838, when he exacted from Queen Pomare a treaty, an apology and a salute to the French flag, and an indemnity of $2,000 for the expulsion of two French Catholic priests some time before. 49 The issue of the Sandwich Island Gazette for February 16, 1839, contained the following item: We are informed by a correspondent in Valparaiso, that two French ships of War will be dispatched for these Islands, to demand the most ample satisfaction from the King of Hawaii for the insults and oppression which have of late been extended to the subjects of France by the government of the Sandwich Islands.00

In the middle of June, news was received of the arrival at Tahiti of "the French frigate destined to these islands to settle the difficulties in regard to4he Catholics."61 It was at this moment that the king issued his order that persecution of native Catholics should cease. The persecution was not, however, completely discontinued until after the arrival of the French frigate. 62 Captain Laplace arrived at Honolulu July 9, 1839, on the frigate L'Artemise. Having consulted only the French consular agent, Jules Dudoit, the captain on the same day addressed to the king an ultimatum, styled a "Manifesto," which reads in part: Misled by perfidious counsels, deceived by the excessive indulgence of which my country has given evidence in their favor for several years, they [the King and chiefs] doubtless do not know how powerful France is, and that there is no power in the world which is capable of preventing her from punishing her enemies; otherwise they would have endeavored to merit her good will, instead of displeasing her as they have done by ill treating the French; . . . in fine, they would have understood that persecuting the Catholic religion, tarnishing it with the name of idolatry, and expelling, under" this absurd pretext, the French from this archipelago, was to offer an insult to France and to her sovereign.

After stating that it was the intention of France that the king of the Hawaiian islands should be independent, he presented the following five demands: 1. That the Catholic worship be declared free, throughout all the dominions subject to the king of the Sandwich Islands; that the members of this religious faith shall enjoy in them all the privileges granted to Protestants. " Chamberlain, Journal, Feb. 8, 1839; Sandwich Island Gazette, Feb. 9, 16, 1839. F o r a brief account of Du Petit-Thouars' proceedings at Tahiti, see G. H . Scholefield, The Pacific: Its Past and Future (London, 1919), 13-14. " Cf. Sandwich Island Gazette, Apr. 6, 1839. I n the middle of April F a t h e r Walsh wrote to a correspondent in California, " A French ship of war is daily expected here to bring H i s Hawaiian Majesty to an account for his ill treatment to French subjects in the persons of Messrs. Bachelot and Maigret. H.M. and chiefs are not a little alarmed and their Mentors are not f r e e f r o m f e a r . " Walsh to W . E. P. Hartnell, Apr. 16, 1839, Vallejo Documents, Vol. X X X I I , B a n c r o f t Library, University of California. n T h e quotation is f r o m Chamberlain, Journal, J u n e 17, 1839. See also Sandwich Island Goiette, J u n e 22, 1839. Yzendoorn, op. cit., 133, 134.

166

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

2. That a site for a Catholic church be given by the government at Honolulu, a port frequented by the French, and that this church be ministered by priests of their nationality. 3. That all Catholics imprisoned on account of religion . . . be immediately set at liberty. 4. That the king . . . deposit in the hands of the Captain of L'Artemise the sum of twenty thousand dollars as a guarantee of his future conduct towards France, which sum that government will restore to him when it shall consider that the accompanying treaty will be faithfully complied with. 5. That the treaty signed by the king . . . as well as the sum above mentioned be conveyed on board the frigate L'Artemise by one of the principal chiefs of the country; and also that the batteries of Honolulu salute the French flag with twentyone guns, which will be returned by the frigate.

Finally, Laplace declared that if these demands were rejected by the king, war would immediately commence. In the existing posture of affairs there could be no serious thought of resistance by the Hawaiian authorities. The king was absent at Lahaina, but the treaty embodying the conditions named was signed on his behalf (July 12) by the kuhinanui and the governor of Oahu (afterwards ratified by the king), the money (borrowed from local merchants) was taken on board the frigate, and the other stipulations carefully complied with. On the Sunday following, the French commander came on shore with 120 marines and 60 seamen under arms to attend a military mass which was celebrated by Father Walsh in one of the king's houses. FRENCH TREATY OF 1839

Captain Laplace did not consider that he had completed his work until he concluded a convention to protect the personal and commercial interests of his countrymen. Accordingly, he brought forward the draft of such a convention, which the king was induced to sign on July 17, 1839. Most of the articles of this convention were unobjectionable; two of them, however, placed distinct limitations upon the king's sovereignty. Article IV. No Frenchman accused of any crime whatever shall be judged otherwise than by a jury composed of foreign residents, proposed by the Consul of France and accepted by the government of the Sandwich Islands. Article VI. French merchandise or known to be of French procedure, and especially wines and brandies, shall not be prohibited, nor pay a higher duty than 5 per cent, ad valorem.

It will be seen that the sixth article effectually repealed the liquor law of August 21, 1838. This convention was the beginning of a system of unequal treaties which fettered the domestic policy and plagued the foreign relations of the country for many years. There was afterwards considerable debate over the question whether threats were made in order to obtain the king's signature to the convention of July 17; the evidence

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

167

indicates that the king feared hostilities if he failed to sign the document, but it was not, for that reason, held to be invalid.53 The privileges acquired by British and French subjects by virtue of the several treaties and conventions of 1836-1839 left the Americans in an unfavorable position, dependent only on the good will of the Hawaiian government and the dubious treaty of 1826. The new American agent for commerce and seamen, P. A. Brinsmade,54 himself deeply interested, did not care to leave the rights of Americans hanging by such a slender thread. He therefore addressed a letter to the king, making some inquiry on the subject, to which the king replied: I have received your letter and now definitely inform you that it is my settled plan to allow like privileges to the subjects of all the great nations visiting these Sandwich Islands. Wherefore the rights which we have promised by treaty to allow to any one nation, they also will be allowed to the subjects of the United States, according to the extent to which they shall be demanded.™ C O N S T I T U T I O N O P 1840

The course of constitutional development, interrupted by the visit of Captain Laplace, was taken up again after the reverberations of that episode had died away, and came to fruition in the constitution of 1840, signed by the king and kuhina-nui, Kamehameha III and Kekauluohi, on October eighth at Honolulu, after it had been agreed to by the council of chiefs. The constitution, as Judge Frear suggests,56 was mainly declaratory or descriptive of the existing political institutions of the country, but it did contain some innovations, and of these the most significant was the creation of a "representative body," or, as we should say, a house of representatives, chosen by the people, as part of the national legislature. This for the first time gave the common people a share in the government —actual political power. Another innovation was the creation of a supreme court, to consist of the king, the kuhina-nui, and four other » III A H are numerous documents relating to the "Laplace affair," among them being the originals of t h e Manifesto of July 10 (July 9 by local reckoning), the treaty of July 12, and the convention of July 17, 1839. Laplace's account is in his Campagne de circumnavigation de la fregate L'Artemise, pendant les années 1837, 1838, 1839 et 1840 • • . ( P a r i 3 , 1 8 4 1 1854), V, 428-497, 531-542. See also: Rep. of Min. of For. Rel, 1851, Appendix, pp. 299-307 (in " M r . Wyllie s Historical S u m m a r y ' ' ) ; Chamberlain, Journal, July 9-19, 1839; Blue,

marks on the Manifesto;—and the Treatment of the Missionaries," in ibid., I I , 447-494 (Oct. 1839); Yzendoorn, op. cit., 134-140; P. A. Brinsmade ( U . S. commercial agent) to Sec. of State J. Forsyth, July 17, 1839, and enclosures, U S D S , Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. 1. Capt Laplace's cavalier treatment of the American missionaries, whom he charged with being " t h e true authors of the insults" given to France, occasioned a great amount of discussion. H e declared his purpose, in case of hostilities, to treat the missionaries as part of the native population. « The former American agent, John C. Jones, Jr., had been removed at the request of the Hawaiian government and Brinsmade appointed to the position in 1838. The latter assumed the duties of the office on April 9, 1839. » Kamehameha I I I to American Consul, Oct. 31, 1839, U S D S , Legation Archives, Hawaii, Notes from Hawaiian Government, Vol. I. " W . F. Frear, "Hawaiian Statute Law," 37.

168

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

judges appointed by "the representative body." 57 Aside from the grant to the common people of a right to exercise political power, the constitution of 1840 was important for the reason that it put in writing—somewhat crudely, it is true—a statement of the plan of government and a definition of the powers and duties of the various officials. A brief analysis of the constitution of 1840 may appropriately bring this chapter to a close. 58 A slightly amended version of the declaration of rights served as a preamble. The constitution proper opened with a statement of certain principles to be observed in the making and enforcement of laws: no law should be enacted which was at variance with the word of God ; there should be complete freedom in the matter of religion; every innocent person who was injured by another should have redress, and all who committed crimes should be punished; no man should be punished without a lawful trial; no one should sit as judge or juror in his own case or in the case of one especially connected with him. An exposition was given of "the principles on which the present dynasty is founded," 59 and this was followed by a statement of the prerogatives, powers, and duties of the king and the kuhina-nui, 00 who together wielded the supreme executive authority. It was provided that there should be four governors, who should have general charge, each in his particular place and subject to the king and kuhina-nui, of all matters of 87 I t is sometimes erroneously stated that the f o u r assistant supreme judges were to be appointed by the legislature as a whole; and also that they were to be chosen f r o m among the chiefs. Apparently, the first appointment of assistant supreme judges was in 1842; it is recorded that in the legislative session of that year, " t h e Representative Body appointed Paki, K a n a i n a , Kaauwai, a n a Kapena, Assistant Supreme Judges. Translation of the Constitution and Laws of the Hawaiian Islands, Established in the Reign of Kamehameha III (Lahainaluna, 1842), 200. 64 T h e constitution of 1840 was first printed in Hawaiian, together with the laws enacted in 1840, in a small volume of 64 pages (Honolulu, 1841, prior to Feb. 6; see Polynesian of that date). A second edition was issued later in the same year (1841), consisting of the 64 pages of the first edition, together with the laws enacted in 1841, making 156 pages in all, with the title Ke Kumu Kanawai, a me na kanawai o ko Hawaii Pae Aina. Ua Kauia i ke kau ia Kamehameha I I I . A third edition, which must have been issued in 1842 though the title page remains unchanged, contains the 156 pages of the second edition, together with the laws enacted in 1842 and other laws, enacted prior to 1840, which were considered to be still in force, making 196 pages in all. Since no copy of the first edition, as such, is known to have survived to the present time, there is some doubt as to the exact wording of its title page, but it is presumed to have been the same as that of the second and third editions given above. I t is believed that the first 64 pages of the second and third editions a r e simply l e f t over copies of the first edition; and also that the first 156 pages of the third edition are left overs of the second edition. T h e constitution of 1840 was first printed in English in the Polynesian of Feb. 6, 1841. I n 1842 there was published in English at Lahainaluna a volume of 200 pages entitled, Translation of the Constitution and Laws of the Hawaiian Islands, Established in the Reign of Kamehameha I I I . This volume is commonly called the " B l u e Book" and contains the same matter as the third Hawaiian edition mentioned above, save for one repealed law and two or three pages of explanatory matter. It contains also a preface by the translator, William Richards, giving a brief account of the origin of the laws. T h e "Blue Book" was reprinted in its entirety in I*. A. T h u r s t o n ' s Fundamental Law of Hawaii. The constitution by itself is printed in numerous places; in the " B l u e Book" it occupies pages 9-20 inclusive; in T h u r s t o n ' s compilation, pages 1-9 inclusive. 6» " T h e origin of the present government, and system of polity, is as follows: Kamehameha I , was the f o u n d e r of the kingdom, and to him belonged all the land f r o m one end of the Islands to the other, though it was not his own private property. It belonged to the chiefs and people in common, of whom Kamehameha I was the head, and had the management of the landed property. W h e r e f o r e , there was not formerly, and is not now any person who could or can convey away t h e smallest portion of land without the consent of the one who had, or has t h e direction of the kingdom. " T h e s e are the persons who have had the direction of it f r o m that time down, Kameha* meha I I , K a a h u m a n u I, and at the present time Kamehameha I I I . These persons have had the direction of the kingdom down to the present time, and all documents written by them, and no others are the documents of the kingdom." 60 I n the English edition of the constitution, the word kuhina-nui is rendered " P r e m i e r , " but it seems better to retain the Hawaiian word itself. The subject is discussed above, in chapter 4.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

169

government which were not by law assigned to other officials. The law making power was lodged in a legislative body composed of two branches : the council of chiefs, including the king and kuhina-nui (which afterwards came to be called, in English, the house of nobles) ; and a representative body to be chosen by the people. It was provided that the two houses might sit separately or together and that new laws must have the approval of a majority of each house and be signed by the king and the kuhina-nui. The next section of the constitution dealt with the tax officers ; they were to be appointed by the king and the kuhina-nui, and not only assessed and collected the taxes, but also served as judges in all cases arising under the tax laws and in cases between land agents and between landlords and their tenants. From their decisions an appeal might be taken to the governor and from the governor to the supreme court. The inferior or district judges on the several islands were to be appointed by the governors ; it was their business to hear and decide all cases arising under the laws except those within the jurisdiction of the tax officers ; from the decisions of these inferior judges an appeal might be taken to the supreme court. The supreme court was composed of the king, the kuhina-nui, and four other judges appointed by the lower branch of the legislature; this court had only appellate jurisdiction. 61 The constitution could be amended by the legislature after a year's notice had been given of any proposed change. 81 J u d g e F r e a r points out t h a t "by usage or custom rather than by the express language of the Constitution," the island courts (corresponding to the present day circuit courts) continued to be held by the governors. "Evolution of the Hawaiian J u d i c i a r y , " H H S Papers, No. 7, p. 9. And there was an appeal to the governor's court f r o m the district court as well as f r o m the t a x officer's court.

CHAPTER X I

INDUSTRY, AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURES A s we approach the year 1840 it is clear that the Hawaiian nation has reached a critical point in its history. Foreign interests have become so extensive and complex that the native politico-economic system is no longer able to stretch itself over the problems that arise. The increasing activity of the great maritime powers in the Pacific Ocean bears, from Hawaii, the menacing aspect of a storm cloud on the horizon. The Hawaiian race is, to all appearance, dying out; and the resources of the land are in large part idle and untouched—a promise and a temptation. At this juncture the Hawaiian people and the Hawaiian government could appropriately ask, What must we do to be saved ? Judging from the steps that were taken and the discussions that were indulged in, we may conclude that the things which the missionaries and other resident foreigners believed to be necessary were: ( 1 ) to develop the latent industry of the people and the natural resources of the land; ( 2 ) to get Hawaii formally recognized as an independent nation; ( 3 ) to establish a government along modern constitutional lines which would be understood and respected by foreigners as well as by natives. The present chapter will deal with early phases of the first of these problems. About 1836 the missionaries were led to take a general survey of conditions in Hawaii and the progress which had been made toward Christian civilization. They were compelled to admit that while a great change had been effected in the religious views and religious institutions of the country, little or no improvement had been made in the economic and political condition of the nation. S o impressed were they with this fact that they prepared a memorial on the importance of increased effort to cultivate the useful arts among the Hawaiian people. They wrote: The people need competent instruction in agriculture, manufactures, and the various methods of production, in order to develop the resources of the country . . . They need competent instruction immediately in the science of government, in order to promote industry, to secure ample means of support, and to protect the just rights of all. They need much instruction and aid in getting into operation and extended influence those arts and usages which are adapted to the country, calculated to meet the wants, call forth and direct the energies of the people in general, and to raise up among them intelligent and enterprising agents, qualified to carry on the great work of reform here and elsewhere. . . . [They] need more powerful promptings and encouragements to effort and enterprise than they now have, and unless something more can be done for the people, they will not provide well either for the rising or future generations: they will not sustain good schools for the education of their children: they will not raise up and maintain a competent number of well trained ministers, physicians, lawyers, legislators, etc., nor will they have manufacturers and merchants of their own to conduct the business of the country. But foreign speculators may be expected to seize on the advantages which the country affords for agriculture, manufactures, 170

INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE

171

and commerce: and an inevitable influx of foreign population, induced only by the love of pleasure and gain, would doubtless hasten the waste of the aborigines; and at no distant period, the mere mouldering remnants of the nation could be pointed out to the voyager.

They mentioned various obstacles to the general development of industry and raised a question as to what could be done to bring about the needed changes. They outlined a plan and submitted it to the consideration of the missionary board and other benevolent persons in the United States. 1 It must be kept in mind that the missionaries and others who professed an interest in the welfare of the Hawaiian people assumed without question that the pattern of western culture with which they were familiar in America and Europe was superior to the culture of the Hawaiians and that the latter would as a matter of course be happier and better off in every respect if they acquired the foreign culture. But in order to effect that result, the habits of the people would have to be changed and their wants multiplied, and the resources of the country would have to be developed so that there would be products suitable for export, to exchange for useful and desirable goods brought from other countries. The missionaries believed that these changes, in cooperation with the Christian religion, would save the native race from extinction. In this very year" 1836 an estimate had been made of the population and the fact revealed that the Hawaiian people were still decreasing at an alarming rate. Hence whatever was to be done needed to be done quickly. DEVELOPMENTS PRIOR TO 1836 Before examining the plan proposed by the missionaries, it may be well to see what had already been done along the lines indicated. Trade had continued to grow, but trade did little to call forth the productive energy of the people or to draw out the wealth hidden in the soil. The only natural resource seriously touched by trade was sandalwood, which had been ruthlessly stripped from the islands without leaving anything of permanent value in its place. There was a little demand from the ships for the products of the soil, mainly for perishable food stuffs, increased after 1820 by the coming of the whalers, but the market thus provided was not very extensive until after 1840; before that date the common people, subject to the exactions of the chiefs, derived little benefit from the traffic with whaling ships and other vessels that visited the islands. As to systematic agriculture and manufactures looking to the production of exportable commodities, there were none prior to 1825. A few feeble attempts had been made to manufacture sugar, with little result beyond raising a belief in the possibilities of that industry. There was little incentive to new methods of agriculture, since the Hawaiian system was fully equal to supplying the needs of the native population. The missionaries had not been indifferent to agriculture and industry. 1

Bingham, Residence,

490-495.

172

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

Their instructions enjoined them to encourage both. A New England farmer (who was wholly unfamiliar with tropical agriculture) was included in the first group of missionaries that went to the islands, and they carried with them a supply of agricultural implements. But after two years they were obliged to report that little or no encouragement had been given to their cultivating the soil. They had been unable to obtain land enough to establish a farm. They could not get cows or oxen or horses to draw their carts; and they were afraid to attempt even the gaining of part of their support from the fruits of their own labor on the land, lest they incur the suspicion and opposition of the chiefs. They were the first to yoke up oxen as motive power, but they were able to do this only after they had been in the islands more than four years. 2 In other lines they were more successful. They trained some natives in housebuilding, in domestic occupations, and especially in the arts of printing and bookbinding. In 1825 an English agriculturist named John Wilkinson, who in his younger years had been a planter in the West Indies, arrived at Honolulu on the frigate Blonde. H e had made some arrangement with Governor Boki, while the latter was in England, to go out and engage in cultivating sugar cane and coffee and in making sugar and, probably, rum. A plantation was established in the upper part of Manoa valley near Honolulu. Six months after beginning operations Wilkinson had about seven acres of cane growing. H e encountered many difficulties. His partner, Governor Boki, had apparently promised to provide laborers f o r the enterprise, but there is evidence that Wilkinson had trouble with the natives due to his arbitrary manner. Tools and equipment were lacking or inadequate. Untimely rains raised the stream and destroyed a dam under construction at the mill-site. The undertaking was handicapped by a shortage of funds. Wilkinson was ill much of the time and finally died on September 17, 1826. 3 Before his death he had manufactured a small quantity of sugar. Governor Boki then assumed charge of the plantation and put a large number of natives to work upon it, paying them, according to one authority, at the rate of two dollars a week. The making of sugar was continued, a road opened through the valley, and the cane field much enlaiged. Levi Chamberlain, who visited the plantation at the end of November, 1826, gave a brief account of it in his journal and added, " I n a few years if the natives persevere in cultivating the cane and manufacturing it into sugar the nation may be supplied with that article and a surplusage remain f o r exportation." O n February 18, 1827, Captain Beechey of H.B.M.S. Blossom wrote f r o m Honolulu to a gentleman in California: " T h e Sandwich Islanders think of sending a cargo of sugar to your coast in a few months—the sugar has been made here, and looks very good indeed." 4 About this time or a little earlier, Kalanimoku, prime minister and • M H , XIX (1823), 316; Chamberlain, Journal, Nov. 1, 1824; Bingham, Residence, ' E. Loomis, Journal, Sept. 17, 1826. ' Vallejo Docs., Vol. XXIX, No. 114, Bancroft Library, University of California.

182.

INDUSTRY AND

AGRICULTURE

173

elder brother of Boki, caused the sugar mill to be removed f r o m Manoa valley and set up in the back part of Honolulu, with a view to encouraging the natives in that part of the island to raise sugar cane. Kalanimoku died, Boki became interested in other things, and the whole enterprise seems to have been more or less neglected during 1827. In the following year a new direction was given to it. Boki either leased the mill and plantation to a company of foreign residents (William "French, Stephen Reynolds, John C. Jones, and John Ebbets) or took them into partnership with himself. The mill was converted into a distillery for the manufacture of rum, which gave promise of being a more profitable product than sugar. But by this time the Queen Regent Kaahumanu and most of the powerful chiefs had become Christians and had taken a strong stand in favor of temperance. A kapu was placed upon the business of making r u m ; the missionaries, who had the only ox-carts in the village, refused to allow them to be used for carrying cane to the mill; and Kaahumanu caused the cane fields to be destroyed. This was about 1829. The foreign residents were greatly enraged and one of them, William French, a f t e r w a r d s accused the missionary Rev. H i r a m Bingham of having made him lose $7,000 through the failure of the distillery. T h e production of cofifee was a part of Wilkinson's project and plants for the purpose were brought by him from Rio de Janeiro and set out in Manoa valley. Little attention seems to have been paid to them, though Wilkinson is said to have had a number of trees growing at the time of his death, and small quantities of coffee berries were a f t e r w a r d s obtained from them. Richard Charlton, British consul at Honolulu, brought coffee plants from Manila which were also planted in Manoa. The date of this introduction is uncertain. Slips were set out in Kalihi and Niu valleys near Honolulu and in 1828 or 1829 the growing of coffee was started in Kona, Hawaii, and in Hilo by the missionaries in those places. F r o m this slender beginning the Hawaiian coffee industry traces its subsequent history. 5 A f t e r the defeat of their initial agricultural plans, the missionaries concentrated their attention upon the work of evangelism, religious instruction, and literary education. They did not entirely forget agriculture and industry; individuals among them gave time to these worldly matters, notably Rev. Joseph Goodrich, stationed for a number of years at Hilo. On January 9, 1829, Goodrich wrote of having "finished milling a year's supply of sugar and molasses, . . . the mill being one of my own construction consisting of 3 upright wooden cylinders about 14 inches in diameter . . . turned by hand." 11 H e is known to have supplied molasses to other missionaries and to have successfully cultivated sugar 6 T h e p r e c e d i n g a c c o u n t of t h e W i l k i n s o n - B o k i e n t e r p r i s e is based u p o n : a n a r t i c l e b y " T a t l e r " ( S t e p h e n R e y n o l d s ? ) in Sandwich Island Mirror ( H o n o l u l u ) , M a r c h 15, 1840; S t e p h e n R e y n o l d s , " R e m i n i s c e n c e s of H a w a i i a n A g r i c u l t u r e " , in R H A S Transactions, Vol. I , No. 1. pp. 49-53; s t a t e m e n t s in t h e j o u r n a l s of Levi C h a m b e r l a i n a n d S t e p h e n R e y n o l d s ; H i r a m P a u l d i n g , Journal of a Cruise of the United States Schooner Dolphin . . . ( N e w Y o r k , 1831), 220-223; a n d s c a t t e r e d n o t e s f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s . • M I , , V I , 1569.

174

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778^1854

cane, coffee, and other plants. In their general meetings at various times the missionaries discussed the question and resolved to encourage the development of industrious habits among the people and to use their influence "in encouraging the growth of cotton, coffee, sugar cane, etc., that the people may have more business on their hands, and increase their temporal comforts." The quotation is from a resolution adopted in 1835, and was suggested possibly by the fact that in the preceding year one of the secretaries of the missionary board in the United States had written a letter to the mission, emphasizing the importance of agricultural enterprise as a means of raising the common people to a higher plane of living. 7 In 1832 the missionaries stationed at Lahaina expressed strongly their conviction "that in order to retain the ground which Christianity has already gained in the Sandwich Islands, new plans must be devised for elevating the character of the people, and assimilating them to the state of enlightened and independent nations." As one means of doing this, they suggested that the missionary board sponsor a plan for introducing the manufacture of cotton cloth into the islands. They pointed out that cotton grew well and that cotton cloth was in high demand among the people, having nearly supplanted kapa for clothing. They believed that if a start were made, the people would sustain the enterprise, and they felt sure that the chiefs would patronize it and erect the necessary buildings. At nearly the same time the missionaries at Kailua on Hawaii made a similar suggestion. 8 The idea was taken up by the missionary board, with the thought of making spinning and weaving a domestic industry to be carried on by the Hawaiian women in their own homes. An instructor, Miss Lydia Brown, was sent to the islands with a quantity of domestic spinning apparatus. The experiment was begun at Wailuku, Maui, in the summer of 1835, and met with encouraging success in carding, spinning, knitting, and finally in weaving. A danger feared by the missionaries was that the industry would be seized upon by the chiefs as a new means of exploiting the time and labor of the common people. The greatest obstacle to any new agricultural development under the auspices of foreigners was the reluctance of the chiefs to grant land on favorable terms. A writer in the Polynesian ascribed this reluctance to "the deep-rooted prejudice they have acquired, that by alienating their lands, they lose their sovereignty over them . . . From this and the fact that they fear that by a too rapid increase of numbers and wealth among the foreigners, the government would eventually pass from their hands, have originated their exclusive policy." 9 Applications for land for agricultural purposes met with no success until the year 1835. About 1831 or 1832 William French and a Mr. Reid, a gentleman engaged in business in South America, made a proposition to the chiefs to hire a tract of land inland of the district of Ewa, Oahu. Their object was to cultivate ••Minutes of General Meeting, 1832, pp. 29, 33: 1835, p. 19; B. B. Wisner to S. I. Mission, J u n e 23, 1834, in General Letters. » M H , X X I X (1833), 268, 364. 'Polynesian, July 17, 1841.

INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE

175

cotton and raise cattle and they proposed to invest a substantial sum in fences and improvements. The proposal, however, was not acceded to by the chiefs. 10 French continued his efforts and some years later obtained, not a grant of land, but the privilege of establishing a sugar mill on Kauai. In 1835 he brought from China a number of Chinese with a mill and apparatus for manufacturing sugar. After a fruitless endeavor to obtain land for a plantation, he at length engaged with Governor Kaikioewa to take his men and machinery to Kauai and there grind cane and manufacture sugar on shares, the governor supplying the cane and furnishing horses to turn the mill. The business was carried on for about two years at Waimea and French at one time had hopes of getting a tract of land for a plantation. But the hope proved delusive; French found himself in hopeless competitioh with the Koloa enterprise of Ladd and Company, and in 1838 carried his mill back to Oahu. He is said to have lost over $3000 through the failure of the undertaking. 11 KOLOA

PLANTATION

The first permanent sugar plantation in the Hawaiian islands dates from the year 1835, when the American mercantile firm of Ladd and Company obtained a lease of a large tract of land at Koloa, Kauai. While expecting to make money from the enterprise, the members of the firm professed, no doubt truly, to have the most benevolent feelings for the Hawaiian people and to be desirous of helping them climb the ladder of civilization, to enable them to accumulate property, build homes, and attain the political and social status of men free from feudal bonds. There can be little doubt that the influence of the missionaries united with the persuasive eloquence of P. A. Brinsmade, one of the members of the firm, to quiet the fears of the chiefs and induce them to grant to Ladd and Company the land at Koloa. The lease was signed July 29, 1835, by the king (Kauikeaouli), the governor of Kauai (Kaikioewa), and the three partners (Brinsmade, Ladd, and Hooper). It granted to the partners for a term of fifty years a certain tract of land (area not stated, but later surveys show that it contained about a thousand acres, of which some three hundred acres were good cane land) together with the waterfall of Maulili, for all of which an annual rental of three hundred dollars was to be paid. And it is further agreed that the said Brinsmade, Ladd and Hooper, shall be allowed at their wish to hire native laborers to work on said land; provided, however, that they shall pay to Kauikeaouli and Kaikioewa one quarter of a dollar a month for each man, . . . and to each native so employed they shall pay satisfactory wages. And it is further agreed that said natives thus employed shall be exempted 10

Chamberlain, Journal, Feb. 3, 1832; Letter of P. A. Brinsmade in Sandwich Islands ( H o n o l u l u ) , July 21, 1847. " T a t l e r " , in Sandwich Island Mirror, April 15, 1840. The mill described and illustrated in Hawaiian Spectator, I I , 113-115 (Jan. 1839), is probably the one set up by French's Chinese. T h e r e are several references to French's Waimea establishment in the letters of William Hooper mentioned in the following note. News

11

176

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

from all taxation whatsoever while laboring on said land, other than the quarter of a dollar per month above mentioned.

Operations were begun at Koloa in the fall of 1835, directed byWilliam Hooper. At the beginning great opposition was encountered from the local chiefs, who objected to their tenants entering the employ of the company. They are said to have gone so far as to place armed guards to prevent the natives from approaching the manager. Opposition from this source was overcome by appeals to the governor and the king. Laborers were secured and the work begun, but at first on a limited and rather primitive scale, due to the lack of needed tools and equipment. T o the natives the service- proved popular. They were paid at the rate of a hapawalu (12 y 2 cents) per day and food (fish and poi) which cost the company about one cent a day for each man. Wages were paid not in cash but in a species of local currency, consisting of small cards, upon which were printed different values, redeemable in goods at the plantation store. At the end of his first year at Koloa, Hooper summarized in his diary the accomplishments of the preceding twelve months : the necessary buildings had been erected and a sugar mill had been set up ( a rude affair with wooden rollers) ; twenty-five acres of sugar cane had been planted, five thousand coffee trees planted and fenced in, fortyfive taro patches and five thousand banana trees put in order; a small quantity of molasses had been made, but no sugar. 1 2 PLAN SUGGESTED BY MISSIONARIES Such was the general situation in 1836 when the missionaries wrote their memorial on the need of cultivating the useful a r t s : two projects were getting under way designed to accomplish some of the objects sought by that memorial, one directed by the missionaries themselves to promote the manufacture of cotton cloth, and one instituted by Ladd and Company in the manner which has just been described. The outcome of these enterprises and the effect which they might produce on the people and the government lay in the future. While the immediate aspect was encouraging, the force exerted seemed to the missionaries too small to overcome the apparent inertia of the nation. Missionaries have been accused of opposing the efforts of other foreigners to develop the resources of the country. In justice it must be said that the missionaries recognized that foreigners and foreign capital were needed ; they looked 13 Report of the Proceedings and Evidence in the Arbitration between the King and Government of the Hawaiian Islands and Messrs. Ladd & Co. . . . ( H o n o l u l u , 1846. Cited herea f t e r a s Ladd & Co. Arbitration), A p p e n d i x , pp. 15-16 (lease of land at K o l o a ) ; J . J . J a r v e s , " S k e t c h e s of K a u a i " , in Hawaiian Spectator, Vol. I , No. 1 ( J a n . 1838), pp. 66-86; S a m e writer, Scenes and Scenery in the Sandwich Islands . . . 1837-1842 ( L o n d o n , 1844), 96-98; A r t i c l e by " T a t l e r " in Sandwich Island Mirror, M a y 15, 1840; R e y o l d s , B o a r d m a n , a n d W o o d to T e n E y c k , Dec. 1, 1847, e n c l o s u r e in T e n E y c k to B u c h a n a n ( N o . 2 5 ) , Dec. 20, 1847, U S D S , Dispatches, H a w a i i , Vol. I I ; " T h e F i r s t P l a n t a t i o n on the H a w a i i a n G r o u p " , in San Francisco Chronicle, F e b . 16, 1896, reprinted in part in Daily Bulletin ( H o n o l u l u ) , M a r c h 4, 1896; A r t h u r C. A l e x a n d e r , Koloa Plantation, 1835-1935. A History of the Oldest Hawaiian Sugar Plantation ( H o n o l u l u , 1937), chap. 1, b a s e d largely upon original letters of W m . H o o p e r , to which M r . A l e x a n d e r had a c c e s s ; these letters have since c o m e into the p o s s e s s i o n of the U n i v e r s i t y of H a w a i i .

INDUSTRY AND

AGRICULTURE

177

favorably on the Koloa experiment because most of them had confidence in Brinsmade, Ladd, and H o o p e r ; but they feared thè introduction of many foreigners with great capital. 1 3 They ardently wished that a sort of philanthropic .spirit might pervade the agricultural development and industrialization of the Hawaiian islands. This idea, visionary though it may have been, was embodied in their memorial of 1836. In the memorial, they suggested that the missionary board or some society formed on similar principles should send to Hawaii agricultural and industrial teachers and laborers.' Or, if that were impractical, they suggested as an alternative the organization of a company "on Christian and benevolent principles" for the .specific purpose of promoting the interests of the Hawaiian nation "by encouraging the cultivation of sugar-cane, cotton, silk, indigo, and various useful productions adapted to the soil and climate ; and the manufacture of sugar, cotton, silk, clothing, hats, shoes, implements of husbandry, etc." T h e personnel, in Hawaii, of such a company should consist of a general superintendent, capable of giving advice in the affairs of government ; four agriculturists acquainted with the growing of cotton, cane, etc., and the manufacture of sugar, to superintend plantations, one for each of the principal islands; a merchant to transact the mercantile business of the company ; a cotton manufacturer ; and mechanics and artisans of various kinds, to work for the company and also to give instruction to the natives. T h e profits of the company, above the original and current cost, should be devoted to the support of schools or churches, charitable institutions or internal improvements in the nation. 1 4 This is a brief outline of the plan suggested by the missionaries in Hawaii to the directors of the American Board of Commissioners f o r Foreign Missions. Before sending their memorial home to the United States the missionaries conferred with the king and chiefs and the latter signed a communication addressed to their American friends which was obviously intended to lend weight to the words of the missionaries. T h e letter of the chiefs, dated August 23, 1836, reads as follows : Love to you, our obliging friends in America. This is our sentiment as to promoting the order and prosperity of these Hawaiian Islands. D o give us additional teachers, like the teachers who dwell in your own country. These are the teachers whom we would specify, a carpenter, tailor, mason, shoe-maker, wheelwright, papermaker, type founder, agriculturists skilled in raising sugar-cane, cotton, and silk, and in making sugar, cloth manufacturers, and makers of machinery to work on a large scale, and a teacher of the chiefs in what pertains to the land, according to the practice of enlightened countries ; and if there be any other teachers that could be serviceable in these matters, such teachers also. Should you assent to our request, and send hither these specified teachers, then 13 Ladd & Co. Arbitration, "2 (testimony of Wm. Richards). Cf. the letter of Rev. E. W . Clark in Polynesian, April 24, 1847. The report of the A B C F M for 1839 contains this r e m a r k : " I t is not easy to see how the Hawaiian nation can speedily be put in possession of the substantial blessings of Christianity and civilization, without in effect colonising the islands with a foreign people, and so in the end rooting out the natives themselves." M H , X X X V I (1840), 13. » Bingham, Residence, 493-495.

178

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

will we protect them, and grant facilities for their occupations, and we will back up these works, that they may succeed well.12

It is clear, from this letter, that the views of the chiefs had undergone a great change since 1820. Nothing tangible resulted from these appeals. They arrived at Boston in 1837 when the American people were in the midst of one of the worst financial panics in the history of the nation. Furthermore, the missionary board, "when the subject came before it, was clearly of the opinion that the whole lay beyond its province, as a missionary institution." 16 IDEAS OF LADD A N D COMPANY

The missionaries were not the only ones who perceived that something more was needed to give Hawaii a western type of civilization ; and they were not the only ones who proposed a plan to meet what they conceived to be the needs of the situation. Ladd and Company formulated a plan designed to furnish a large scale and impressive demonstration of the benefits of industrial development under the right auspices. It was in reality a modification and amplification of the plan they were putting into operation at Koloa. The scheme was outlined in an annex to a letter from the company to the members of the Sandwich Islands Mission in their general meeting of 1837. It is uncertain whether Ladd and Company knew of the plan suggested by the missionaries in 1836. The essence of the new plan of Ladd and Company was that the government should place under the management and control of Ladd and Company one whole district of the kingdom. Under this plan, a chief would be appointed by the government to reside in the district as the organ of public authority, to enforce the laws of the land and such local regulations as the company might consider it expedient to adopt, the salary of this officer to be paid by the company. Natives should be allowed freely to reside in the district in order to enter into the employ of the company; those employed by the company were to receive wages, to have land assigned to them for residential purposes and for cultivation, and to pay a fixed tax to the government (each man, five dollars, and each woman, three dollars per year) ; they were to work for the company five days each week, to have free medical attendance when needed, and to be encouraged to improve their condition. The company was to invest ten thousand dollars in mills, permanent buildings, and local improvements ; to introduce 15 Ibid., 496. On August 21, 1836, William Richards wrote f r o m Lahaina to Levi Chamberlain: " I have had a full and free discussion with the king and chiefs on the subject of internal improvement and they all appear gratified with our proposal, and have signed the within letter [not found, but probably the letter quoted in the text, although there is a discrepancy in d a t e s ] . They inquired particularly what would be necessary for them to do when the teachers should arrive, and I told them 'to f u r n i s h good land for the cultivation of the various articles and allow men to cultivate it, and allow water privileges, roads &c. and that all the avails obtained by their hoolimalima [employees] would belong to the company, but that the company would m a n u f a c t u r e cotton belonging to chiefs and people at such a lay as they could afford.' T h e r e was a full explanation of the plan according to our conversation, except that the final end viz to undermine and subvert their present system was not alluded to; though I think that even the king perceives it will end t h u s . " MS in H M C S Library. 16 R u f u s Anderson, History of the Sandwich Islands Mission (Boston, 1870), 126.

INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE

179

systematic agriculture and the various mechanic arts, affording the natives opportunity to acquire skill along these lines ; to manage all the business of the district, receiving suitable compensation therefor ; and to make a detailed report annually to government of all its operations and of the condition of the district and its inhabitants. The company was also to bear the expense of the support of a missionary, a physician, and a school teacher of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, together with their families, and a competent number of native teachers to supply the whole district. In lieu of rent, government was to receive annually one half of the net profits derived from the operations of the company within the district. The general aim of the company would be to develop the natural resources of the district and bring into existence an industrious and civilized Christian community. Ladd and Company submitted this plan for consideration by the missionaries and solicited their approval and their influence to induce the chiefs to accept the proposition. The missionaries replied discreetly, saying the plan looked well at first sight and that they would rejoice to see it take effect and prosper. That much, they would.be willing to say to the chiefs, but could not go further in promoting the plan. 17 There is no evidence to show that the project was ever presented to the chiefs, but there is much reason for believing it would not have been acceptable to them. It looked too much like the creation of a state within the state. While we ought not, perhaps, at this stage, to question the sincerity of the professed benevolent intentions of Ladd and Company with respect to the Hawaiian people, it is difficult to avoid a feeling that they were seeking a virtual monopoly for their own benefit. D E V E L O P M E N T S FROM 1836 TO 1840

After this digression into the realm of unrealized dreams, we must return to what was actually going on. From the mid 1830's, agricultural and industrial activity occupied a progressively larger place in the history of the kingdom. The same influences which brought into existence the declaration of rights and the constitution of 1840 were likewise effective in the economic field. The missionaries exemplified a broader interpretation of their duties. In 1838 they expressed the opinion that it would be proper for them "to devote a portion of their time to instructing the natives into the best method of cultivating their lands, and of raising flocks and herds, and of turning the various products of the country to the best advantage." 18 In a general letter dated June 8, 1839, they made the following suggestion : At many of our stations the state of things is becoming such, that the missionary, by directing the labor of natives, and investing some fifty or a hundred dollars in " Original correspondence in H M C S Library. u Reviied Minutes of Delegate Meeting, 1838, pp. 28-29.

180

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

a sugar-mill, o r in some other w a y , might secure a portion and often the whole of his support, and would t h u s be teaching the people profitable industry. 1 "

The suggestion was put into practice by some of the missionaries on Oahu and Kauai. A writer in the Sandwich Island Mirror, in 1840, stated that missionaries on Kauai, at a distance from Koloa, had set up sugar mills as early as 1838, grinding cane for the natives on shares. The same writer gave an interesting survey of the situation on Oahu and Maui in 1840. He reported that Rev. John Emerson at Waialua had a mill run by horse power and made sugar and molasses for the natives on shares; Rev. Artemas Bishop at Ewa had a mill run by water power, where he had made for himself and the natives during the past season several tons of sugar, besides molasses; Rev. Hiram Bingham had raised sugar cane on his field, having it manufactured at a Chinese mill in the back part of Honolulu; Dr. T. C. B. Rooke had a mill in Nuuanu valley; three or four native young men had begun to develop a small plantation in the Koolau district; Governor Kekuanaoa, Dr. Judd, and others had organized a company to establish a plantation and mill near Honolulu; on Maui, several Chinamen had mills in operation, where they made sugar upon shares. "The King is now erecting an iron mill to go by water which is under the care and direction of a Chinaman on shares for ten years. The sugar made at Maui is said to be of much better quality than at Oahu and Kauai." 20 Rev. Richard Armstrong wrote from his station at Wailuku, Maui, July 7, 1840: I devote occasionally a little time to agriculture and would devote more, if I had it to spare. It is a business that I was brought up to, and I love it, as I love sleep when w e a r y . . . . I have assisted the natives to break in some twelve yoke of oxen, which have done a great deal towards relieving the people of their burdens. T h r e e years ago everything, food, timber, potatoes, pigs, stones, lime, sand, etc., w e r e carried on the backs of natives, or dragged on the ground by their hands . . . but almost all this drudgery is now done by carts and oxen, and the head men say they cannot get the men on their lands to submit to such w o r k as they once could. This is clear gain. B y a request of the K i n g I have taken some part in inducing the people about me to plant sugar-cane. A fine crop of sixty or seventy acres is now on the ground ripe, and a noble water-mill, set up by a China-man, is about going into operation to grind it. I hope some good f r o m this quarter. I keep one plough a going constantly with a view to the support of schools. W e shall get in ten acres of cane the present season. 21

In the years from 1835 to 1840 a great many sugar mills were set up in various parts of the kingdom, being especially numerous on Maui, Oahu, and Kauai. In the early part of 1838 there were reported to be 1»MH, XXXVI (1840), 245. 20 Sandwich Island Mirror. May 15, June 15, 1840. See also: Kamehameha III, Kekauluohi, Kalauwalu, Keoni Pake (John Chinaman), agreement dated Aug. 25, 1839, AH, F.O. & Ex.; S. Reynolds. Journal, Dec. 25, 1838, March 21, 1839, July 28, Nov. 28, 1840; Polynesian, Aug. 8. 1840; Wilkes, Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition. IV, 208, 209, 219, 242-243, 251, 253; Letters of Dr. Cerrit P. Judd, 1S27-1S72 (Fragments I I ) , 126-127; Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 6, 1935 (article about Wailuku Plantation). 21 MH, XXXVII (1841), 267.

INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE

181

"in operation, or soon to be erected, twenty mills for crushing cane, propelled by animal power, and two by water power." 22 An interesting point is the large part taken by Chinese in the setting up and operation of these mills. The mills of this period were mere toys in comparison with those of a later time and together produced a very small amount of sugar with a disproportionate quantity of molasses. What was possibly the earliest exportation of sugar from the Hawaiian islands was mentioned by William Hooper in a letter written at Koloa, Kauai, May 28, 1836, which contains the statement, " M r . French made a shipt. per Don of 8000 lb. Sugar and abt. as many galls. Molasses." 28 Sugar export statistics hitherto published begin with 1837, in which year about two tons of sugar were exported from the islands. In 1838 the quantity exported was about forty-four tons; in 1839, fifty tons. In the following year it rose to one hundred eighty tons, but in 1841 dropped back to thirty. 24 Before much could be done to develop the industry, it was necessary to find a market. An early attempt was made to open a market in France. After the signing of the French (Laplace) convention in 1839, the Hawaiian government claimed that its terms permitted the importation of Hawaiian sugar into France at a duty of five per cent ad valorem. In 1840 a shipment of twenty tons was sent to Havre to test this point, but the French government refused to admit it except at the full tariff rate. Ladd and Company afterwards declared that their expectation of profit from the terms of the Laplace treaty induced them to expand their operations and obligations. 25 PROGRESS AT KOLOA

The only plantation worthy of the name was that of Ladd and Company at Koloa. That enterprise requires a more extended notice. The difficulties encountered in the early stages were very great. Interference with the labor supply by local chiefs persisted for several years; in 1839 the king sent an agent to settle the trouble. A mill with wooden cylinders run by water power was put into operation in November, 1836, and in the following year its place was taken by an iron mill. This proved insufficient, and in 1839 the company obtained from the king a second millsite on the Waihohonu stream. In the contract the king bound himself to see that fifty acres of land were kept "in good cultivation of sugar cane for the supply of said mill, for the term of twenty years from the time a mill shall be erected." The company agreed to grind the king's cane on shares. At the expiration of the twenty years the king was to have the option of buying the sugar factory or collecting rent from the company for its operation. In 1840 Hooper went to New York to purchase "Hawaiian Spectator, Vol. I, No. 1 (April, 1838), 77. a Letters of Wm. Hooper mentioned above, note 12. See the table given in Chap. 16. • Polynesian, Aug. 22, 1840, Oct. 23, 1841; Guizot to Chamber of Commerce of H a v r e , April 21, 1841, copy in A H , F.O. & E x . ; Rep. of Min. of For. Rel, 1851, Appendix, pp. 154160, 178-179, 206-218. M

182

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

an improved mill and obtain additional capital. For the latter purpose he sold a half interest in the Koloa plantation to W . H. Cary for the sum of $12,500. On his return, the work of installing the new mill at Waihohonu was undertaken. The layout consisted of a horizontal sugar mill with iron frame, weighing 18,090 pounds, driven by a pitch-back waterwheel; two copper clarifiers of 400 gallons each; four copper evaporators, 400 to 100 gallons; and 50 rectangular sugar coolers. A memorandum prepared in July, 1841, estimated the total investment of the company at Koloa to be about $31,500. A small quantity of sugar of rather poor quality was manufactured in the fall of 1837. Thereafter, from year to year, the quantity was increased little by little and the quality improved as experience, skill, and better equipment were acquired. Of greater importance than the amount of sugar produced was the effect on the ideas of the people. Ladd and Company entered into agreements with neighboring landlords and commoners to grind on shares the cane grown by them. Some large fields of cane were planted in the vicinity by the king, the governor, and local chiefs. An air of prosperity and Enterprise pervaded the whole community. The missionaries at Koloa, foreseeing the good results likely to come from this awakening industry, at the beginning of 1840 urged the company to build a second mill in order to be able to take care of all the cane that was being planted in the district. The old governor, who at first had been somewhat reluctant, planted a large field at a distance from Koloa and planned to have a mill of his own. By the juxtaposition of the company fields and those of the chiefs the old feudal labor system was placed in a disadvantageous contrast to a system of free labor. A writer in the Polynesian, June 19, 1841, noted that when the common people found that their time and labor was worth something more to them than hard words and little food, they were not slow in letting^ their rulers know it. The result has been.that they have enjoyed more personal freedom ever since, and their condition has been gradually improving. Even the King, satisfied that free labor is the most profitable, has of late abolished the working days, and pays his workmen, who labor under the superintendence of a white man, regular wages, a change which we hope will be introduced throughout the group.

The writer just quoted had visited Koloa in 1837, 1839, and 1841 and was greatly impressed with the awakening and broadening influence of this enterprise upon the minds of both chiefs and commoners. The company itself maintained that the liberalizing tendency of the Koloa plantation and its subsidiaries was the most important cause of the promulgation of the declaration of rights and the constitution of 1840.26 Closely associated with the sugar plantation at Koloa was the attempt w R e f e r e n c e s cited above, in n o t e 11. I n Ladd & Co. Arbitration, a n d A p p e n d i x , pp. 15-19, 4 3 ; in J a r v e s , Scenes and Scenery in 100-102. See a l s o : Polynesian, Tune 19, J u l y 17, 1841; R e y n o l d s , 6, 7, 1841; L u t h e r S e v e r a n c e , P r i v a t e J o u r n a l , J u n e 13, 1851. I last cited j o u r n a l t h r o u g h t h e k i n d n e s s of t h e late H o n . G e o r g e R .

see p a r t i c u l a r l y pp. 66-72 the Sandwich Islands, pp. J o u r n a l , J u n e 5, 16, J u f y w a s p e r m i t t e d t o read t h e Carter.

INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE

183

to establish the silk industry in the Hawaiian islands. It was an ephemeral enterprise, very promising at the start but soon beset with difficulties and doomed to an early death. Its originators were Sherman Peck and Charles Titcomb, who in 1836 leased land at Koloa from Ladd and Company and set out thousands of mulberry slips in order to grow the leaves on which silk worms feed. They procured eggs of the silk worm of several varieties and Peck made a journey to the United States to get information, machinery, and additional eggs. He also engaged the services of three persons familiar with the business. The prospects of success seemed very bright and led to the establishment of a second company (Stetson and Company) at Koloa in 1839. By the spring of 1840 all preliminary difficulties had apparently been overcome, but then a drought came on, bringing in its train insect pests, aphids and spiders. As if these were not enough, heavy winds were experienced, both trade and kona, whipping off the mulberry leaves. The enterprise was abandoned at Koloa and the fields planted to sugar cane. Prior to this time, Titcomb had leased land in Hanalei valley and entered upon the business at that place. The Hanalei plantation did not suffer the disaster that overwhelmed the ones at Koloa, and Titcomb hung on until 1844 or 1845, but finally encountered financial and other troubles and transferred his attention to the raising of coffee. He alone is said to have lost $15,000 in the silk venture. 27 The cloth making experiment begun at Wailuku was continued ; spinning and knitting were undertaken at one or two other stations; cotton growing was taken up by the church members at several places as a means of raising funds for new school and church buildings and to aid the missionary cause in general. At Haiku, Maui, an American farmer commenced a small plantation, having 55 acres planted in 1838. Governor Kuakini of Hawaii, one of the most business-like of the chiefs, visited Miss Brown's class at Wailuku in 1835 and conceived the idea of having the industry established on his island. In 1837 the governor was reported by one of the merchants to have planted an immense cotton field at Waimea, Hawaii. In the same year he erected a stone building at Kailua, thirty by seventy feet, to be used as a factory. A foreigner in his employ made a wheel, from which as a sample the natives made about twenty others. Wheel heads and cards were imported from the United States. Three poorly trained native women served as the first instructors for some twenty or thirty operatives, girls and women from twelve to forty years of age. In a comparatively short time they acquired a fair proficiency in the work; by the middle of 1838 a large quantity of yarn had been spun. Two looms were next procured and a foreigner familiar with their operation. Members of the United J a r v e s , " S k e t c h e s of K a u a i " ; S a m e w r i t e r , Scenes and Scenery in the Sandwich Islands, 105-112, 164-169; A r t i c l e b y " T a t l e r " in Sandwich Island Mirror, M a y 15, 1840; Polynesian, 1840 a n d 1841 passim; Report of Min. of Interior, 1845, pp. 11, 14; C h e s t e r S. I . y m a n , Around the Horn to the Sandwich Islands and California . . . (New Haven, 1924), 173.

184

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

States exploring squadron visited the factory in 1840, and the commander of the expedition wrote that the foreigner just mentioned was engaged for several months in the establishment, during which time he had under his instruction four young men, with whom he wove several pieces of brown stripes and plaids, plain and twilled cotton cloth. After this time, the natives were able to prepare and weave independently of his aid. Becoming dissatisfied, however, all left the work, together with the foreigner; but after some time they were induced to return to their work. This small establishment has ever since been kept up entirely by the natives.

After this auspicious beginning the cotton cloth industry rapidly faded out of the picture. The reason is not clear. T o establish the industry as a domestic occupation probably required more attention than the missionaries could give it. Governor Kuakini died in 1844 after being in ill health for several years, much of the time unable to attend to business. It is not unlikely that labor troubles may have beset the Kailua factory. The editor of the Friend, who visited the place in 1844, remarked that the "scheme failed probably from the fact that the Governor found it cheaper to buy coarse cottons than to make them." 2 8 " Minutes of General Meeting, 1837, pp. 14, 32; 1838, pp. 16-17; 1839, p. 20; M H , X X X I V (1838), 235, 261, 263; X X X V (1839), 167; Hawaiian Spectator, Vol. I, No. 1 (Jan. 1838), 91; Sandwich Island Gazette, Sept. 15, 1838; Polynesian, July 25, 1840; Wilkes, op. cit., I V , 97-98; Friend, I I I (1845), 57; Letter of Dr. S. L . Andrews, Kailua, Nov. 9, 1838, in Gulick, Pilgrims of Hawaii, 178. The editor of the Polynesian, visiting Kauai in August, 1848, 6aw at Wailua " a cotton factory on a small scale", where a foreigner employed several native females in spinning. Polynesian, Sept. 9, 1848.

CHAPTER XII

THE RECOGNITION OF HAWAII'S INDEPENDENCE Whether the Hawaiian islands were free, in an international sense, in 1840 is a question which may be debated and in fact was debated in that very year. Though for practical purposes they were manifestly independent, there were undoubtedly some persons who would have insisted that the acts of Kamehameha I and Kamehameha II still kept the islands in a position of subordination to Great Britain. The instructions given to Lord Byron in 1824 might be cited in support of such a view. But the British government had never performed any positive act of suzerainty; on the contrary, it had appointed a consul who had resided in the islands since the year 1825, and a British naval officer had, in 1836, with the Hawaiian king, signed "articles" in the nature of a treaty between the two governments. It is also true that the Hawaiian chiefs had, in 1827, as related in an earlier chapter, 1 practically repudiated the idea of a British protectorate, though it is unlikely that the British government was ever informed of that action. Nevertheless, the proceedings of the French officer Laplace at Honolulu in July, 1839, had the effect of bringing under review the question of the relationship between Great Britain and Hawaii. In the British Parliament in March, 1840, a member of the House of Commons inquired of the secretary of state for foreign affairs (Viscount Palmerston) whether the government had received any official information about the doings of Laplace, whether the subject had been discussed with the French government, and "in the third place, he desired to be informed whether those islands which, in the year 1794, and subsequently in the year 1824, . . . had been declared to be under the protection of the British Government, were still considered . . . to remain in the same position." Lord Palmerston said he had received no report of the affair. On the third point of the interpellation, his reply was noncommittal and seemed to indicate that he knew very little about the subject; but his statement was interpreted in certain quarters, both in the United States and in England, as a virtual denial of any protectorate relationship. 2 In connection with an account of this discussion in the British Parliament, the American editor of the Honolulu Polynesian made the following comment: The interests of other nations [than Great Britain] are largely at stake in this question, and it is certainly their best policy that an independent, neutral government, with free ports and trade, should be preserved here; for should any civilized nation 1

Chapter 8. " H a n s a r d , Vol. 53 (Mar.-May, 1840), Commons, March 27, 1840; Article in New York Mercury quoted in Polynesian, Dec. 5, 1840; Alexander Simpson, The Sandwich Islands: Progress of events since their discovery by Captain Cook. Their occupation by Lord George Paulet. Their Value and Importance (London, 1843), 35, 49, 52.

185

186

HAWAIIAN

KINGDOM,

1778-1854

take possession of these islands, the balance of power in the Pacific will be destroyed. T h e greatest safeguard for the liberties of this people, is the mutual jealousy of the greater nations. If England considers them still under her guardianship, she must now openly and plainly state the fact. . . . If otherwise, Kauikeaouli will do well at once to secure the friendship and assistance of all the great powers in aiding him to firmly establish his government, by well regulated treaties, a free commerce, a constitution and a code of laws suitable to all contingencies, and a formal acknowledgement of his independence. 3 POLICY OF GREAT

BRITAIN

I n 1841 the h e a d s h i p of the B r i t i s h f o r e i g n office p a s s e d f r o m P a l m e r s t o n to the E a r l of A b e r d e e n . It w a s a h a p p y c i r c u m s t a n c e f o r the H a w a i i a n people that the question of H a w a i i a n independence c a m e f o r w a r d prominently d u r i n g the time of A b e r d e e n ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of B r i t a i n ' s f o r e i g n r e l a t i o n s . T h i s s t a t e s m a n is d e s c r i b e d b y t h e h i s t o r i a n of the B r i t i s h f o r e i g n office a s a " p r o f o u n d l y g o o d m a n " w h o h a d " a character perfectly disinterested and a disposition perfectly pacific" a n d w h o " b e l i e v e d in l e t t i n g o t h e r n a t i o n s a l o n e t o t h e u t m o s t o f h i s ability."4 I n 1 8 4 2 , a s a r e s u l t of v a r i o u s i n c i d e n t s w h i c h d o not n e e d t o b e related a t this point, A b e r d e e n d e t e r m i n e d u p o n a policy to be f o l l o w e d in all d e a l i n g s w i t h t h e r u l e r s o f t h e H a w a i i a n a n d o t h e r i s l a n d s in t h e P a c i f i c O c e a n , w h i c h is c l e a r l y s t a t e d in a l e t t e r f r o m t h e f o r e i g n o f f i c e to the a d m i r a l t y : Considering the increasing importance to Great Britain of many of the islands in the Pacific, and especially of the Sandwich and Society Islands, both in a naval and commercial point of view, L o r d Aberdeen is desirous of impressing on the L o r d s Commissioners of the Admiralty, the expediency of a more frequent intercourse between Great Britain and those Islands, by the visits of ships of war, than has hitherto been maintained. . . . I am directed further to suggest, that the Admiral or officer in command on the Pacific station, should be instructed to direct all commanders of H e r Majesty's Ships of W a r who might be ordered to visit those islands, to treat their rulers with great forbearance and courtesy, and, at the same time, that those officers afford efficient protection to aggrieved British subjects, not to interfere harshly or unnecessarily with the laws and customs of the respective Governments. T h e object of H e r Majesty's Government in increasing their connexion with the Chiefs of those islands, ought, in the opinion of Lord Aberdeen, to be rather to strengthen those authorities and to give them a sense of their own independence, by leaving the administration of justice in their own hands, than to make them feel their dependence on Foreign Powers, by interfering unnecessarily in every matter in which a foreign subject is concerned, . . . This general forbearance would not, however, preclude British officers from making firm and energetic efforts to obtain redress in cases of real grievance. I am further to observe that Lord Aberdeen does not think it advantageous or politic, to seek to establish a paramount influence for Great Britain in those Islands, at the expense of that enjoyed by other Powers. All that appears to his Lordship to be required, is, that no other Power should exercise a greater degree of influence than that possessed by Great Britain. 6 3

Polynesian, Dec. 26, 1840. 4 A. Cecil, " T h e Foreign Office," in 1783-1919, edited by A. W. Ward and G. 6 Canning to Barrow, Oct. 4, 1842, Historical Commission of the Territory of

The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, P. Gooch (3 vols. Cambridge, 1922-1923), I I I , S63. B P R O , F.O. 58/13, and printed in Report of the Hawaii . . . December 31, 1924, pp. 34-36.

RECOGNITION O F INDEPENDENCE

187

In 1840, however, the direction which British policy might take could not be predicted with certainty, and the action of the British government in annexing New Zealand in that year could easily be made to appear like a portent of what was in store for Hawaii. In August, 1840, William Richards wrote that it was "every month more and more apparent that the foreign relations of this [Hawaiian] government must soon be placed on a more substantial basis, or the nation as such must soon cease to exist." 6 When Richards made this statement, he was not thinking of New Zealand, but of the internal difficulties of the Hawaiian government created by the presence of foreigners within the country. At about the same time, Rev. Richard Armstrong, looking at the economic condition and prospects of the native Hawaiians, remarked that "even their existence as a nation is altogether problematical. The opinion is becoming more and more common that the nation will not exist many years longer.'"7 Even if we conclude that Hawaii was independent at this time, we cannot fail to see that its independence was of the indefinite and uncertain kind possessed by backward peoples not yet admitted into the family of nations. It was necessary, for the future security of the kingdom, to have its independence placed upon the solid basis of a formal recognition by the great powers. That important object was achieved during the years 1842-1844. MISSION OF THOMAS J. FARNHAM

The movement to obtain a formal recognition of the independence of the Hawaiian kingdom was inaugurated in 1840 and grew out of the visit of a well known American traveler, Thomas J. Famham, 8 to Hawaii. Farnham spent about three months in the islands (December 1839-March 1840) and gained entry into the society and to some extent into the confidence of the king and chiefs and their adviser William Richards. 83 During the course of his visit, a scheme was projected having for one of its objects the introduction of foreign capital to develop the natural resources of the islands. A local resident named Milo Calkin, in conjunction with Farnham, proposed to obtain from the king a lease of a large tract of land and to interest "capitalists in the United States to invest their funds in getting up a joint-stock company for the cultivation of those lands, and for carrying on agricultural pursuits. There were to be a mill and a school upon the land for the • Richards to B. F. Butler, Aug. 3, 1840, A H . 7 M H , X X V I I (1841), 266-267. 8 F a r n h a m was the author of Travels in the Great Western Prairies . . . and in the Oregon Territory (Poughkeepsie, 1841), and Travels in the Californias, and Scenes in the Pacific Ocean (New York, 1844). I n the latter work he describes his visit to Hawaii (misdating it by one year), but says nothing of the matters here r e f e r r e d to. H e was one of the Peoria party of immigrants to Oregon in 1839. H . H . Bancroft, History of Oregon, I, 227-236. M F a r n h a m arrived f r o m the Columbia River on the barque Vancouver, Dec. 16, 1839 Reynolds, Journal, that date. On March 15, 1840, Reynolds mentions news received f r o m U : •• L ''Lawyer F a r n h a m was living with the King—very thick with R i c h a r d s . " F a r n h a m sailed f r o m Honolulu for the coast on the Don Quixote, March 24, 1840.

188

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

improvement of the natives." While the project was being discussed the question arose in the minds of Farnham and Calkin whether such an object could be sustained under the delicate state of the Government. Capt. La Place's operations having just taken place, it was suggested by Mr. Brinsmade that it would be necessary, in order to carry out our objects on a large scale, to have the independence of the islands guaranteed by the powers: that is to say, by England, France and the United States. That there must be security for foreign "capitalists before they would invest their capital in this country*

In this view of the matter it was proposed that Farnham should take with him not only a power of attorney to dispose of the lease but also a commission from the king to try to have the independence of the islands recognized. Eventually Calkin abandoned the attempt to get a lease of land, in deference to plans which were being matured by the firm of Ladd and Company, but the other half of the program was carried out and Farnham was formally commissioned as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from the king of the Sandwich Islands to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, and France, with full power to form treaties of peace, amity, and commerce with those governments. As stated in the instructions given to Farnham, the objects aimed at were to secure from the three powers mentioned an acknowledgment and guarantee of the independence of Hawaii and the perpetuity of the reigning dynasty, and the annulment of existing treaties which were objectionable to the Hawaiian government; and he was also to "endeavor by treaty to lay a plan for the settlement of all difficulties between this and foreign nations, and the plan we propose is, that in case of difficulty between this and a foreign nation, then the disinterested nations in the compact shall decide the disputed point, by such agents as they shall appoint." The Hawaiian authorities evidently did not have entire confidence in their envoy, for they resorted to the curious expedient of sending his commissions and instructions to B. F. Butler 10 of New York, who was requested to act as intermediary between them and Farnham, and to deliver the documents to Farnham only after he had satisfied himself as to the character and ability of that gentleman. Power to draw upon the Hawaiian government for Farnham's salary was also placed in Butler's hands. In this roundabout way Farnham received his commissions, and ultimately was paid $1,800 for his services as envoy, though there is no very satisfactory evidence that he ever performed any services to entitle him to that compensation. It is certain that he accomplished nothing. 11 •Testimony of Calkin in Ladd & Co. Arbitration, 184-185. This is the same Butler who is mentioned in Chapter 10. This account of Farnham's mission is based upon Ladd & Co. Arbitration. 88-89, 114, 117, 118, 139, 183-187, 193 (testimony of Richards and Calkin); documents relating to the mission in AH, including copies of the commissions and instructions to Farnham, dated March 17, 1840, copies of letters to Butler, original letters from Farnham,. dated Tune 17, 1841, and Nov. 25, 1843, and from Butler, dated July 15, 1844; Rep. of Min. of For. Ret., 1855, Appendix, pp. 3, 90. Farnham blamed Butler for the failure ox his mission. 10

11

RECOGNITION O F INDEPENDENCE

189

M I S S I O N O F P E T E R A. B R I N S M A D E

The next step in the movement for recognition of independence grew out of the operations of the American firm of Ladd and Company. This firm, in business in Hawaii since 1833, had acquired a valuable property including a mercantile establishment at Honolulu and the sugar plantation on Kauai referred to in the preceding chapter, and also had an interest in enterprises for the production of silk and kukui oil and castor oil; and it had, as an intangible but very important asset, the confidence and good will of the king and chiefs. Their agricultural operations had a tendency to break down the inherited prejudices of the rulers and caused the latter to take a more favorable view of the idea of systematic development of the resources of the country, provided these operations could be directed by men of high principles and friendly intentions toward the Hawaiian people. Ladd and Company being somewhat hampered by a lack of sufficient capital to carry on their enterprises on a scale commensurate with their ambitions, the members of the firm, about 1840, contemplated selling all their properties and privileges to some person or company having the necessary resources. When this fact became known to Richards and, through him, to the king and kuhina-nui, efforts were made to persuade Ladd and his associates to alter their plans. It was suggested that by giving them still greater privileges, they might be induced to retain a directing interest in the business. The outcome of the discussion was a contract (kept secret for the time being), dated November 24, 1841, by which King Kamehameha I I I agreed to grant to Ladd and Company the full right and privilege of occupying for the purpose of manufacturing agricultural productions, any now unoccupied and unimproved localities on the several islands of the Sandwich Islands, suitable for the manufacture of sugar, indigo, flour, raw silk, Kukui oil, or any other production of the country, by water power, steam power, or animal power, upon which they shall commence operations within five years [subsequently extended to ten years] from the date hereof, and that each such locality shall include a quantity of land not exceeding fifteen acres, and all the natural advantages of water, building materials, and all other conveniences thereunto naturally pertaining.

Although the amount of unoccupied land of suitable character was limited in extent, it was supposed that Ladd and Company would receive under this grant one or two mill sites on each island of the group. The king further agreed to lease to them lands for cultivation in the convenient vicinity of each mill site, to the amount of two hundred acres adjoining each site. For the land and the mill sites the company was to pay a small annual rental. The king agreed to cause to be cultivated fifty acres of sugar cane in the vicinity of each sugar mill erected by the company. The company agreed to stimulate and encourage in habits of industry, in all suitable ways, the native landholders dwelling in the districts in which their operations may be prosecuted, and to manufacture or purchase on fair and equitable terms the produce that may be

190

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

developed by their industry, and to use their conscientious and steady endeavors to render the Sandwich Islanders an industrious, intelligent, civilized and independent nation.

It was further agreed that the capital to be employed in the operations contemplated in the agreement, should be a joint stock capital, to which the king should be permitted to subscribe to any amount that he might wish; and that the capital stock should also "be open to subscription to American, English and French capitalists, and generally, without reference to national distinctions." The agreement was to run for one hundred years, and the mill sites were to be selected within one year, subsequently extended to four years, from its date. When the contract of November 24, 1841, was being negotiated, the uncertain state of the government came up as an objection and it was thought that before the company could carry out its plan the recognition of independence was necessary. The plans of the company thus became a weapon in the hands of the government. By a supplemental writing of the same date, Ladd and Company agreed that the contract should be "null and void unless the Governments of Great Britain, France and the United States shall, either by conventional agreement, or by some formal act of each, acknowledge the sovereignty of the Sandwich Islands Government, and accord to it all the rights, powers and privileges and immunities of an independent state;" and Brinsmade, who was to be the promoter of the new enterprise, gave a parol promise that he would use his best endeavors in the cause of recognition. Brinsmade was offered a commission as a diplomatic agent similar to the one given to Farnham, but he declined to accept it. Instead, he was made the bearer of letters (which he himself drafted) from King Kamehameha I I I to the president of the United States, the queen of Great Britain, and the king of France. 12 In these letters the Hawaiian king presented to the three rulers named the following propositions: That the three powers enter into a convention acknowledging and guaranteeing the independence of the Hawaiian kingdom; that they allow to Hawaii all the rights, privileges, and immunities of a free and independent state; that they agree to the following mode of settling disputes, that is to say, "should any misunderstanding unhappily arise, ^ T h e principal source of information for the affairs of Ladd & Co. is the Ladd & Co. Arbitration, heretofore cited, a volume of nearly 700 pages. For the origin of the contract of Nov. 24, 1841, see especially the testimony of W m . Richards and Milo Calkin. T h e contract and supplemental agreement are in the Appendix, pp. 30-32. Other references will be cited later, in connection with the history of the company and of the "Belgian contract." T h e intimate connection between the contract of Nov. 24, 1841, and the movement for recognition of independence is f u r t h e r shown in a letter written by Dr. G. P. Judd some twenty years later: "Serious dangers t h r e a t e n [ e d ] the Islands f r o m without. The independence of the Islands was likely to be lost in like manner with Tahiti and New Zealand, or if [ n o t ] seized upon by any foreign power, the tendency of things was towards a separate government for the whites Let me explain f u r t h e r . Mr. Richards, then the only foreigner in the service of the Government, sought to defend the Islands from all foreign powers, by leasing to Ladd all the unoccupied lands on the Islands. It was supposed that under this lease pious Americans with their families would be induced to settle here, occupy the lands, pl?nt coffee, sugar-cane, etc., and whije opening the resources of the country, would, partly because of their American citizenship and partly on account of their having a right to the land, present a sufficient obstacle to the designs of French and English Agents upon the Islands.'' Judd to Rev R Anderson, May, 1861, in Letters of Dr. Cerrit P. Judd, 1827-1872 ( F r a g m e n t s I I ) 209

RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE

191

between the Hawaiian Government and the Government of the United States . . . or any of its citizens, then the British and French Ministers resident at Washington shall constitute a reference to decide all questions of dispute, and their decision shall be final," and similarly, mutatis mutandis, for the other two nations; finally, "that all articles of agreement or promises made by his Hawaiian Majesty to any commanders or officers of ships of war shall be considered as null and void, while he at the same time, pledges to the citizens of every nation resident in his kingdom, all the protection, rights, privileges and immunities which the citizens of one nation have a right to expect from the Government of another, at peace with their own." 1 3 Brinsmade proceeded to the United States and Europe with the object of selling the properties and interests of his firm, arriving in Washington in the latter part of March, 1842. At that place he had some business to attend to, growing out of his duties as United States agent for commerce and seamen in the Hawaiian islands; and took advantage of this opportunity to deliver to Secretary of State Daniel Webster the letter intended for the president. Writing to his partners in Honolulu, Brinsmade stated that "the proposal of the Hawaiian government for a recognition of their independence and neutrality was favourably entertained by the Executive and I had a long correspondence with Mr. Webster on the subject." 1 4 A s Brinsmade had no powers, he could do nothing beyond delivering the letter and urging its favorable consideration. H e went on to New York and Boston and, seeing no prospect of accomplishing his purpose in the United States, sailed to Europe in quest of capitalists willing to invest in a South Sea speculation. MISSION OF RICHARDS, HAALILIO, AND SIR GEORGE SIMPSON In the meantime the movement to obtain the recognition of Hawaii's independence had entered upon a new and much more promising phase. Sir George Simpson, governor in North America of the Hudson's Bay u S u m m a r i z e d f r o m the original letter to P r e s . T y l e r , Nov. 24, 1841, U S D S , Notes [ f r o m H a w a i i a n L e g a t i o n ] , Vol. 1. T h e original letter to the K i n g of F r a n c e is in A M A E ( P a r i s ) , l i e s S a n d w i c h , Vol. I bis, f. 2 4 2 ; it w a s enclosed in a letter f r o m B r i n s m a d e to Guizot, A u g . 1, 1842, ibid., ff. 235-241. T h e letter for Q u e e n Victoria w a s sent to the British foreign office by B r i n s m a d e , but was not presented to the queen, due to a f a i l u r e to comply with certain f o r m s required by the British government. H . S e a to K a m e h a m e h a I I I , A u g . 25, 1843, A H , F . O . & E x . A copy of the letter to Q u e e n V i c t o r i a is in A H , but copies of the other letters have not been f o u n d there. 14 B r i n s m a d e to L a d d & Co., New Y o r k , Apr. 28, 1842, original letter in possession of U n i v e r s i t y of H a w a i i . B r i n s m a d e ' s " l o n g c o r r e s p o n d e n c e " s e e m s to have consisted of his letter to W e b s t e r , dated W a s h i n g t o n , April 8, 1842, U S D S , C o n s u l a r L e t t e r s , H o n o l u l u , Vol. I. T h i s is a long communication in which he r e f e r s to the reasons which moved the king of H a w a i i to take the present step, and in which he points out the importance of the islands with special reference to recent and impending developments in the Pacific Ocean and on the western coast of North America. H e n r y A . Peirce, an A m e r i c a n merchant who had resided m a n y y e a r s in H a w a i i , visited W a s h i n g t o n about the same time or a little later than B r i n s m a d e a n d talked with S e c r e t a r y W e b s t e r about conditions in the Pacific and about the importance of the H a w a i i a n I s l a n d s and C a l i f o r n i a . J o s e p h i n e S u l l i v a n , A History of C. Brewer & Company Limited: One Hundred Years m the Pacific, 1826-1926 ( B o s t o n , 1926), 70-71.

192

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

Company, visited Hawaii in February and March, 1842. Sir George evinced a very friendly interest in the government and people of these islands and was made acquainted with the steps already taken to secure the independence of the group. He expressed the opinion that those measures would not succeed and recommended that a commissioner be sent from the islands on this special business and with authority to negotiate treaties with Great Britain, France, and the United States. After the proposition had been thoroughly discussed, it was decided that William Richards should go on this mission, and Sir George agreed to act with him as a representative of the king of Hawaii. 16 As finally made up, the embassy consisted of three persons, Sir George Simpson, William Richards, and Timothy Haalilio, the latter being a young native chief of much promise, private secretary to Kamehameha III and a member of the Hawaiian treasury board. It was arranged that Sir George should meet the other two in London about the end of 1842 or beginning of 1843; Richards and Haalilio were to visit Washington on their way to Europe. The envoys were instructed to accomplish, if possible, the objects set forth in the king's letter of November 24, 1841, to the sovereigns of Great Britain, France, and the United States. "The grand ultimate object which you are to have in view is to secure the acknowledgment by those governments of the independence of this nation." They were to endeavor to negotiate formal treaties to replace the conventions which had been exacted of the king by various naval officers, and to have acceptable persons appointed to represent the great powers in Hawaii. 18 Richards and Haalilio sailed from Lahaina, July 18, 1842, and arrived in Washington on the fifth of December. 17 Richards was not an entire stranger in that city, and had some friends there on whom he could rely for advice and for introduction to officials. The Hawaiian envoys were introduced to various senators and representatives, and through Representative Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts obtained their first interview with Secretary of State Webster on December 7. In his journal, Richards says of this interview: "We introduced our subject, and he appeared to know little about the isjands or Mr. Brinsmade but said he would have the correspondence looked up and would allow me to " Ladd & Co. Arbitration, 75-76; Sir Geo. Simpson to Sir J . H. Pelly, March 24, 1842, in American Historical Review, X I V , 93 (Oct. 1908); Sir. Geo. Simpson, Narrative of a Journey Round the World, during the years 1841 and 1841 (2 vols. London, 1847), II, 171172. Sir George was not at this time informed of the L a d d & Co. contract of Nov. 24, 1841. 16 Kamehameha I I I to Sir. Geo. Simpson and Rev. Wm. Richards, April 8, 1842, A H , F.O. & Ex., and printed in Ladd & Co. Arbitration, Appendix, pp. 41-42; Private instructions to Richards, July 9, 1842, A H , F.O. & Ex. Copies of the commissions of the envoys have not been found in AH, but there is a duplicate original of the letter of credence to Queen Victoria for Simpson and Richards and a draft of the letter of credence to King L o u i s Philippe for Richards and Haalilio, the original being in A M A E ( P a r i s ) , vol. cited, ff. 229, 230; a letter of credence to Queen Victoria for all three is printed in Ladd & Co. Arbitration, Appendix, p. 52. 17 Richards, Journal, dates mentioned. The manuscript journals of William Richards' covering the entire period of his foreign embassy (1842-1845) are in A H .

RECOGNITION O F I N D E P E N D E N C E

193

see the whole directing us to call again in two days."18 On the ninth, Richards called again to see Secretary Webster, who "was busy and sent his apology," but in the evening of that day he had a "pleasant visit and free talk" with the secretary. "He thought it best for us to write him officially and he would reply." Accordingly, Richards very carefully drafted a letter in which he reviewed the progress made by the Hawaiian people, the influence of American citizens in promoting that progress, the importance of the islands from a commercial point of view, the extent of American interests centering there, and the desire of the king to have his independent sovereignty recognized by the great powers and some plan adopted for the amicable settlement of disputes arising between his government and foreigners. 19 After delivering this letter at the state department on the morning of December 15, Richards waited eight days for a reply, employing part of that time in "preparing a treaty in case Mr. Webster should see fit to make one." Then on December 23, Called on Mr. Webster again, evidently had not read our letter—ordered Mr. Hunter to prepare a reply—promised that it should be ready by the middle of next week—said he would give me a letter to Mr. Everett [in London] but declined giving me one to France, to Mr. Ledyard, as he said " W e have no minister there"—Said nothing about introducing us to the President as he had formerly promised to do— no papers ready to shew—evidently giving us the go by—When I spoke of seeing the President, "O you have not seen him yet,—call on your friend Mr. Williams he will introduce you." I called on Mr. Williams and consulted—declined going with him to President, after Mr. Websters promise—told him my plan of putting Islands under British protection if we could not get independence—Evening called on Gen Cass—pleasantly received, and promised to give us a letter to Mr. Ledyard. Sat. 24th Dec. Conversed with Mr. Brown, 30 & Waldron who are to dine with Mr. Webster today. Let them know my views . . . Monday 26. Saw Mr. Williams, Waldron, Brown and others. They had considerable talk with Mr. Webster at dinner and also with Fletcher. 21 They are trying to influence the father through him. The fact is that the great Daniel is looking for popularity, and he will not do, nor fail to do anything which can affect that without considerable reflection.—Persons of influence with whom we have conversed on Sandwich Islands affairs: [List of 8 Senators and 13 members of the House]. Tuesday 27th Dec. Called at the Library and while there Mr. Cushing came into the Secretary's room and as he went out Haalilio and I were invited in. Mr. W . inquired if we should like to call on the Pres—I answered "yes"—he then called Fletcher and he went with us. It was the day for the Cabinet meeting—We waited in the Antiroom until the cabinet had assembled and were then invited in—All 1S W h e n Richards was giving his testimony in the arbitration between Ladd & Co. and the Hawaiian government (Aug. 1846), Brinsmade asked him if Webster had alluded to his (Brinsmade's) being in Europe. Richards replied, " H e did not. I called his attention to the fact of your having been in Washington, and could not learn any thing f r o m him as to what you had done. He promised to look in the archives for that purpose. I called, but the examination had not been made. Mr. Webster was ignorant, or appeared to be ignorant, of Sandwich Islands affairs. W h e n I mentioned your name, he recollected having seen you." Ladd & Co. Arbitration, 78 The small impression that Brinsmade's visit made on the mind of the secret a r y of state may be partially accounted for by the fact t h a t the visit occurred just on the eve of Webster's memorable negotiations with Lord Ashburton.

" Haalilio and Richards to Webster, Dec. 14, 1842, in Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong.. 2 sess No. 77, pp. 37-40. 20 Probably George Brown, who was subsequently appointed first U . S . commissioner to Hawaii. H e was in Washington at this time. 21 Fletcher Webster, son of the secretary of state; he a f t e r w a r d s served as secretary of the American mission to China headed by Caleb Cushing.

194

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

pleasant—free and full—In reply to some of the President's close questions I hinted my plan in case Independence was not acknowledged—he understood it and was quite engaged. Inquired where I was from and as I was leaving said that, "yankees are shrewd negociators—and so forth In three hours—two notes from Mr. Webster—requesting us to call on him in evening, which we did. Long talk in presence of Mr. Cushing— Wednesday 28th. Called again on the Sec. took our letter back and corrected it a little. Thursday 29. Carried the corrected copy—and heard and criticised Mr. Websters reply. In relation to treaty he said it was a solemn thing—it was not best to do too much at once—if necessary it could be done afterwards, and suppose difficulties arise what then—you must send agents here as you have done now. Will they be received, "Of course. W e have received you before any acknowledgement of independence." Friday 30th Dec. Have received Mr. Websters reply—which see. Not quite what I want but others think it is well.

These extracts from Richards' journal are given to illustrate the process by which the Hawaiian envoys got from Secretary of State Webster the document that is commonly cited as the first formal recognition of the independence of the Hawaiian kingdom. Aside from the indication they give of Webster's initial lack of interest in Hawaii, the most significant thing in them is the revelation of Richards' purpose to place the islands under the protection of Great Britain in case he found it impossible to obtain the recognition of their independence, and the evident effect of that revelation upon the American officials. R E C O G N I T I O N BY U N I T E D

STATES

Webster's reply, after referring briefly to the importance of the Hawaiian islands to navigation and the hospitality of their inhabitants to citizens of the United States, goes on to say: T h e United States have regarded the existing authorities in the Sandwich Islands as a Government suited to the condition of the people, and resting on their own choice; and the President is of opinion that the interests of all the commercial nations require that this Government should not be interfered with by foreign powers. Of the vessels which visit the islands, it is known that a great majority belong to the United States. T h e United States, therefore, are more interested in the fate of the islands, and of their Government, than any other nation can b e ; and this consideration induces the President to be quite willing to declare, as the sense of the Government of the United States, that the Government of the Sandwich Islands ought to be respected; that no power ought either to take possession of the islands as a conquest, or for the purpose of colonization, and that no power ought to seek for any undue control over the existing Government, or any exclusive privileges or preferences in matters of commerce. Entertaining these sentiments, the President does not see any present necessity for the negotiation of a formal treaty, or for the appointment or reception of diplomatic characters. A consul or agent from this Government will continue to reside in the islands. 22 23 Webster to Haalilio and Richards. Dec. 19, 1842, original in ATI, F.O. & Ex., printed in Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess.. No. 77, pp. 40-41. Although both thfc original and the printed copy bear the date Dec. 19, it would seem, from the entries in Richards' Journal, that it should be Dec. 29.

RECOGNITION O F INDEPENDENCE

195

President Tyler transmitted to Congress the correspondence between the secretary of state and the Hawaiian envoys with a message in which, after speaking of the condition and importance of the Hawaiian islands, the state of their government, and the extent of American interests centering there, the president said: Considering, therefore, that the United States possesses so very large a share of the intercourse with those islands, it is deemed not unfit to make the declaration that their Government seeks nevertheless no peculiar advantages, no exclusive control over the Hawaiian Government, but is content with its independent existence, and anxiously wishes for its security and prosperity. Its forbearance in this respect, under the circumstances of the very large intercourse of their citizens with the islands, would justify the Government, should events hereafter arise, to require it, in making a decided remonstrance against the adoption of an opposite policy by any other power. 23

The president recommended an appropriation for a salaried consul to reside at the islands. In the president's message the statement on Hawaiian affairs was coupled with a discussion of recent happenings in China, the two things being parts of the same problem, that of American interests in the Pacific region. The portion of the message dealing with China took its cue from the recent receipt in Washington of the news of the signing (August 29, 1842) of the treaty of Nanking, terminating the war between Great Britain and China, by which several Chinese ports were opened to British traders. It was uncertain whether a similar privilege would be accorded to traders of other nations; American interests were important and growing; the president therefore recommended to Congress "to make appropriation for the compensation of a commissioner to reside in China." When the president's message was read in the House of Representatives, December 31, 1842, Representative Caleb Cushing pointed out the essential connection between the unsettled Oregon question, the independence of Hawaii, and the opening of China to the traders of the United States. The message was referred to the committee on foreign affairs, which on January 24, 1843, through its chairman, John Quincy Adams, reported for consideration two bills to enable the president to carry into effect the purposes set forth in the message. The report of the committee speaks, in words often quoted, of the beneficent labors of the American missionaries in Hawaii, by which the people of this group of islands have been converted from the lowest debasement of idolatry to the blessings of the Christian Gospel; united under one balanced government; rallied to the fold of civilization by a written language and constitution, providing security for the rights of persons, property, and mind, and invested with all the elements of right and power which can entitle them to be acknowledged by their brethren of the human race as a separate and independent community. 21 Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess., No. 77, pp. 35-37. T h e message was written by WebJ . B . Moore, Digest of International La-di, V , 416. House Reports 27 Cong., 3 sess., No. 93. T h e report is printed in Bingham, Residence, 588-589. 23

ster.

H

196

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

The action of Congress provided an appropriation of three thousand dollars for compensation to a commissioner (i.e. a diplomatic agent) to the Sandwich Islands, 25 going, in this respect, a step beyond the recommendation of the president. With little delay the president appointed George Brown to the office of "Commissioner of the United States for the Sandwich Islands." NEGOTIATIONS IN LONDON A N D PARIS

Richards and Haalilio sailed from the United States for England in the early part of February, 1843, arriving in London on the eighteenth of that month. While in Washington, Richards had satisfied himself that the triple guarantee of the independence of Hawaii by the great powers could not be obtained,26 and he had been advised by Brinsmade, who was in Europe, that he would find "a reluctance on the part of both England and France to any treaty that would expose either power to a liability to war", and that his policy ought to be "to negotiate for a mutual pledge to respect rather than to guarantee the independence and neutrality of the Hawaiian Government." 27 Before the two envoys reached London, Richard Charlton, British consul for the Hawaiian islands, had arrived in that city and delivered to the foreign office a sheaf of complaints and charges against the Hawaiian government to enlarge and supplement others which he had previously transmitted by mail. The British foreign minister, the Earl of Aberdeen, had also been apprised of the action of the United States government. H. S. Fox, British minister at Washington, had sent to him copies of the president's message of December 30, 1842, the report of the committee of foreign affairs of the House of Representatives, and Webster's correspondence with Richards and Haalilio. In commenting on these documents, Fox stated that the language of the Message, and of the Report of the Committee, is chiefly declaratory of the opinion of the American Government that those Islands ought not to be allowed to fall under the dominion of any Foreign Power. It is probable that this declaratory movement has been prompted by the colonization of New Zealand by Great Britain, and by the reported recent occupation of the Marquesas, and other Islands in the Pacific, by a Naval Force from France. A similar declaration has been repeated by Mr. Webster in an official communication addressed by him to certain agents from the Sandwich Islands who have recently visited Washington. But in the same correspondence Mr. Webster signifies to those Agents, that the President declines for the present to conclude any formal political or commercial treaty with their Sovereign."

Sir George Simpson was already in London and had secured for the Hawaiian government the powerful influence of the Hudson's Bay Company. On February 22 the three envoys, accompanied by Sir John 96 5 U.S. Statutes at Large, 643 (appropriation act approved March 3, 1843). » Laid & Co. Arbitration, 135. " Brinsmade to Richards, Bruxelles, Dec. 31, 1842, ibid.. Appendix, p. 58. • Fox to Aberdeen (No. 8), Washington, Jan. 27, 1843, BPRO, F. O. 5/391.

RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE

197

H. Pelly, governor of that company, had their first interview with the Earl of Aberdeen. The interview was rather disheartening to the Hawaiian representatives, for reasons clearly set forth in a letter which they wrote shortly afterwards to Secretary of State Webster: His Lordship questioned us as to what had been done and said by the government of the U.S.A. on the subject, and we answered his inquiries ireely. In the same open manner we deem it proper to communicate to the government of the U.S.A. the views of Lord Aberdeen on the subject. His Lordship remarked that the letter which we had the honor to receive from you, did not acknowledge the independence of the islands, but virtually denied it, inasmuch as it contained a refusal to enter into treaty. He moreover implied a suspicion that the government of the U.S.A. was endeavoring, while it could not hold colonies in form, to do so in fact, by exerting an influence over the Sandwich Islands' government in favor of American interests to the injury of British. This suspicion he grounded on certain complaints made against the government of the Sandwich Islands by the British Consul—that the government is actually partial to Americans. His Lordship expressed an opinion that the British government would not concede the independence of the Islands; and one reason which he mentioned why it would not do it, was the fact that the Americans, (who have much greater interests at the Islands than the British) have not done it. As we have thought it possible that a knowledge of these facts would induce the [United States] government to make some communication to its minister, Mr. Everett, on the subject, we deemed it expedient and proper to communicate them."

Webster did write to Everett on the subject and after saying that the sole object of the course adopted by the United States government was to preserve the independence of the Sandwich Islands and that the United States desired "to exercise no undue influence or control over the government of the islands, nor to obtain from it any grant of exclusive privileges whatever," added: "The President would exceedingly regret that suspicion of a sinister purpose of any kind on the part of the United States should prevent England and France from adopting the same pacific, just, and conservative course towards the government and people of this remote but interesting group of islands."30 This letter added nothing to Webster's previous declaration, and before it could have been received by Everett the British government had decided to recognize the independence of Hawaii. To properly understand that decision, we must go back and trace the activities of the Hawaiian envoys. After their first unsatisfactory interview with the Earl of Aberdeen, they endeavored, with some success, to create a sentiment favorable to their cause among such persons of distinction and influence as they could » Haalilio and Richards to Webster, London, March 3, 1843, AH, P. O. & Ex.; printed in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1855, Appendix, p. 16. The interview with the Earl of Aberdeen is more fully reported in Simpson and Richards to Kamehameha I I I , London, April 1, 1843, in History of the Hawaiian Foreign Embassy, during the years 1842, 1843, and 1844 . . . and also copies of Public Documents relating to the subjects of the Embassy. This history is a two volume manuscript in AH. « W e b s t e r to Everett (No. 34), March 23, 1843, in Sen. Ex. Does., 52 Cong., 2 «ess., No. 57, p. 4.

198

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

reach in London. 31 On March 6 they addressed a formal letter to the foreign minister explaining their mission and the grounds on which they sought the recognition of the British government.32 Going over to the continent, they visited Belgium on business connected with Brinsmade's project, had an interview with King Leopold, who expressed great interest and sympathy and promised to use his influence in support of their cause, and then went to Paris. On March 17 they called on the foreign minister, M. Guizot, who received them very cordially and without hesitation intimated that France would grant the desired recognition.33 With this verbal assurance from the French government, the Hawaiian envoys returned to London and reported to the British foreign office the result of their visit to Paris. 34 On March 25 Simpson and Richards called by invitation on the Earl of Aberdeen. The interview was on the whole quite satisfactory. His Lordship inquired very particularly respecting our visit at Paris, and the manner in which Mr. Guizot gave his pledge. He also inquired very particularly into the character of the American missionaries at the Islands, and the nature of the American influence. He also inquired particularly respecting Mr. Richards' connection with the Government and also respecting the course pursued by him.

On all of these points Sir George furnished satisfactory explanations, and Aberdeen gave the full assurance that the independence of the islands would be recognized.35 This promise was redeemed by an official letter dated April 1, 1843, in which Aberdeen said that "Her Majesty's Government are willing and have determined, to recognize the independence of the Sandwich Islands under their present sovereign." At the same time he stated that the British government would insist upon 31 This paragraph is based on the letter of Simpson and Richards, April 1, 1843, a n d its enclosures, cited above, note 29. ® Simpson and Richards to Aberdeen, March 6, 1843, B P R O , F.O. 58/18. " I n i letter dated April 3, 1843, Richards says, " T h e news of the taking of Tahiti, reached P a r i s the same day we did, and had a very great tendency to forward our object. Gulick, Pilgrims of Hawaii, 209. This refers to the F r e n c h protectorate established in Tahiti in September, i842, by Admiral Du Petit-Thouars. T w o months previously the same officer had taken possession of the Marquesas Islands, u n d e r instructions f r o m Paris. H i s action in Tahiti had not been authorized, but it was approved and the protectorate accepted by France. Scholefield, The Pacific: Its Past and Future, 17-24; Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, I I , 183-184. On March 20, 1843, Lord Cowley, British ambassador to France, wrote to A b e r d e e n : " I had some conversation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the subject of the proceedings of the French squadron in the Pacific, and particularly with relation to Otaheite. M. Guizot told me that the sovereignty of t h a t island had been tendered by the Queen, to t h e K i n g of the French, and had been accepted, provisionally, by Admiral D u Petit Thouars. H e said, we have nothing to conceal, with respect to our proceedings in the Pacific. W e should gladly avail ourselves of any means of strengthening, or improving our possessions in the Marquesas, but beyond this, we have no views of conquest or appropriation of any kind. W i t h respect to the Sandwich Islands, f o r instance, we are quite ready to acknowledge their independence. This he repeated several times." B P R O , F. O. 2 7 / 6 6 6 ; printed in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, Appendix, p. 113. On March 28. 1843, Edward Everett, U . S . minister to Great Britain, wrote to Sec. of State W e b s t e r : " L o r d Aberdeen told me the other day that he had signified to the F r e n c h Ambassador t h a t England could not agree to any encroachment on the Sandwich Islands, and t h e Count de Ste. Aulaire replied that none was contemplated. L o r d Aberdeen added that this [ B r i t i s h ] Government would distinctly recognize the independence of these islands and presumed F r a n c e would do the same. H e hoped our missionaries would abstain f r o m all attempt to exercise political influence." Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess., No. 57, p. 5. 84 I n a private conversation with H . U . A l d i n g t o n , the u n d e r secretary, and in a formal communication to the foreign mininster. Simpson and Richards to Aberdeen, March 21, 1843, B P R O , F. O. 5 8 / 1 8 ; copy in A H , F.O. & Ex. 95 Aberdeen also promised that the trouble making consul, Richard Charlton, would be removed.

RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE justice being done to British subjects and founded grievances. 86 This decision of entirely consistent with the policy which months earlier, as narrated in the opening

199

upon the redress of any well the British government was had been formulated a few pages of this chapter.37

DIFFICULTIES CAUSED BY PAULET AFFAIR Although the Hawaiian agents had now received written acknowledgments from the United States and Great Britain and a verbal promise from France, the battle was only half won. Sir George Simpson was obliged to return to America. Richards and Haalilio went back to Paris to obtain from Guizot a written acknowledgment in accordance with his verbal promise. Before that could be accomplished,38 news was received in Europe (just at the end of May, 1843) of the provisional cession of the Hawaiian islands to Lord George Paulet, commander of the British frigate Carysfort, representing Queen Victoria, an act commonly referred to as the seizure of the islands by Paulet. 39 From that moment the question of Hawaiian independence became a matter to be settled between the three great maritime powers. The British government promptly informed both the United States and France that Paulet's act was entirely unauthorized and that the government intended to adhere to its decision to recognize the independence of Hawaii. 40 But it was made clear, both to those governments and to Richards and Haalilio, that the British government intended, before restoring the Hawaiian flag, to require a settlement of all the questions at issue between British subjects and the Hawaiian government. The intelligence of the provisional occupation of the Hawaiian islands by Lord George Paulet was received in the United States about the first of June, 1843, and occasioned a great deal of excitement. H. S. Fox, the British minister in Washington, referred to this in one of his dispatches M 87

Aberdeen to Simpson and Richards, April 1, 1843, A H , F.O. & Ex. I t is, perhaps, not without significance in this connection that a close personal friendship existed between Aberdeen and Guizot, a friendship which is said to have been " o n e of the chief props of the Franco-British understanding'* at this period. Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, I I I , 569. ®f Guizot was very slow in this business, in spite of the promptness with which he made his original promise. Before the middle of April, however, the French government had definitely informed the British government of its intention to recognize the independence of Hawaii. O n April 10, 1843, Lord Cowley, British ambassador to France, reported to Aberdeen, in a "secret arid confidential" dispatch, a conversation which he had had with the king of France, in which the king said, " W e have no projects with respect to those [ S a n d w i c h ] Islands, and are quite ready to acknowledge their independence." F o u r days later, Cowley reported (in his No. 138) a conversation with Guizot, in which the latter said that the French government had come to the determination to recognize the independence of Hawaii " a n d that he should immediately address a letter to the Commissioners signifying the acquiescence of the Government of France in the request of the King of the Sandwich Islands." Both these dispatches are in B P R O , F. O. 27/666. M An account of this affair will be given in the next chapter. Richards, in Paris, received news of the cession on May 31 (see his j o u r n a l under that date). Everett to Legare (No. 40), J u n e 1, 1843, Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess.. No. 57, pp. 5-6; Same to same (No. 41), J u n e 3, 1843. ibid., 6: Fox to Upshur, J u n e 25, 1843, ibid 8-9Aberdeen to Fox (No. 25), J u n e 3, 1843, B P R O , F. O. 5 / 3 9 0 ; Aberdeen to Cowley (No. 79). J u n e 6, 1843, ibid., F. O. 27/663; Cowley to Aberdeen (No. 228), J u n e 9, 1843, ibid., F. o ! 27/667. An editorial in the London Times, J u n e 15, 1843, contains this statement: " T h e view which has been taken of this treaty of cession in this country is not favourable to its confirmation. Although no blame can be laid on Admiral Poulett [ j i c ] for his share in the transaction, we understand that the Sandwich Islands are not to be annexed to the dominions of the British crown, but to be restored to the independent authority of the native Sovereign."

200

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

to the Earl of Aberdeen, saying that "the American newspapers, with very few exceptions, are filled in relation thereto with vehemently abusive articles against Great Britain." 41 Before the disavowal of the British government was received in Washington, H. S. Legare, who served as secretary of state for a short time following the resignation of Webster, addressed to Everett an instruction which is of considerable importance in the development of American policy respecting Hawaii. After mentioning that it was the general practice of the United States to accept governments de facto as governments de jure and that "we have no wish to plant or to acquire colonies abroad," he went on to say, Yet there is something so entirely peculiar in the relations between this little commonwealth [Hawaii] and ourselves that we might even feel justified, consistently with our own principles, in interfering by force to prevent its falling into the hands of one of the great powers of Europe. These relations spring out of the local situation, the history and the character and institutions of the Hawaiian Islands, as well as out of the declarations formerly made by this Government during the course of the last session of Congress.

He mentioned certain "paramount considerations": the importance of the Hawaiian harbors to American trade with China by way of the isthmus of Panama and to the whale fishery. "It seems doubtful whether even the undisputed possession of the Oregon territory and the use of the Columbia River or indeed anything short of the acquisition of California (if that were possible) would be sufficient indemnity to us for the loss of these harbors." Beyond these considerations, however, the United States was bound to take a special interest in those islands because of the civilization of their inhabitants through the labors of American missionaries, making the islands an asylum for the navigators of all nations "amidst the dangers of that vast ocean." Everett was therefore requested to use his best endeavors "to prevent the consummation of any purpose of conquest that England may possibly have conceived. . . . On the whole, however, the better opinion seems to be that what Lord George Paulet has done will be disavowed."42 The promptness of Great Britain in announcing her determination to respect the independence of Hawaii absolved Everett from the necessity of taking any decided steps in pursuance of this instruction from the secretary of state. But though the instruction was not made public at the time and its import was not communicated to the British government, it stands on the record as part of a developing American policy. In view of the recent activity of the French in the Pacific and of the special interest which the Americans had in the Hawaiian islands, the British government felt it necessary, before restoring the independence of those islands, to guard against the possibility of their falling, at some later time, into the possession of either France or the United States. « F o x to Aberdeen (No. 80), June 13, 1843, BPRO, F. O. 5/392. Cf. Pageot to Guizot (Dir. Pol. No. 19), June 15, 1843, AMAE (Paris), Etats Unis, Vol. XCIX. " L e g a r e to Everett (No. 46), June 13, 1843, Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 KM., NO. 57, pp. 7-8.

RECOGNITION O F I N D E P E N D E N C E

201

Aberdeen therefore wrote to Lord Cowley, the British ambassador in Paris: Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it would be highly desirable, with a view to the promotion of unanimity and a constant good understanding between the three Powers [France, United States, and Great Britain], not only that they should all place themselves upon exactly the same line in this particular, by formally recognizing the independence of the Sandwich Islands, but also that they should mutually pledge themselves not to occupy them on any ground or pretext, either absolutely, or under the title of protectors, but, on the contrary, to leave those islands entirely under their own government, and equally open to all the world.

He added that the British occupation of the islands would cease as soon as British grievances had been settled, "provided the recognition of the independence of the Sandwich Islands shall have been at that time completed by the three great Maritime Powers." 43 Cowley discussed the subject with Guizot, who readily concurred in the desirability of a mutual engagement between the three powers to recognize and respect the independence of the Hawaiian islands and said that he was "quite prepared to enter into such an engagement on the part of the French government," but he stated his opinion that it would be best for the British government first to settle its differences with the Hawaiian government, "after which the proposed arrangement may be entered into by the three Governments, without any danger of a misunderstanding hereafter." 44 Guizot on his part proposed that the three powers should get out of the recognition of independence certain advantages in common for all, by making the act of recognition conditional upon the acceptance by the Hawaiian government of stipulations similar to those in the Laplace treaty, guaranteeing to foreigners liberty of conscience and the privilege of being judged in criminal cases by juries composed exclusively of foreigners. Aberdeen seemed disposed to approve of this proposition.46 The British authorities adopted the plan of procedure suggested by Guizot and therefore confined themselves for the time being to the business of settling, « A b e r d e e n to Cowley, J u l y 21, 1843, B P R O , F.O. 27/663, printed in Report of the Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawaii . . . December 31, 1914, PP- 37-38. Cf. the letter f r o m the foreign office to the admiralty, J u l y 11, 1843, in which appears the statement, " H e r M a j e s t y ' s Government propose, before they release the Chief of the Sandwich Islands f r o m t h e conditions into which he entered with Lord George Paulct, to endeavour to come to an understanding with the French Government, to the effect that both Governments shall engage not t o assume to themselves any separate or special protection over that c o u n t r y ; but that, on the contrary, both Governments shall equally recognize, and at all times treat the K i n g of t h e Sandwich Islands as an independent ruler, and his country as open to all nations alike." B P R O , F.O. 115/82, No. 136, printed in Rep. of Hist. Com. . . . 1914, p. 37. A n editorial in the L o n d o n Times, Aug. 20, 1843, contains t h e following: " B u t before the temporary connexion is dissolved which has placed the sovereignty of the Sandwich Islands in our hands, it obviously becomes the duty of our government to secure by the most positive and formal pledges, both f r o m F r a n c e and f r o m America, t h a t independence which we now propose to restore to the native princes. W e are perfectly well satisfied that the ports of these islands should remain open, as harbors of r e f u g e and supply, to the vessels of all nations, in time of war as well as in peace; and the establishment of this n e u t r a l and independent character is a n object not unworthy the policy of a high-minded statesman." From an entry in Richards' journal, Aug. 7, 1843, it appears that Aberdeen before t h a t date suggested to Everett, t h e American minister in London, the idea of a three-power agreement to recognize the independence of Hawaii. u

Cowley to Aberdeen, J u l y 28, 1843, B P R O , F.O. 27/668. « G u i z o t to Pageot (No. 6), Sept. 1, 1843, A M A E ( P a r i s ) , E t a t s Unis, Vol. X C I X . Cf. Guizot to Roussin, Aug. 23, 1843, quoted in Blue, "Policy of France toward the Hawaiian Islands," 87-88.

202

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

with the Hawaiian agents, the various complaints which had been brought against the Hawaiian government by Charlton and his associates. In the meantime, Guizot informed Pageot, the French representative in Washington, of his exchange of views with Aberdeen and instructed him to converse with the secretary of state of the United States about this affair and to report back to Guizot whatever response the secretary might make to the British proposal.48 Pageot accordingly had an interview with A. P. Upshur, who held temporarily the office of secretary of state, and reported to Guizot that, while the secretary appeared to find in the joint agreement proposed by Aberdeen some evidence of suspicion against the United States, he nevertheless showed himself disposed to accede to the proposition. He was willing to go even farther, suggesting that the three powers together engage to guarantee the independence of the Hawaiian islands. Upshur also accepted completely the proposal made by Guizot to get out of this affair a pledge by the island government to allow certain special privileges to foreigners residing in Hawaii. This was the secretary's first reaction to the proposals submitted to him by Pageot; in reporting it, the latter expressed some doubt that the United States would finally enter into the agreement, since it would be a departure from the settled practice of that government to keep its foreign policy entirely independent of other powers.47 JOINT DECLARATION BY FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN

By the early part of October the difficulties between Great Britain and Hawaii had been settled,48 and a consul general, replacing Charlton, had been appointed and was en route to take up his residence in Honolulu. Cowley was therefore instructed to present again to Guizot the question of a mutual pledge by the great powers to recognize and respect the independence of Hawaii. Aberdeen suggested that when Great Britain and France had entered into this pledge, it might be proposed by them, in concert, to the United States.49 Then followed a leisurely exchange of views as to the precise form of the pledge50 and before full agreement had been reached, news was received in London and Paris of the restoration of Hawaiian independence by Rear Admiral Richard Thomas. 51 The British government promptly expressed approval of Admiral Thomas's proceedings and thereby cleared the way for a speedy conclusion of the " Guizot to Pageot, letter cited in preceding note. « Pageot to Guizot, Oct. 30, 1843, A M A E ( P a r i s ) , E t a t s Unis, Vol. X C I X . " A n account of the settlement will be given in the next chapter. " A b e r d e e n to Cowley (No. 137), Oct. 9, 1843, B P R O , F.O. 27/664. Aberdeen's plan was t h a t the consul general should be empowered to restore the independence of the islands as soon as the mutual pledge, " a t least between Great Britain and F r a n c e , " had been finally completed. 00 Cowley to Aberdeen (No. 437), Oct. 13, 1843, ibid., F.O., 2 7 / 6 7 0 ; Same to same (No. 466), Oct. 30, 1843, ibid.; Aberdeen to Cowley (No. 155), Nov. 7, 1843, ibid., F.O. 27/664; Guizot to Rohan Chabot, Oct. 30, 1843, A M A E ( P a r i s ) , lies Sandwich, Vol. I I , f. 174; Aberdeen to Guizot, Nov. 7, 1843, ibid., ff. 178-181. r >i The news was first received by Haalilio in London about Nov. 8, 1843, and was communicated by him to the foreign office on that day. Haalilio to Aberdeen, Nov. 8, 1843, B P R O , F.O. 58/18, and in the M S Hist, of H a w ' n For. Embassy. Richards received the news in P a r i s on Nov. 10, when Haalilio and Brinsmade arrived there f r o m London. Richards, Journal, Nov. 10, 1843; Richards to Judd, Nov. 16, 1843, A H , F. O. & Ex.

RECOGNITION O F INDEPENDENCE

203

agreement with France. On November 28, 1843, there was signed in London a joint declaration in which it is stated that the Queen of Great Britain and 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.53

The United States was invited to become a party to the self-denying declaration of France and Great Britain, but declined the invitation on the constitutional ground that such an agreement to be binding must be in the form of a treaty, which would require a ratification by the Senate, and because the time did not seem to have arrived "for the United States to depart from the principle by virtue of which they had always kept their foreign policy independent of foreign powers." In stating this decision to the British and French ministers, J. C. Calhoun, the secretary of state, said that the president appreciated the motives which had dictated the engagement entered into by France and Great Britain and that he adhered completely to the spirit of disinterestedness and selfdenial which breathed in the declaration. "He had already, for his part, taken a similar engagement in the message which he had addressed to Congress on December 31, 1842." 53 The "grand ultimate object" of the mission of Richards, Haalilio, and Sir George Simpson had been accomplished—the independence of Hawaii had been recognized. But before we close this chapter it may be well to consider how complete the recognition was, and also to see what success the envoys met with in respect to the other objects of their mission. So far as the United States was concerned, it will be recalled that the president declined to negotiate a treaty and that Lord Aberdeen declared the action of the American government was not equivalent to recognition of independence. In the instructions given by Secretary of State Webster to Commissioner George Brown, dated March 15, 1843, the statement is made that "it is not deemed expedient at this juncture fully to recognize the independence of the islands or the right of their Government to that 62 P r i n t e d in Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess., No. 57, p. 13, and in many other places. Although the declaration was signed on Nov. 28, it was not until Dec. 10 that Richards received definite knowledge of the fact, and the information was conveyed to him not officially, but in a private letter from H . U . Addington, u n d e r secretary in the British foreign office. Richards, Journal, Dec. 10, 1843; Addington to Richards, Dec. 8, 1843, A H , F. O. & Ex. Lord Cowley had, however, on Nov. 24, showed to Richards a copy of the declaration and told him that Guizot had approved it and sent it to London for signature. Richards, Journal, Nov. 24, 1843. Guizot's letter (dated Jan. 4, 1844) informing Richards of the signing of the declaration was received by the latter on J a n . 6. Ibid., Jan. 6, 1844. Blue has correctly pointed out that the declaration of Nov. 28, 1843, did not necessarily insure the continued independence of Hawaii, since the agreement might be terminated whenever it suited the policy of the two powers. An analogous declaration made in 1847 respecting the windward islands of the Society group did not prevent those islands f r o m falling ultimately into the possession of France. Blue, "Policy of France toward the Hawaiian Islands," 55-56. 03 Aberdeen to Pakenham (No. 4), December 26, 1843, B P R O , F. O. 5 / 3 9 0 ; Pakenham to Aberdeen (No. 63), J u n e 13, 1844, ibid., F. O. 5 / 4 0 6 ; Pageot to Guizot (No. 55), J u n e 11, 1844, A M A E ( P a r i s ) , E t a t s Unis, Vol. C. The quotations in the text are f r o m Pageot's dispatch.

204

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

equality of treatment and consideration which is due and usually allowed to those Governments to which we send and from whom we receive diplomatic agents of the ordinary ranks." 54 Richards and Haalilio, after their return to the United States in the summer of 1844, in the light of their experiences in Europe, addressed a letter to Secretary of State Calhoun, inquiring whether the government of the United States considered its "various acts in relation to the Sandwich Island as a full and perfect recognition of independence." Calhoun replied that those acts "were regarded by the President as a full recognition on the part of the United States, of the independence of the Hawaiian Government."56 The decision not to make a treaty at the outset was unfortunate not only because it derogated somewhat from the value of the recognition of independence but also because it left the Americans (by far the most numerous group of foreigners in Hawaii) without the protection of conventional stipulations and was in consequence a fruitful source of trouble during the next few years. Great Britain granted substantially all that the Hawaiians asked: independence was recognized; the objectionable consul was removed; and a new treaty, or rather a "convention," was substituted for the "articles" signed by Kamehameha III and Lord Edward Russell in 1836. But in the matter of the convention the Hawaiian government was far from being satisfied. The convention was not one that had been negotiated ; Richards and Haalilio had nothing to do with its preparation ; it was simply drafted in the British foreign office and sent out in care of Consul General William Miller, to be signed by him with the proper Hawaiian officials ; Miller had no authority to agree to any modification of the draft, and the Hawaiian government had no choice but to reject it or accept it as it was. The convention was signed at Lahaina on February 12, 1844. Upon examination, it was found to be practically a copy of the French convention forced upon the king by Captain Laplace in 1839, containing both of the articles to which the Hawaiian government so strongly objected because they placed limitations upon the sovereignty of the king.56 France, as we have seen, readily consented to recognize the independence of Hawaii, but that was as far as she would go. Guizot did indeed, on May 1, 1843, intimate to Richards and Haalilio that he would be willing to make a new treaty, but only on conditions which they were not at that time willing to admit. Encouraged, however, by Guizot's friendly " Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess., No. 77, p. 56. » H a a l i l i o and Richards to Calhoun, July 1, 1844; Calhoun to Haalilio and Richards, J u l y 6, 1844; both in A H and both printed " B y A u t h o r i t y " in Polynesian, March 29, 1845; also printed in Rep. of Min. of For. Rei., 1855, Appendix, pp. 27-28. " T h e convention of Feb. 12, 1844, and related documents were printed in an " e x t r a " issued by the Friend, Feb. 20, 1844. T h e convention is also printed in Rep. of Min. of For. Rei., 1855, Appendix, pp. 34-35, in Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess., No. 77, pp. 61-62, and in British and Foreign Slate Papers, X L I V , 671-673. The convention was in fact based upon the Laplace convention of J u l y 17, 1839. Aberdeen to Miller, Sept. 29, 1843 (enclosing d r a f t of convention), B P R O , F. O. 58/21. W i t h this convention of 1844 should be read the instructions given to Consul General Miller, which explain fully and carefully the essentially friendly policy of the British government toward the Hawaiian kingdom. Aberdeen to Miller, Sept. 28, 1843, B P R O , F. O. 58/21, printed in Report of Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawaii . . . Dec. 31, 1914, pp. 39-41.

RECOGNITION OF

INDEPENDENCE

205

assurances, the envoys on June 5 handed him a treaty projet* embodying their ideas on the subject, but there is little evidence that this draft was ever seriously considered by the French government. The Paulet affair and various reports and complaints received at'the French foreign office from Dudoit and others raised an effective barrier against any treaty negotiations at Paris. But Richards and Haalilio clung tenaciously to the hope of accomplishing something until they were told, rather bluntly, on January 31, 1844, that they might just as well consider their mission completed. Even after that, they wrote another letter, from Brussels, to which city they had gone to assist Brinsmade in his business, and Richards once more visited Paris and had a final interview with Guizot (April 11, 1844), in a vain effort to re-open the question. 57 * This projet is printed in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1855, Appendix, pp. 22-25. " R i c h a r d s , Journal, March 17, 1843-April 11, 1844, passim; MS History of H a w ' n F o r . Embassy; Blue, " T h e Policy of France toward the Hawaiian Islands," 85-90. Blue gives (p. 86) a summary of a letter said to have been written to Richards and Haalilio by Guizot on April 24, 1843. A c a r e f u l search in the Hawaiian archives has failed to reveal either the original or any copy of this letter, and the general tenor of the account given by Richards in his journal and by the documentary history of the embassy is wholly opposed to the idea that such a letter was ever received by the Hawaiian agents. I feel satisfied that the letter in question was not transmitted to them. T h e account given by Richards in his journal is interesting and, toward the end, almost pathetic. Some of his remarks about Guizot are f a r f r o m complimentary. Haalilio was ill much of the time d u r i n g the winter of 1843-4, and Richards was desperately homesick.

CHAPTER XIII

THE PAULET EPISODE T h e period f r o m the twenty-fifth of F e b r u a r y to the end of July, 1843, was a sort of interregnum, during- which the islands were under the rule of a British commission headed by Lord George Paulet, commander of H e r Britannic M a j e s t y ' s ship Carysfort. T h e episode had no very great permanent influence on the history of Hawaii, but it did have some effect on the negotiations then going on in E u r o p e and in a f t e r years it bulked large in the collective memory of the people; hence it is desirable to give a somewhat detailed account of the taking possession by Paulet and the various incidents and developments connected with it. BACKGROUND T o understand the affair in its full significance it is necessary to go back of the immediate occasion f o r the coming of Paulet and to look at the background of obscure origins and general causes. F r o m the time of Vancouver's last visit to H a w a i i (1794) until about 1825, Great Britain held the highest place in the thought of the Hawaiians about foreign countries ; they considered themselves under the protection of that nation and frequently r e f e r r e d to themselves as kanaka no Beritane ( " m e n of Brita i n " ) . In earlier pages reference has been made to the visit of K a m e h a meha II to Kngland, to the appointment of a British consul, who arrived at the islands in 1825, to the visit of Lord Byron in the same year, and the simultaneous establishment of a sugar plantation by a British agriculturist. It might have been expected that these happenings would consolidate and perpetuate British influence in the islands. T h i s did not, however, prove to be the case; on the contrary, British influence began to decline, and the year 1825 may conveniently be taken as the turning point. O n e obvious reason for this decline was the death of K a m e h a m e h a I I and the consequent loss of his personal influence in favor of England. W h i l e he and his party were away f r o m Hawaii, the persons who were destined to be the rulers a f t e r him, in particular the Queen Regent K a a h u m a n u and the chief minister Kalanimoku, were being brought under the influence of the American missionaries. T h e new king, Kauikeaouli, was a mere child and his education was received f r o m the missionaries. W h i l e L o r d Byron's conduct during his stay at the islands was such as to win the affectionate regard of the Hawaiians and to confirm the friendship between Great Britain and Hawaii, he did not put f o r w a r d any claim f o r special privileges to the English people. T h e attempt to develop agricult u r e under English leadership failed as a result of the death of Wilkinson in 1826. T h e consul appointed to represent Great Britain in the islands was, to put it mildly, an untactful person, whose conduct alienated him 206

PAULET EPISODE

207

from the ruling chiefs. 1 Most important of all was the steady development of American interests, both commercial and missionary, which rapidly eclipsed those of England. A striking evidence of the rapidity with which American influence superseded British is found in the rejection by the Hawaiian chiefs, in 1827, of the idea of a British right to say what laws should be enacted. A few years earlier that right would hardly have been questioned. It was not long before the British consul, Richard Charlton, began to complain about the mischievous ascendancy of the American missionaries. His despatches and the reports of British naval officers and traders who visited the islands from time to time laid the foundation for a belief in the minds of British officials at home that the Hawaiian islands were practically governed by the United States through the missionaries, to the prejudice of British subjects. The appointment of William Richards as teacher and translator was cited in support of this belief. In November, 1839, Charlton wrote to the British foreign minister, Lord Palmerston, "The King who is too indolent to attend to business leaves everything to the Reverend William Richards formerly a missionary, but who has been appointed by the American Board of Foreign Missions to be his principal Counsellor." 2 For many years British traders offered but a feeble competition to the Americans. In the middle and later 1830's, however, the trade of the islands and of the north Pacific in general became less one-sided, due mainly to the activities of the Hudson's Bay Company. The maritime fur trade, except that controlled by the Russians, dwindled into insignificance; the land fur trade in the old Oregon country was completely monopolized by the Hudson's Bay Company. In 1834 the company established an agency in Honolulu, and while the volume of its business was not large, it still made inroads that were felt by the American traders. 3 One or two other British traders entered the field. A fuller account of this commercial development will be given in a later chapter; for the present purpose it will be sufficient to quote an extract from one of the letters of the British consul at Honolulu, written in March, 1841. The British Trade to these Islands has greatly increased during the last eighteen months, and if protected, will I have no doubt keep increasing. The trade has for a great many years been almost exclusively in the hands of the citizens of the United States of America, they also traded largely on the NorthWest coast of America for furs, and had the supplying of the Russian settlements on 1 I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n it is i n t e r e s t i n g to r e a d t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t by A l e x a n d e r S i m p s o n , a s t r o n g p a r t i s a n of C o n s u l C h a r l t o n : " N o d o u b t , had t h e B r i t i s h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e been a m a n of t a c t a n d d i p l o m a t i c t a l e n t , t h e influence could not h a v e so c o m p l e t e l y f a l l e n i n t o t h e h a n d s of t h e A m e r i c a n s . B u t , t h o u g h a k i n d a n d h o s p i t a b l e m a n , . . . h e did not possess t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary for a diplomatist—coolness, discretion, and an abstinence from party heats and personal a n i m o s i t i e s . " A. S i m p s o n , The Sandwich Islands: Progress of Events since their discovery by Captain Cook, 57-58. A v e r y similar c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n is given by a B r i t i s h n a v a l officer, C a p t a i n E l i o t t , w h o visited H a w a i i in 1838. B P R O , F . O . 58/11. 2 C h a r l t o n to P a l m e r s t o n ( N o . 12), N o v . 12, 1839, B P R O , F . O . 5 8 / 1 1 . I t is h a r d l y n e c e s s a r y t o point o u t t h a t t h e l a s t p a r t of C h a r l t o n ' s s t a t e m e n t w a s false. F o r f u r t h e r d e t a i l s on t h e subj e c t of t h i s a n d the p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h , see m y a r t i c l e in 39 H H S R e p o r t , especially pages 55-63. 3 F o r t h e H . B . C . a g e n c y in H o n o l u l u , see t h e a r t i c l e by T . G. T h r u m , " H i s t o r y of t h e H u d s o n ' s B a y C o m p a n y ' s A g e n c y in H o n o l u l u , " in 18 H H S R e p o r t , 35-49; r e p r i n t e d in slightly e x p a n d e d f o r m in Haui'n Annual, 1912, pp. 43-59.

208

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

that coast. The Hudson Bay Company have now entirely engrossed the whole of the trade on that coast, and no less than eighteen British Merchant Vessels whose tonnage amounts to 397S tons have arrived here during the last 18 months, this has created a great jealousy on the part of the American Residents here and it appears that they use all their influence with the Native Government to annoy the few British Subjects residing here.

Whatever the cause, it is clear that much ill feeling developed between the British and American residents in Honolulu. Alexander Simpson, whose name figures largely on the following pages, wrote in 1843: "When I visited the islands for the first time, in December, 1839, I found a bitter animosity already existing between the two classes; and at subsequent visits which I made, in the summer of 1840, and early part of 1841, the feeling appeared to have become more acrimonious."5 Francis Johnson, one of the American merchants in Honolulu, testifies to the same state of affairs: "The English and American residents cannot agree at all here, there is a great deal of envy and jealousy between them and were the English superior in number to the Americans the latter would suffer a great deal or open war would ensue."6 Under these conditions it was natural that quarrels and litigation should arise between the two factions and that the British should find many occasions to complain against and to criticise the actions of a government dominated, as they alleged, by the Americans. It is impossible to describe all these difficulties in detail, but a few of the cases which arose in the period 1840-1842 must be mentioned because of the bearing which they had on subsequent developments. (1) Charlton's land claim. In April, 1840, Charlton brought forward a claim to a valuable piece of land in Honolulu, based upon a lease for 299 years which he said he had received from Kalanimoku in 1826. The lease covered a piece of land occupied by Charlton, about which there was no dispute, and an adjoining piece which had been occupied by native retainers of Kaahumanu and her 4 Charlton to Rear Admiral Ross, March 11, 1841, copy in A H , f r o m British consulate archives, Honolulu. Cf. Charlton to Palmerston (No. 3), March 11, 1841, B P R O , F.O. 58/12. 5 A. Simpson, op. cit., 47-48. Simpson suggested that one reason for the ill-feeling was the character of one of the H.B.C. agents at Honolulu (George Pelly), of whom he wrote: " H e was a man of harsh and repulsive manners, and most obtrusive John-Bullism; . . . This m a n ' s railings against everything American—in which he was latterly joined by others of his countrymen—of course irritated the American residents." Ibid. As Simpson had a deep personal grudge against Pelly, his description of the latter should, perhaps, be taken with a grain of salt. O n Pelly's hatred for Americans, see Reynolds, Journal, March 1-4. 1840. • J o h n s o n to T. O. I«arkin, August 31, 1840, L a r k i n Docs., Vol. I, in Bancroft Library, University of California. The journal of Stephen Reynolds during the years 1840, 1841, and 1842 affords much evidence along the same line. I n the spring of 1841, occurred an incident which reveals the temper of the foreign community in Honolulu. I n February, Governor Kekuanaoa E invoking a law enacted in 1839, called out all the able-bodied native men to aid in the construction of two roads leading f r o m Honolulu up Nuuanu valley and out toward Ewa. Certain British residents objected to their servants' being drafted for this work and sent a protest to Consul Charlton, who forwarded the protest to the governor with a request for an explanation. T h e explanation was given and the correspondence was published in the Polynesian of March 6 with some comments by the editor, J. J. Jarves, an American. The publication and the editorial comment angered the British residents, and Charlton, accompanied by an English ship master, went to the house of Jarves and started to horsewhip him. J. F. B. Marshall, an American who happened to be in the house, came to Jarves' defense and the Englishmen were driven off. T w o days later, Charlton and his companion were summoned before the governor and fined six dollars each for the assault, the maximum penalty under the existing law. On March 10, a meeting of foreign residents (mainly Americans) was held at the Pagoda house (belonging to the Chinese firm of H u n g t a i ) and resolutions were adopted expressing the abhorrence felt by those present regarding the assault recently committed. Polynesian, Feb. 27, Mar. 6, 13, 1841; Reynolds, Journal, Feb. 28, March 6, 7, 8, 10, 1841.

PAULET EPISODE

209

heirs or by others during the entire period since 1826. The king rejected Charlton's claim to the latter piece for various reasons, but mainly upon the ground that Kalanimoku had no authority to make such a grant. In his reply to Charlton, the king said: "At the date of your lease, Karaimoku had not the direction of this Kingdom, but Kaahumanu. She was above Karaimoku, wherefore he could not transfer any land for a long time without the assent of Kaahumanu." 7 (2) Skinner-Dominis Case. Henry Skinner, an Englishman, entrusted a sum of money to John Dominis, an American, to be used for Skinner's benefit in mercantile transactions in China and elsewhere. Skinner claimed that Dominis failed to live up to the contract and that he failed to make a proper accounting and return of the funds; he therefore brought suit in the court of Oahu, but owing to disagreements over the composition of the jury the case did not come to trial. At the time of Sir George Simpson's visit to Honolulu in the spring of 1842, the dispute was settled by arbitration, but Skinner claimed that he had suffered a heavy loss through the whole affair, and he was much exasperated about it.8 (3) Greenway's supposed bankruptcy. In the spring of 1842, F. J. Greenway, an English merchant in Honolulu, became bankrupt or thought he had, involving an American merchant, William French, who was a silent partner in Greenway's business. Within a very short time the affairs of these two men became entangled in a perfect maze of complications, in which were intermingled national and personal interests and prejudices. The whole business community was embroiled and the ill feeling between British subjects and Americans was greatly aggravated. The Hawaiian government became mixed up in the affair through various suits and legal actions, and in these court proceedings the British consul found material for charges that British subjects were being unfairly treated. 9 The visit of Sir George Simpson in the spring of 1842 created a slight diversion and his action in taking the part of the Hawaiian government caused a split in the ranks of the British residents, the Hudson's Bay Company from this time on being supporters of the government and therefore frequently united with the Americans against the hostile British faction headed by Charlton, Skinner, and Alexander Simpson. The last named gentleman was a cousin of Sir George but bitterly antagonistic to him; he had visited Hawaii in 1839, 1840, and 1841 and returned again in 1842, arriving only two days after Sir George.10 In his book, previously cited, Alexander Simpson makes the statement, "From the period of my first visit to the Sandwich Islands, I became convinced of their value and importance, and, therefore, desirous that they should form a British pos» Copy of lease, dated Dec. 9, 1826; Charlton to Tamehameha 3rd, April 18, 1840; Same t o same, J u n e 29, 1840; Kamehameha I I I to Charlton, J u n e 30, 1840; and numerous other documents in A H . » There is an extensive file of papers on this case in A H . See also Charlton to the Captain or Commander of any of H e r Britannic Majesty's Ships arriving at the Sandwich Islands, Sept. 26, 1842, copy in A H , f r o m British consulate archives, Honolulu. • A mass of documents, manuscript and printed, relating to this matter in A H . u W m . Paty, Journal, Feb. 11, 13, 1842. The P a t y J o u r n a l is in A H .

210

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

session." 11 He was a man of ability, a master of intrigue, and in the Hawaiian situation of 1842 found a field admirably adapted to his talents and political hopes. He was one of the men to whom Greenway assigned his property and he made skilful use of that tangled business to further his own ends. He and Charlton worked well together; one can scarcely avoid feeling that they deliberately sought to create a situation which would make British intervention inevitable. Simpson, in his book, after telling of the cession to Paulet, says: "I laboured to bring about the result, with a full conviction that it would be a blessing to the native population of all classes, . . . and would add another valuable possession to those wherewith England already almost encircles the earth." 12 During the spring and early summer of 1842 preparations were made for the journey of Richards and Haalilio to the United States and Europe. In view of the critical state of affairs, it was imperative that someone be found to take Richards' place during his absence. The choice fell upon Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, a medical missionary under the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions since 1828, who, on May 15, 1842, was appointed "Translator and Recorder" for the government and on July 18 was appointed to carry on the correspondence with the envoys who were being sent abroad. 13 Richards and Haalilio sailed from Lahaina, July 18, on the schooner Shaw, en route to Mazatlan on the first leg of their journey. Two days later their departure was reported in Honolulu, causing a sensation in the foreign community. 14 While the Hawaiian envoys were making their way toward the coast of Mexico, a French sloop-of-war, the Embuscade, under command of Captain S. Mallet, appeared at Honolulu, August 24, 1842. The visit of this warship was in pursuance of orders issued by Admiral Du PetitThouars as a result of various complaints of the French consul, who alleged that the treaty made with Captain Laplace was being violated and that Catholics were being unfairly treated by the native authorities in contrast with the favor shown to Protestants. Mallet's arrival had been preceded by reports of the seizure of the Marquesas Islands by the French, reports which occasioned some uneasiness among the Hawaiian officials.15 Mallet presented demands which could not be granted without impairing the king's sovereignty. The king in reply denied that the treaty was being violated or that any discrimination was being practiced against the Catholics and informed the French officer that he had "sent ministers to the King of France to beg of him a new treaty." With this reply Captain Mallet professed himself satisfied, but took care to confirm the earlier reports that France had taken possession of the Marquesas Islands, and intimated that Admiral Du Petit-Thouars would visit Hawaii in the folu u

A Simpson, op. cit., 51. Ibid.. 88. D r . J u d d had previously, on M a y 10, been appointed a member of the Hawaiian t r e a s u r y board. A f u l l e r account of Dr. J u d d ' s entry into government service will be given in t h e following chapter. 14 Richards, Journal, July 18, 1842; Reynolds, Journal, July 20, 1842; Dudoit to French Min. of For. Aff., J u l y 20, 1842, quoted in G. V. Blue, "Policy of F r a n c e toward the Hawaiian I s l a n d s , " 80. " Reynolds, J o u r n a l , Aug. 8, 1842. 18

PAULET EPISODE

211

lowing spring. 16 What the intentions of France might be, no one in Hawaii could tell, but the belief was common that the French had their eyes on Hawaii and would, "ere long, under some pretext, take possession of them." 17 Two months after Mallet's departure, news was received in Honolulu of the establishment of a French protectorate in Tahiti by Admiral Du Petit-Thouars, and Levi Chamberlain wrote in his journal, "Various conjectures are entertained in regard to the cause of this movement, and in regard to further proceedings whether in carrying forward their plan they [the French] will not take possession here." 18 On September 27, 1842, Consul Charlton sailed from Honolulu with the purpose, as he said, of proceeding t o E n g l a n d t o l a y S t a t e m e n t s b e f o r e H e r M a j e s t y ' s G o v e r n m e n t , in h o p e s t h a t it w i l l be t h e m e a n s of p r o c u r i n g j u s t i c e f o r B r i t i s h S u b j e c t s r e s i d i n g a t o r t r a d i n g t o these ( t o E n g l i s h m e n ) interesting and beautiful I s l a n d s ; and also to prevent the u n d u e i n f l u e n c e of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s of A m e r i c a o v e r t h e m i n d s of t h e K i n g a n d Chiefs. 1 "

One of his objects, as we learn from Alexander Simpson, was to thwart the efforts of Richards and Haalilio in England. 20 It was the impression in Honolulu that he would endeavor to induce the British government to take forcible' possession of the islands. 21 As if to confirm this opinion, Charlton himself, on the coast of Mexico early in November, told Captain Doane of the ship Sarah and Abigail that he expected the English government to take possession of the Sandwich Islands. 22 While-on the coast he is said to have met and conversed with Lord George Paulet, commander of the British frigate Carysfort.23 On the day previous to his sailing, Charlton wrote a letter, phrased in rather undiplomatic language, informing Kamehameha I I I of his intended departure and notifying the king that he had appointed Alexander Simpson to act as consul in his absence. 24 The Hawaiian government, however, declined to recognize Simpson in the capacity of acting consul, 25 a fact which, naturally enough, greatly incensed him. A few weeks later, Pelly, the Hudson's Bay Company agent, acting for an English firm in Valparaiso, brought suit against Charlton for about ten thousand dollars, " Mallet to the King, Sept. 1, 1842, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Kamehameha I I I and Kekauluohi to Mallet, Sept. 4, 1842, ibid.; Judd to Richards, Sept. 16, 1842, ibid.; Jarves, History of the Hawaiian Islands (3 ed.), 165-166; A. Simpson, op. cit., 64-67; Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, Appendix, pp. 307-321 (in " M r . Wyllie's Historical S u m m a r y " ) ; Yzendoorn, History of the Catholic Mission in the Hawaiian Islands, 165-168; Blue, op, cit., 81-84. T h e visit of Captain Mallet will be referred to again in chapter 17. w W m . Hooper (acting U.S. Ag't. for Commerce and Seamen) to Sec. of State Webster, Oct. 10, 1842, U S D S , Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. I. " Chamberlain, Journal, Nov. 9, 1842. 19 Charlton to the Captain or Commander of any of H e r Britannic M a j e s t y ' s Ships arriving at the Sandwich Islds., Sept. 26, 1842, copy in A H , f r o m British consulate archives, Honolulu. *> A. Simpson, op. cit., 58. Cf. Chamberlain, Journal, Sept. 27, 1842. 21 Judd to Richards and Sir Geo. Simpson, Oct. 18, 1842, B P R O , F. O. 58/18; Reynolds, Journal, Sept. 27, 1842; Robert G. Davis to Wm. Heath Davis, Oct. 31, 1842, Davis Collection, California State Library. 23 Chamberlain, Journal, Jan. 5, 1843; Friend, I (1843), 8. 28 J u d d to the Commissioners in Europe, Feb. 27, 1843, A H , British Commission Documents; Manley Hopkins, Hawaii: The Past, Present, and Future of Its Island-Kingdom (2 ed.), 285; Jarves, op. cit., 175. » Charlton to H i s Majesty Tamehameha, Sept. 26, 1842, A H , F.O. & E x . 25 Kekuanaoa to Simpson, Sept. 30, 1842, ibid.; Kamehameha I I I to Simpson, Oct. 8, 1842, ibid.

212

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

based upon a transaction originating in 1833. Charlton's wife in vain protested against the right of the Hawaiian court to try such a case. An attachment was laid on Charlton's property, to protect the plaintiff's interests, and the case was tried before a foreign jury and a verdict rendered against Charlton. 26 Simpson sent to the British consul (E. Barron) at Tepic, Mexico, a brief account of this affair, giving it, of course, the color of his own views, and suggested to Barron that the latter use his influence to have a British warship sent to Honolulu. 27 Barron transmitted a copy of Simpson's letter to Rear Admiral Richard Thomas, commander of the British squadron in the Pacific, who was at San Bias in the middle of January, 1843. Admiral Thomas, on January 17, as a result of various communications received by him, ordered Lord George Paulet, captain of the frigate Carysfort, to proceed to the Hawaiian and Society Islands; at Honolulu he was to afford support to the British consul "in case he should require the same, for the more effectual performance of his duties, in watching over and protecting the interests of British Subjects"; he was at the same time to tell the king that Admiral Thomas had with pleasure learned that an embassy had been sent to England, the result of which would prove that the desire felt in England to foster and encourage commercial intercourse between the two countries arose solely from a wish to communicate to young and rising communities the benefits which an extensive commerce invariably carried with it. 28 On the following day, the admiral wrote a second order to Paulet, enclosing to him a copy of Simpson's letter to Barron, and saying that if the circumstances were as Simpson represented them to be, Paulet was to "peremptorily demand" the restoration of the property belonging to Charlton which had been attached at the instance of Pelly and to inform the Hawaiian authorities that "the Government of Great Britain will hold that of the Sandwich Islands responsible for the marked want of respect, which has been shewn to the Queen of Great Britain in taking advantage of the absence of Her representative to sequester his property, and annoy his unprotected family" on such a frivolous pretext. 29 It may be well to remind the reader that the statement of British policy quoted in the early part of the preceding chapter was written on October 4, 1842, just a week after Charlton sailed from Honolulu. Admiral Thomas had not yet received a copy of that statement of policy when he issued the foregoing instructions to Paulet ; 30 otherwise he would certainly have furnished the latter with a copy of the statement, and it is hardly conceivable that Paulet would have acted as he did at Honolulu if he had been thus informed of the views of his own government. M Judd to Richards, Oct. 27, 1842, in Letters of Dr. Cerrit P. Judd, 1817-1871 ( F r a g m e n t s I I ) , 144-147; Jarves, op. cit., 175; A. Simpson, op. cit., 63-64. 27 Simpson to Barron, Nov. 1, 1842, copy in A H , f r o m British consulate archives, Honolulu. 28 Thomas to Paulet, J a n . 17, 1843, B P R O , Admiralty, 1/5531. » Thomas to Paulet, Jan. 18, 1843, ibid. 50 . . we consulted the Admiralty and they inform us that the statement of policy as set out in Foreign Office letter to the Admiralty of the 4th October, 1842, was not received by Rear-Admiral Thomas until 1st April, 1843." S. Gaselee (Librarian of British Foreign Office) to M. Paske-Smith, Aug. 27, 1934, enclosed in Paske-Smith to R. S. Kuykendall, Sept. 3, 1934.

PAULET EPISODE

213

In Honolulu, during the fall of 1842 and the first weeks of 1843, many people shared the belief that the islands would soon be seized by one of the great European powers. In December, the acting American agent for commerce and seamen wrote to the commander of the American squadron on the coast of California, stating his firm belief that either the French or the British flag would be raised in the course of a few months. 3 1 On the fourteenth of December, Robert G. Davis wrote from Honolulu to his brother in California, " W e are anticipating at present a visit from an English squadron, to take possession; although those who hold office under Govt, flatter themselves that this will not take place." 32 Just a month later, he wrote again, saying "some people think that the English or French will come here to take possession before this year closes. Quien sabe !" ss PAULET'S INTERVENTION „ The Carysfort arrived off the port of Honolulu on the afternoon of February 10, 1843. Alexander Simpson immediately boarded the frigate and delivered to Lord George Paulet letters, written by himself and Charlton, and other documents relating to the various cases at issue between British residents and the Hawaiian government; he urged Lord George not to exchange the usual courtesies with the local authorities until he (Simpson) had been formally recognized as acting consul. Paulet in this, as in nearly everything else, followed the advice of Simpson, and at the outset incurred the ill will of the American and French consuls and residents. Since the king was, as usual, at Lahaina and had to be sent for before any business could be transacted, Honolulu, while awaiting his coming, experienced a week of suppressed excitement and apprehension. During that interval the U. S. sloop-of-war Boston (Commander John C. Long) put in her appearance, much to the joy of the American residents. Commander Long, of course, had no authority to intervene in the pending difficulties and could be little more than a spectator of what was going on. The king arrived on the afternoon of the seventeenth and was met with a letter from Lord George Paulet demanding a private interview on the following morning. The king declined to grant a private interview, but said he would be ready to receive any written communication and named Dr. Judd as his confidential agent to confer personally with Lord ."Hooper to Sec. of State (No. 29), Sept. 30, 1843, USDS, Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. II. *" R. G. Davis to W. H. Davis, Dec. 14, 1842, Davis Collection, California State Library. Stephen Reynolds wrote to T. O. Larkin, Dec. S, 1842, "The English have not been here f — I f I GUESS: the French will come first, and before long." Larkin Documents, Vol. I, tancroft Library, University of California. G. Davis to W. II. Davis, Jan. 14, 1843, loc. cit. See also R. Armstrong to R. A. Chapman, March 3, 1843 (Armstrong Letters): "Rumours were flying at one time that a r £ Squadron was just at hand coming to take possession of the islands; at another that » British force was coming for the same object. . . . France has a powerful naval force in the Pacific, which has taken the Marquesas, the Society and probably the Navigator islands; & we have been expecting from their movements that they only want time & opportunity to take "session here." As early as Jan. 30 it was definitely reported in Honolulu that Lord fflrge Paulet was on his way to the islands. Chamberlain, Journal, Jan. 30, 1843

i

S

214

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

George. Later that evening, Paulet sent a second letter, declining to hold any communication with Dr. Judd but enclosing certain demands, with which he required a compliance by 4 o'clock the next afternoon; "otherwise," he said, "I shall be obliged to take coercive steps to obtain these measures for my countrymen." The demands were: 1. The immediate removal of the attachment on Charlton's property; surrender to Charlton of the land claimed by him; and reparation for losses incurred by his representatives as a result of the proceedings of the government. 2. The immediate and public acknowledgment of Alexander Simpson as acting consul. 3. "A guarantee that no British subject shall in future be subjected to imprisonment in fetters, unless he is accused of a crime which by the laws of England would be considered a felony." 4. A "new and fair trial" of the case of Skinner versus Dominis. 5. "The immediate adoption of fair steps to arrange the matters in dispute between British subjects and natives of the country, or others residing here, by referring these cases to Juries, one half of whom shall be British subjects approved by the Consul, and all of whom shall declare on oath, their freedom from prejudgment upon, or interest in the cases brought before them." 6. "A direct communication between His Majesty Kamehameha and Her Britannic Majesty's Acting Consul, for the immediate settlement of all cases of grievance and complaint on the part of British subjects against the Sandwich Islands' Government."

Early the next morning, the foreign-residents were officially notified of the prospective attack on the town. An English brig was towed out of the harbor and anchored in the roadstead to serve as an asylum for British residents, and Commander Long offered the Boston to Americans for the same purpose. An eye witness wrote in his journal: "From 10 O'c. our streets presented a most extraordinary spectacle, for a town usually so quiet as this. The streets were crowded with carts containing money chests, Book Safes, Trunks, Personal Clothing, &c. all hastening towards the wharfs to be placed on board of'the ships . . . for safety." This continued until a little after noon when trustworthy reports gave information that the difficulties had been or were in process of being settled.34 After earnest consultation with his advisers, the king yielded assent to the demands of Captain Paulet. "Many persons of good judgment," wrote Dr. Judd, "advised the King to let them fire, but the usual pacific course p r e v a i l e d . . . . As for myself I knew very well that the Carysfort would not wish to fire, but I believed their object was to get possession, I therefore joined with those who advised a compliance with the demands under Protest." 35 In his reply to Lord George, the king stated that he had sent ministers to England with full powers to settle all difficulties. "Some of the demands which you have laid before us, are of a nature calculated seriously to embarrass our feeble government, by contravening the laws established for the benefit of all. But we shall comply with your demands . . . but we must do so under protest." At the same time the king signed a protest and an appeal to Queen Victoria. ** Paty, Journal. Feb. 18, 1843. " J u d d to the Commissioners in Europe, Feb. 27, 1843, AH, Brit. Com. Docs.

PAULET EPISODE

215

The Hawaiian rulers soon learned that, so far from being ended, their troubles had only begun. Simpson, acknowledged as acting consul, took full advantage of his hour of triumph while he had the backing of the guns of the Carysfort and the pliant cooperation of Captain Paulet. Not content with the surrender of the land claimed by Charlton, Simpson required the king to sign a ratification of the 299 year lease. He insisted upon court decisions being reversed in some cases, a thing which could not be done legally, and he refused to allow time for the laws to be altered; he said the king must do these things at once. To have yielded would have involved the government in difficulties with other nations. He brought forward claims for indemnity, amounting, with other similar claims that must have arisen as a consequence, to over a hundred thousand dollars. From the twentieth of February to the twenty-third, Simpson and Paulet held daily conferences with the king. As a result of these conferences, both the king and Dr. Judd came to the conclusion that the British officers were determined to get possession of the islands. After the interview of the twenty-third, the King declared himself a dead man, and expressed his conviction that his ruin was determined. All the claims he considered unjust, but was willing the cases should be heard, before a proper tribunal, but that was denied him. The object was to rob him of his money, and destroy his laws. Money he had not and could not raise it. He could not overturn the decisions of the Courts, without destroying the credit of the Government, and exposing it to attack on all sides. He would sooner give up all, "Let them take the Islands." He spent a sleepless night. Listened to a proposal of ceding the Islands to France, and before morning to another of ceding to France and the United States. Arrived at no decision, but a most decided determination to go no further in the present course."

The next morning Dr. Judd informed Simpson of the king's determination and made a strong plea for justice and mercy. Simpson declared that he would not alter his course, and after a further conference, in which the king and Lord George participated, the terms of a provisional cession were drawn up and tentatively agreed upon, subject to the decision of the king and chiefs in council. The council met and canvassed the situation. The cession to France and the United States afforded a ray of hope, but they foresaw, that under those circumstances they would have this fury (Simpson) to deal with until the French took possession, and he would doubtless involve them in more trouble, and their cause might become too bad to admit of justification. France is still acting a hostile part towards them. Messrs. Charlton & Simpson are their enemies, but they consider England their FRIEND. To England they look up with filial affection. . . . England can defend them from France. . . . It may be that the independence of the Islands is acknowledged already, or that France and the United States have formed a coalition, in that case the forcible possession of the Islands by England would annul the arrangement but a cession for the time being would not."

In the evening the king conferred again with Simpson and Paulet. Lord George was distinctly informed that if the cession took place the Hawai88

"

Tudd's letter cited in preceding note. Ibid.

216

H A W A I I A N KINCxDOM, 1778-1854

ian authorities would "take every possible means to justify the conduct of the Government and endeavor to get back the Islands," and he gave assurance that this would not be considered an act of hostility. Early in the morning of the twenty-fifth the king sent for Dr. Judd and once more requested his opinion on the proposition of ceding the islands to France and the United States, which was strongly urged by some of his friends. Judd refused to recommend such a course and offered to resign his office. The king declined this offer and "decided to throw himself into the arms of England, trusting in the justice of his cause, and hoping still for independence." HAWAII U N D E R T H E BRITISH FLAG

The provisional cession was made in the afternoon (February 25) at a formal ceremony within the fort. The king first delivered a short address to those who were present, both natives and foreigners: Hear ye! I make known to you that I am in perplexity by reason of difficulties into which I have been brought without cause; therefore, I have given away the life of our land, hear ye! But my rule over you, my people, and your privileges, will continue, for I have hope that the life of the land will be restored when my conduct is justified.™

The deed of cession was then read, 39 the Hawaiian flag was lowered and the British flag hoisted in its place and saluted with twenty-one guns from the fort and twenty-one from the Carysfort, the ship's band played "Cod Save the Queen," 40 after which a proclamation by Captain Paulet was read, defining the way in which the government was to be carried on for the time being. The most important part of the proclamation is contained in the second article, which reads: Second. That the Government thereof shall be executed, until the receipt of communications from Great Britain, in the following manner:—namely, By the native King and chiefs and the officers employed by them, so far as regards the native population; and by a Commission, consisting of King Kamehameha III, or a deputy appointed by him, the Right Hon. Lord George Paulet, Duncan Forbes Mackay, Esq., and Lieutenant Frere, R.N., in all that concerns relations with other powers, (save and except the negotiations with the British Government) and the 38

This speech of the king gave great offense to Paulet and Simpson. " I n consequence of the difficulties in which we find ourselves involved, and our opinion of the impossibility of complying with the demands in the manner in which they are made by her Britannic Majesty's Representative upon us, in reference to the claims of British subjects; W e do hereby cede the Group of Islands known as the Hawaiian (or Sandwich) Islands, unto the Right Honorable Lord George Paulet, Captain of her Britannic Majesty's Ship of W a r Carysfort, representing H e r Majesty Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, f r o m this date, and for the time being; the said Cession being made with the reservation that it is subject to any arrangement that may have been entered into by the Representatives appointed by us to treat with the Government of H e r Britannic M a j e s t y ; and in the event that no agreement has been executed previous to the date here o f ; subject to the decision of her Britannic M a j e s t y ' s Government on conference with the said Representatives appointed by us; or in the event of our Representatives not being accessible, or not having been acknowledged, subject to the decision which H e r Britannic Majesty may pronounce on the receipt of full information f r o m us, and from the Rt. Hon. L o r d George P a u l e t . " (Signed by K i n g and Kuhina-nui). 40 The band also played the tune, "Isle of Beauty, f a r e thee well," on which point Mrs. J u d d makes the following comment, " T h e latter was played by the request of some lady f r i e n d s of Lord George, and regarded by us as a refined cruelty, which could only emanate f r o m a woman." L a u r a Fish J u d d , Honolulu: Sketches of Life, Social, Political and Religious, in the Hawaiian Islands front 1828 to 1861 (Honolulu, 1928 reprint), 94. 88

217

PAULET EPISODE

arrangements among foreigners, (others than natives of the archipelago) resident on these islands.

For the rest, it was provided that the existing laws and the existing revenue arrangements should continue in force, the accounts being subject to inspection by the commission; and "all the existing bona fide engagements of the native King and Premier [Kuhina-nui] shall be executed and performed as if this Cession had never been made." No sales, leases, or transfers of land were to take place by the action of the commission nor from natives to foreigners during the period covered by the proclamation. The King appointed Dr. Judd as his deputy on the commission. At first Dr. Judd declined this appointment, but Lord George, strange to say, practically insisted upon Judd's acceptance of it. The three government schooners were taken by Captain Paulet for the service of the British Commission, their native names being changed to Victoria,

Albert,

and Adelaide.

O n M a r c h 11, the Albert

(formerly

Hooikaika) was dispatched to San Bias to carry Paulet's report of his proceedings to the government in London. The report and accompanying documents were sent in care of Alexander Simpson, chosen by Lord George for this mission because of "his thorough knowledge of every circumstance that has occurred since, and previous to my [Paulet's] arrival, and his ableness to combat personally the many statements that will be made by the advisers of the late Government of these Islands." 41 By an odd circumstance, and without the knowledge of Paulet and Simpson, the sailing of this schooner afforded Kamehameha III an opportunity to send an agent with dispatches giving the king's version of recent happenings. Prior to the cession, the firm of Ladd and Company had arranged to charter the Hooikaika for a voyage to the American coast, and they agreed to surrender the charter to the British commission only on condition that an agent of the company should be permitted to go in the vessel to San Bias and return in the same way with a quantity of specie which they were expecting. The company suggested to the king that their agent might be appointed as his agent also and sent, not merely to San Bias, but to Washington and London with dispatches for those places. The offer was accepted and a young American merchant, James F. B. Marshall, was selected for this delicate mission. Marshall was commissioned as "envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary" to the queen of Great Britain, to act in unison with Richards. His credentials and the documents to be carried by him were prepared with the utmost secrecy, being drafted by Dr. Judd in the royal tomb with the coffin of Kaahumanu as a writing desk. While they were being made ready for the king's signature, a canoe was sent by night to Wailuku, Maui, to which island Kamehameha had returned after the cession, and the king came to Oahu, landed at Waikiki in the night, and returned immediately to Maui, his visit not being known to Captain Paulet until after the sailing of the Albert. So these two messengers, Simpson and Marshall, hastened away « P a u l e t to Secretary of the Admiralty, March 9, 1843, BPRO, Admiralty, 1/5531.

218

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

in the same ship on their strange business, and the documents they carried, carefully guarded from each other during months of travel by land and sea, were finally deposited together on the same desk in the British foreign office.42 For about five months the islands were under the rule of the British commission set up by Lord George Paulet, the latter, of course, being the real source of authority. Mackay resigned on March 4 on account of ill health and no one was appointed in his place. In spite of the somewhat inflammable character of the general situation, things went along with a fair degree of harmony for several weeks. Dr. Judd dissented from many of the decisions of the commission, but no personal ill feeling was manifest on either side. Gradually, however, the commission began to overstep the limits laid down for it in the proclamation of Paulet, and to interfere with revenue matters and the king's supposed control in purely native affairs. An additional duty of one per cent was laid on imports, in order to defray the clerical expenses of the commission. The liquor license system was changed. A law passed by the council of chiefs on the subject of auctioneers was disallowed. The commission meddled in the complicated affairs of Greenway and French, ordered a registration of all land claims, which were to be examined into at some future time, and actually assumed judicial functions, deciding cases which ought to have been left to the courts. The existing law relating to the crime of fornication was practically abrogated by orders to the governors from the commission, acting on what seems to have been a mistaken view of certain evils existing in 43 T h e foregoing account of the "provisional cession*' is based upon the following sources: J u d d ' s letter of Feb. 27, 1843, cited above (a day by day account; the most important single s o u r c e ) ; P a u l e y s dispatch of March 9, 1843, cited above, and enclosures; A. Simpson to Secret a r y of the Admiralty, J u n e 19, 1843, B P R O , Admiralty, 1/5531; Official Correspondence relating to the late Provisional Cession of the Sandwich Islands (there are two editions of this printed compilation, one in broadside f o r m , the other in a small folder, the only difference, aside f r o m form, being that the broadside includes the king's speech delivered on the occasion of the cession, while the folder omits this speech; L o r d George tried to suppress the broadside, b u t some copies have survived; t h e documents, without the king's speech, a r e printed in British and Foreign State Papers, X X X I , 1023-1029); Minutes of British Commission, in A H ; Kamehameha I I I to Queen Victoria, March 10, 1843 (two letters) and related items in ibid.; Kamehameha I I I to Pres. J o h n Tyler, March 10, 1843, in Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess.. No. 77, pp. 49-51; Hooper to Webster (No. 22), March 7, 1843, U S D S , Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. I , and printed in Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess.. No. 77, pp. 41-43; Journals of Levi Chamberlain, W m . Paty, and Stephen Reynolds; L . Chamberlain, letter dated Feb. 21, March 7, 1843, in Gulick, Pilgrims of Hawaii, 213-216; R. A r m s t r o n g to R. A. Chapman, March 3, 1843, Armstrong Letters; L. F. J u d d , op. cit., 93-95; M. D. F r e a r , Lowell and Abigail, 161-163; A. Simpson, op. cit., 74-89; J . F. B. Marshall, " A n Unpublished Chapter of Hawaiian H i s t o r y , " in Harper's Magazine, L X V I I , 511-520 (Sept. 1883). I n his dispatch of March 9, 1843, Paulet makes the following statement: " T h e French Frigate L'Embuscade which visited these Islands in August last, made demands upon the Government of so harrassing a nature as not to allow the possibility of their being complied with, and intimated on her leaving that a F r e n c h Squadron would be shortly on the spot to enforce the above demands. A French Merchant Vessel which arrived here f r o m Tahiti soon a f t e r m y arrival, brought intelligence that a French Squadron, consisting of Two Frigates and two Corvettes, and commanded by Admiral Du Petit Thouars, were to sail f r o m that port on the 15th March for these Islands, and this, with other similar reports was the moving cause which led to the Cession of these Islands, though the Deed of Cession would make it appear otherwise." The report of the French squadron was convenient for Paulet's purpose, but it was a false alarm. Armstrong, in his letter of March 3, 1843, says: " O u r sympathies are strongly moved for the poor King & Chiefs. Of the integrity of their motives I have no question. They intended to do right f o r all parties, but they are not competent to manage the complicated concerns of a commercial community, where national jealousy, cupidity, and conflicting interests continue to entangle them on every hand & they a r e too impotent to maintain their ground though they are in the right. Indeed without miracles the government could not sustain itself while men & nations continue as they are. . . . T h e revolution has caused b u t little excitement among the natives; it is a t h i n g they have been expecting for some time & they are much more reconciled to it t h a n we anticipated." A r m s t r o n g was pastor of Kawaiahao Church in Honolulu at this time.

PAULET E P I S O D E

219

the fort at Honolulu, and this, according to Rev. S. C. Damon, the seamen's chaplain, resulted in a veritable flood of immorality.43 A body of native soldiers (called the "Queen's Regiment") and a new police force were organized and Dr. Judd was required to pay them from the king's treasury. No doubt, under a strict interpretation of the terms of the cession, Paulet had a right to govern the country as he saw fit, and it is true that some of the innovations introduced by the commission were desirable; but, after the proclamation which Paulet had issued, many of the acts of the commission had the appearance of a breach of faith. On May 10, Dr. Judd entered a formal protest against the actions of the commission and on the next day resigned as the king's deputy. Kamehameha refused to appoint any other deputy and the commission was thus reduced to two members, Captain Paulet and Lieutenant Frere. From this time their acts became progressively more arbitrary. Dr. Judd secretly removed the public archives to the royal tomb to prevent their seizure by the commission. On July 7, Commodore Lawrence Kearney, commander of the U.S. East India Squadron, arrived at Honolulu in the frigate Constellation; four days later, he issued a protest against the cession which had been made. On July 14, William Paty wrote in his journal: "Today the Young Chiefs visited the Constellation and on leaving the ship we had the pleasure of seeing the OLD Sandwich Island Flag flying once more. A flag made on purpose for this occasion was hoisted at the Frigate's 'fore' and saluted in good style." A few days after this incident, Captain Paulet wrote to the king and told him that if, in the event of his visiting any foreign warship; he allowed himself to be saluted "under any other Flag than the British Union Jack, during the time the British Flag is flying upon these Islands," he would thereby forfeit all claim to protection or consideration from that flag and government. 44 It is evident that conditions were fast approaching a point where an open break might be expected, when, on July 26, Rear Admiral Thomas arrived off the port of Honolulu in his flagship, the frigate Dublin.*6

RESTORATION BY ADMIRAL THOMAS

As soon as Admiral Thomas had been informed of the cession to Lord George Paulet, he immediately set sail from Valparaiso direct for Oahu, "the object for so doing," as he reported to the lords commissioners of the admiralty, "being to endeavour to remedy, if possible, whatever might prove prejudicial to British interests in consequence of the Provisional Cession of the Hawaiian Islands, made under circumstances, the «Friend, I, 36-38 (Extra, July 31, 1843). See also Chamberlain, Journal, May 3, 1843; M. D. Frear, op. cit., 163-165. " Paulet to Kamehameha I I I , July 18, 1843, AH, British Commission Letter Book. 45 This account of the British commission is based principally upon the records of the commission, in AH; Judd to Richards, May 8, May 11, 1843, in ibid.; Same to same, July 4, July 13, 1843, in Laid & Co. Arbitration, Appendix, pp. 115-116; Hooper to Webster (No. 25), June 30, 1843, USDS, Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. I ; Same to same (No. 28), Aug. 15, 1843, and other documents printed in Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess., No. 77, pp. 51-54; L. F. Judd, op. cit., 95-96; Jarves, op. cit., 182-183.

220

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

particulars of which their Lordships have learnt from the Captain of Her Majesty's Ship Carysfort." 46 Upon arrival at Honolulu, Admiral Thomas sent a note to Governor Kekuanaoa, stating his "desire to obtain the honor of a personal interview with His Majesty, King Kamehameha I I I " on the subject of the provisional cession. Since the king was at this time in Honolulu the next morning was named for the interview. It was soon clear that the admiral's purpose was to restore the independence of the islands; but before doing so, he felt it necessary to secure the king's agreement to certain articles (somewhat in the nature of a treaty) which he had drawn up. Two conferences were devoted to a discussion of these articles, which were modified in some particulars to make them more acceptable to the king. As signed, they guarded very closely the rights and privileges of British subjects in Hawaii, and guaranteed to them perfect equality with the most favored foreigners; the articles, in fact, conceded more than the king and his advisers felt they should be required to yield, but everything was done subject to whatever arrangements had been or should thereafter be made in London, and the Hawaiian authorities believed they could safely rely upon the good faith and the friendly intentions of Admiral Thomas. This business having been settled, the Hawaiian flag was again raised (July 31) at a formal and brilliant ceremony held on the plain to the east of Honolulu. On this occasion, Admiral Thomas read a lengthy "Declaration," the gist of which is in the following paragraph: The Commander in Chief of Her Britannic Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Pacific, for the reasons herein stated, and as the highest Local Representative of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, . . . Hereby declares and makes manifest that he does not accept of the Provisional Cession of the Hawaiian Islands made on the 25th day of February 1843; but that he -considers His Majesty Kamehameha III the legitimate King of those Islands: and he assures His Majesty that the sentiments of his Sovereign towards him are those of unvarying friendship and esteem, that Her Majesty sincerely desires King Kamehameha to be treated as an Independent Sovereign, leaving the administration of Justice in his own hands, the faithful discharge of which will promote his happiness and the prosperity of his Dominions.

In the afternoon a thanksgiving service was held in the Stone Church (Kawaiahao), during which the king stated that, in accordance with the hope expressed by him at the time of the cession, the life of the land had been restored, 47 and the country would henceforth be governed according to the constitution and laws. A ten days holiday was proclaimed and the whole community gave itself up to festivities and rejoicing.48 " T h o m a s to Herbert (No. 45), Aug. 2, 1843, BPRO, Admiralty, 1/S529. " The king is said to have made use of the expression which became the motto of Hawaii, C/o mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono ("The life of the land is preserved by righteousness"). The text of the speeches made on this occasion has not come down to us. " A d m i r a l Thomas' dispatch cited in note 46 above; Judd to Richards, Aug. 1, 1843, A H , Brit. Com. Docs.; Documents Relating to the Restoration of the Sandwich Islands Flag, pamphlet of 23 pages in Hawaiian and English; the documents are also printed in Friend, I (1843) 40-42, and in British and Foreign State Papers, XXXI, 1029-1035; Letters printed in Gulick, Ptlgpms of Hawaii, 216-219; "History of the Provisional Cession of the Hawaiian Islands and Their Restoration,' in Haw'n Annual, 1893, pp. 45-70 (gives most of the documents); R. G. Davis to w . H. Davis, July 8, Aug. 4, 9, 1843, Davis Collection, California State Library; M. D. Frear, op. tit., 165-170.

KAMEHAMEHA I I I From a daguerreotype

(Photograph

by Bernice P. Bishop

Museum)

PAULET EPISODE

221

In restoring the independence of Hawaii, Admiral Thomas acted upon his own responsibility, without any special instructions on this subject, but in the light of what he knew to be the policy of the British government. He could, therefore, with the fullest confidence, expect his proceedings to be approved—as they were approved—by his government. 49 After the restoration, he took up his residence on shore and remained at Honolulu for six months, until the arrival of Consul General William Miller in February, 1844. During that period, by his dignified, yet modest and friendly demeanor, the admiral enshrined himself in the hearts of the Hawaiian people and the foreign residents. Thomas Square, the site of the restoration ceremony, in the midst of the present city of Honolulu, commemorates his part in the history of the Hawaiian kingdom. 50 NEGOTIATIONS IN LONDON

W e must now go back a little in time and shift the scene to London, toward which city Alexander Simpson and J. F. B. Marshall were making their way when we took leave of those gentlemen. In the preceding chapter it was pointed out that news of the provisional cession was received in London and Paris just at the end of May, 1843. Prior to that time, the British government had definitely recognized the independence of Hawaii, and France had promised to do likewise. The receipt of news of the cession put a new face on the situation: while the British government without hesitation indicated its determination to adhere to the recognition previously accorded, it was made plain that the Hawaiian flag would not be restored until the grievances of British subjects and the charges against the Hawaiian government had been cleared up; France and Great Britain soon came to a tentative agreement to unite in a joint recognition of the independence of Hawaii, but this likewise had to await the settlement of the difficulties between the British and Hawaiian governments. What the Hawaiian envoys had to do, therefore, was to bring about a satisfactory settlement of those difficulties. Marshall arrived in London on the last day of June; Simpson had preceded him by a week. 51 Richards and Haalilio were in Paris, laying siege to Guizot, and by some mischance did not learn of Marshall's arrival until July 12. They returned to London on the fourteenth, on which day Marshall had a preliminary interview with H . U. Addington, under secretary in the British foreign office. The government had already decided to send out to the islands an officer of higher rank than a consul, with authority to settle the disputes on the spot, 52 but Marshall was not " A b e r d e e n to Haalilio and Richards, Nov. 13, 1843, AH, Brit. Com. Docs.; Addington to Sec. of the Admiralty, Nov. 21, 1843, BPRO, F.O. 58/19; Canning to Herbert, June 13, 1844 ibid.. F.O. 58/32, and printed in Hopkins, op. cit., 301. M See account of farewell to Admiral Thomas by the foreign residents of Honolulu in F r i Z 1 1 ( 1 8 4 4 ) ' 2 8 ' 2 9 - c f - Armstrong to Chapman et al., Feb. 27, 1844, Armstrong Letters " Simpson and Marshall had travelled together as far as Vera Cruz, on the gulf of Mexico; there they parted company, Simpson going to England by way of Havana, while Marshall made a detour through the United States in order to deliver dispatches, of which he was the-bearer, to the government in Washington. , " to Admiralty, July 11, 1843, BPRO, F.O. 115/82, No. 136, and printed in Report of Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawaii . . . ¡914, 36-37.

222

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

informed of this fact. T h e three Hawaiian agents set to work without delay upon the preparation of their case. In this they had the active assistance of P. A. Brinsmade, who could do nothing with his own business until the pending difficulties between the two governments were settled ; and they had the advice of E d w a r d Everett, the American minister in London, and of leading officials of the Hudson's Bay Company. Though handicapped by not knowing exactly the scope of the charges and claims against the Hawaiian government or the nature and extent of the evidence produced by Charlton and Simpson, and by not having access to the archives in Honolulu and to evidence which could be adduced nowhere else except in Hawaii, 5 3 they wrote out and submitted to Aberdeen two long communications: the first, dated July 24, 1843, contained an account of the proceedings of Paulet and Simpson, as embodied in Dr. Judd's letter of February 27, 1843, together with charges against Simpson, supported by documentary evidence ; 5 4 the second, dated August 5, was a full defense and presentation of the views of the Hawaiian government on the demands of Lord George Paulet. 5 5 A f t e r these communications had been sent in, the Hawaiian agents heard that General William Miller had already been appointed in Charlton's place and that Aberdeen intended to give him authority to settle the various difficulties a f t e r his arrival at Honolulu. This they felt to be a dangerous arrangement; it would, besides, defeat one of the important objects of their mission, since the king expected them to dispose of all these matters while they were in Europe, and it would remove any possibility of success in their negotiations with France. Hence they wrote to Aberdeen, pointing out the importance of having these questions settled at once and in London, 5 6 and in two interviews Marshall assured Addington that he and his associates were ready to leave the decision on all points in dispute to the Earl of Aberdeen himself, being fully satisfied that he would decide everything fairly and justly in the light of the evidence before him. Appealed to in this way, Lord Aberdeen accepted the responsibility of making a definitive decision upon the questions at issue, aided by the law adviser of the crown and the staff of the foreign office. Prompt 53 T h e y h a d in t h e i r possession a l a r g e q u a n t i t y of d o c u m e n t s , b u t o n a t least o n e i m p o r t a n t point t h i s m a t e r i a l was i n c o m p l e t e . " H a a l i l i o a n d R i c h a r d s to A b e r d e e n , J u l y 24, 1843, B P R O , F . O . 5 8 / 1 8 , copy in t h e M S H i s t o r y of the H a w a i i a n F o r e i g n E m b a s s y . O n A u g . 8, A l e x a n d e r S i m p s o n w r o t e to the f o r e i g n office i n q u i r i n g as to his position. H e w a s i n f o r m e d that his commission as a c t i n g consul w a s n o t r e c o g n i z e d . S i m p s o n to F . O . , A u g . 8, 1843; F . O . to S i m p s o n , A u g . 9, 1843; b o t h in B P R O , F . O . 58/17. T h i s m a y b e t a k e n a s m a r k i n g S i m p s o n ' s exit f r o m t h e H a w a i i a n stage. N e e d l e s s to say, he was g r e a t l y d i s p l e a s e d at t h e t u r n which a f f a i r s had t a k e n . H e f u l m i n a t e d in t h e newsp a p e r s a n d relieved h i s f e e l i n g s b y p u b l i s h i n g a book in w h i c h his v i e w s w e r e e x p r e s s e d w i t h m u c h c a n d o r . A. S i m p s o n , op. cit. K H a a l i l i o , R i c h a r d s , a n d M a r s h a l l to A b e r d e e n , A u g . 5, 1843, B P R O , F . O . 5 8 / 1 8 , copy i n M S H i s t o r y of H a w a i i a n F o r e i g n E m b a s s y . M a r s h a l l , op. cit., 518, gives t h e following a c c o u n t of t h e w r i t i n g of t h i s l e t t e r of A u g . 5 : " O u r m e t h o d of c o n c o c t i n g t h i s m o m e n t o u s d o c u m e n t , u p o n which, as we believed, h u n g t h e f a t e of a n a t i o n , was on this w i s e : All f o u r of u s [ R i c h a r d s , H a a l i l i o , M a r s h a l l , B r i n s m a d e ] , s i t t i n g r o u n d a l a r g e table in o u r l o d g i n g s , u n d e r t h e s h a d o w of St. P a u l ' s , w o u l d t a k e u p t h e p o i n t s o n e by one, a n d e a c h w r i t e w h a t he t h o u g h t w a s t h e best t h i n g to say, a n d t h e best w a y to say i t ; t h e n each would r e a d a l o u d his o w n prod u c t i o n . R u t we almost i n v a r i a b l y a d o p t e d t h e l a n g u a g e of M r . B r i n s m a d e , w h o p r o v e d himself a born d i p l o m a t i s t . " C f . Ladd & Co. Arbitration, 128-131, 143-144 ( t e s t i m o n y of R i c h a r d s , w h o says t h a t B r i n s m a d e w r o t e t h e l e t t e r of A u g . 5 ) . B " H a a l i l i o , R i c h a r d s , a n d M a r s h a l l t o A b e r d e e n , A u g . 16, 1843, B P R O , F . O . S 8 / 1 8 , copy in M S H i s t o r y of H a w a i i a n F o r e i g n E m b a s s y . M i l l e r ' s c o m m i s s i o n w a s d a t e d A u g . 16, 1843.

PAULET EPISODE

223

attention was given to the subject, 57 and the decision of Aberdeen (i.e. of the British government) was set forth in a letter dated September 12, 1843,88 addressed to Haalilio and Richards. The several cases were arranged in five groups: (1) The case of Skinner vs. Dominis; (2) Charlton's land claim; (3) The case of Pelly vs. Charlton; (4) A case growing out of Greenway's bankruptcy, in which Skinner and Simpson were interested; (5) Several minor cases of a miscellaneous nature. On the first, third, and fourth, the decision was wholly in favor of the Hawaiian government, except that in the case of Pelly vs. Charlton the amount of the judgment against the latter was considerably reduced. On the second case, the decision said that Charlton's title to the land "mainly rests on the genuineness of the grant, and the power of the person by whom it was executed." The original lease being in Honolulu, it was not possible in London to test its genuineness (i.e. whether it was in whole or part a forgery); this point had not been raised by Richards and his associates in their written arguments. 89 On the second point (the power of the person by whom the grant was alleged to have been made), the issue narrowed down finally to the question as to who was regent in December, 1826. Aberdeen, relying on the statements submitted by Charlton, decided that Kalanimoku was regent and therefore had a right to make the grant. 60 After disposing of some minor objections to the claim, the decision said: For the above reasons Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that, provided the original grant in the possession of Mr. Charlton, and now in the Sandwich Islands, be produced, and shewn to be genuine, Mr. Charlton is entitled to the land to which he lays claim. And they require that Mr. Charlton, or his representative on his behalf, having first produced the original grant, and shewn it to be genuine, may be formally put and secured in possession thereof, by that [Hawaiian] Government.

On the fifth group (minor cases of grievance), Aberdeen abstained from making any formal decision, and merely said that Her Majesty's government would require 1st that henceforward no British subject shall, except on the clearest and strongest grounds, be subjected to imprisonment in fetters. 2ndly that the law shall be administered strictly and impartially in all cases in which British subjects are concerned. 3rdly that British subjects shall, in every particular, be treated by the Sandwich Islands Government with the same favour as any other foreign residents, of whatever nation they may be. 57 During the latter part of August and early part of September, the Hawaiian envoys had a number of interviews with Addington and Gen. Miller, from whom they obtained some knowledge of the position taken by Charlton on his land claim; and they were able to submit additional evidence on some points. Marshall left London Aug. 18 in order to return to the United States. • Original in AH, F.O. & Ex., copy in BPRO, F.O. 58/18. M It may be pointed out, however, that Richards, in a conversation with Addington on September 9, distinctly suggested the possibility of forgery. Richards, Journal, Sept. 9, 1843. 40 It is, perhaps, unnecessary to point out that this decision was diametrically opposed to the official Hawaiian view (as declared in the constitution of 1840 and in many other documents) that Kaahumanu was the regent. By deciding as it did, the British government in effect declared that the Hawaiian king and chiefs did not know the facts of their own recent history. See Appendix B.

224

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

4thly that Her Majesty's Consul General, or the person acting on his behalf and by his authority, shall, at all times, on proper application being previously made, be admitted to a personal interview with the King of the Sandwich Islands, for the purpose of submitting to him any case of well founded grievance which any British subject may have against the Government, or authorities, of the Country.

Richards and Haalilio looked upon this decision as a triumph for their cause and unhesitatingly accepted all of it except the part relating to Charlton's land claim. Upon that subject they presented a long argument with some new evidence in an effort to show that the decision was erroneous. 61 But the effort failed and Aberdeen declared that the decision would have to stand.62 The Hawaiian representatives therefore signified their acceptance of the decision as final and obligatory on the Hawaiian government. At the same time, since the British government had, in their understanding of the matter, pronounced a virtual condemnation of the course pursued by Lord George Paulet, they invited Aberdeen's attention to the king's protest against the proceedings of Paulet and suggested, without actually demanding, that the British government pay an indemnity for the losses and damages sustained by the Hawaiian government as a result of those proceedings.63 To this suggestion Aberdeen returned answer that the British government had not condemned nor intended to condemn the conduct of Lord George Paulet and did not consider itself in any way liable for any losses suffered by the Hawaiian government as a result of the cession and temporary occupation of the islands.64 In face of this abrupt dismissal of their claim for indemnity, accompanied as it was with some reflection on the administration of justice in Hawaii, the Hawaiian envoys did not feel they could be silent. The letter was received by Richards in Paris; upon his return to London in February, 1844, he addressed to Aberdeen a long and well reasoned argument to prove the justice of the claim; he showed that not alone the conduct of Paulet but 91 Haalilio and Richards to Aberdeen, Sept. 20, 1843, B P R O , F.O. 58/18, copy in the M S History of Hawaiian Foreign Embassy, printed in the pamphlet An Award Upon the Meaning of Lord Aberdeen's Letter, September 12, 1843, by John Ricord . . . (Honolulu, 1844), 8-20. e2 A d d i n g t o n to Haalilio and Richards, Sept. 30, 1843, original in A H , F.O. & Ex., copy in B P R O , F.O. 58/18, printed in An Award . . . , 21-22. I n regard to Charlton's claim, Richards and Haalilio wrote to Kamehameha I I I , Sept. 30, 1843 ( A H , F.O. & E x . ) : " M r . Addington moreover said to me [Richards] in conversation, that the Consul general would be instructed to first see that the Lease is genuine, and even then not deliver to Mr. Charlton any ground which has been occupied by others unless it was occupied against his 'bona fide' remonstrance. If this is the ground actually taken by general Miller, then the decision may be considered as wholly against Mr. Charlton's claim. . . . It is nevertheless very doubtful to us whether the claiin is ever presented at all again, though we can not judge with any considerable degree of certainty on the subject." T h e instructions to Consul General Miller in regard to Charlton's claim were in accordance with Addington's statement to Richards. Aberdeen to Miller (No. 11). Sept. 29, 1843, B P R O , F.O. 58/21.

« Haalilio and Richards to Aberdeen, Oct. 7, 1843, B P R O , F.O. 58/18, copy in the M S History of Hawaiian Foreign Embassy. " A b e r d e e n to Haalilio and Richards, Nov. 15, 1843, original in A H , Brit. Com. Docs., copy in B P R O , F.O. 58/18, printed in Correspondence . . . on the Subject of Richard Charlton's Claim to Land (Honolulu, 1845), 44-45. Aberdeen said: " O n the contrary, although on some of the points of difference submitted to them [British government], they have decided in favor of the Sandwich Island government; nevertheless, on the main point, namely, that of Mr. Charlton's claim to a part of land, their decision has been in favor of that grant equitably considered. And on another material question, namely, that of Skinner versus Dominis, although H e r Majesty's government have not thought fit to reopen a case which had been already settled by voluntary arbitration, they are nevertheless f a r from approving the conduct of the Sandwich Island authorities as exhibited in the progress of that suit, or admitting that Lord George Paulet, keeping that consideration in view, had not strong grounds for insisting on the case being reconsidered."

PAULET E P I S O D E

225

even more the conduct of Simpson and Charlton richly merited severe condemnation, and maintained that, since they had been the accredited representatives of the British government, the damage done by them ought to be made good by that government; and he appended a detailed statement of losses and damages sustained by the Hawaiian government, amounting to $31,926.61.65 Aberdeen in reply brushed aside Richards' elaborate argument with the assertion that the claim for indemnification clearly rested "on an erroneous assumption of fact. You assume that Lord George Paulet took forcible possession of the Sandwich Islands, whereas it is certain that the King voluntarily surrendered the Islands into the hands of that officer. . . . The cession was a perfectly spontaneous deed on the part of the King." He admitted that Paulet had made peremptory demands and had accompanied them with a threat of hostilities, but argued that there was no necessity for the king either to yield to those demands or to cede his kingdom to Great Britain; he could have simply rejected the demands and left Paulet to take whatever action he saw fit; if, in that case, Paulet had resorted to hostilities or had taken forcible possession of the islands, the king would have had some ground for demanding an indemnity; as it was, said Aberdeen, the damages and losses were a direct consequence of the act of the king himself in making the voluntary cession.66 In their rejoinder to Aberdeen's ingenious statement of the case, Richards and Haalilio endeavored to show that the cession was not a voluntary act of the king but was forced upon him by Paulet's threats and unreasonable demands; Paulet, they intimated, should have been punished by his own government; whether the cession was voluntary or not, Paulet, having accepted the responsibility of government, ought to have administered the trust with justice and economy, but he did not do so; on the contrary he squandered the resources of the country in useless extravagance or directed them to his own ends; on this ground, they said, the claim for indemnification was a just and rightful one.67 Aberdeen closed the debate by stating that the British government was still compelled to dissent from the view taken by the Hawaiian agents and therefore adhered to the decision already expressed.68 Before this letter was written, Richards and Haalilio had left London on their return to the United States and Hawaii. " R i c h a r d s to Aberdeen, Feb. 28, 1844, B P R O , F.O. 58/18, copy in the M S History of Hawaiian Foreign Embassy. T h e statement of damages is among the Brit. Com. Docs, in A H . " A b e r d e e n to Richards, March 13, 1844, original in A H , F.O. & Ex., copy in B P R O , F.O. 58/30; Richards to J u d d , March 30, 1844, extract in A H , F. O. & Ex. 91 Haalilio and Richards to Aberdeen, April 24, 1844, in the M S History of Hawaiian Foreign Embassy. " Aberdeen to Haalilio and Richards, May 8, 1844, original in A H , F.O. & Ex., copy in B P R O , F.O. 58/30. For the negotiations in London for the settlement of the difficulties between the Hawaiian and British governments, I have used, in addition to documents cited: Richards' Journal covering the period; Marshall's article cited in note 42; Everett to U p s h u r (No. 50), Aug. 15, 1843, in Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess.. No. 57, pp. 10-11; Same to same (No. 56), Sept. 28, 1843, ibid., 11-12; the following letters in A H : Richards to Judd, July 29, Sept. 18, 30, Oct. 1, 1843, Feb. 28, 1844; Haalilio, Richards, and Marshall to Kamehameha I I I , Aug. 18, 1843; Haalilio and Richards to Kamehameha I I I , Sept. 30, 1843 (2 letters).

226

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

The young Hawaiian chief was destined never to see his homeland again. Two winters in the harsh climate of the northeastern United States and Europe had undermined his health. During the summer of 1844 he traveled extensively in the United States with Richards, but in the fall his disease took a firm hold on him; before sailing from Boston in November he was for several weeks a patient in the Massachusetts Hospital ; he died at sea, December 3, 1844.69 m

Richards, Journal, passim;

Polynesian,

March 29, 1845.

CHAPTER XIV

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION IN THE MIDST OF DIFFICULTIES In chapter ten an account was given of constitutional development to the latter part of 1840. As indicated in that chapter, the first stages of governmental reorganization in Hawaii consisted of what may be termed a devolution of authority, by which part of the power of the absolute king was distributed first from the king to the chiefs and next from the king and chiefs to the people. Along this road an important mile-post was the constitution of 1840, under which there were three recognized estates: King (and Kuhina-nui), Chiefs, and People, each having some part in the government. The constitution did not, however, write "finis" on the age-old feudal system. A law enacted less than a month after the promulgation of the constitution specifically stated that the subjection of the people to the chiefs was not discontinued. 1 That subjection was a necessary concomitant of the ancient land system and it required a change in land tenures to obliterate the feudal system. Important changes were made in the land system during the ten years after 1840 closely associated with the reorganization of the government during the same period; the subject is so important that it calls for separate treatment, and it will accordingly be the theme of the following chapter. At present we resume our study of governmental development, which, though momentarily checked by the absorbing occurrences of 1843, was not permanently interrupted. Indeed, it will be seen that the foreign relations of the country gave a powerful impetus to the internal reorganization. LEGISLATION, 1840-1844

While the constitution of 1840 provided in general terms for a "representative body" in the legislature, it did not specify the number of representatives or the manner in which they were to be elected. In the fall of 1840, subsequent to the signing of the constitution, the chiefs were convened in council as a legislative body at Lahaina, 2 and a number of laws were passed, including the first election law. 3 This provided that there 1

Constitution and Laws, 1S42, Chap. 1. * T h e statement is sometimes made or an implication conveyed that the legislative session of 1840 did not begin until Nov. 2 and that it ended on Nov. 14. I believe, however, that the session began earlier, probably a few days prior to Oct. 15, 1840. There is no record of the session except the laws enacted. T h e constitution was approved and signed at Honolulu on Oct. 8. The first formal school law was enacted on Oct. 15, at Lahaina; it seems evident, therefore, that the legislature was in session at that time. Some other laws were enacted, also at Lahaina, d u r i n g the first two weeks of November. T h e dates Nov. 2 and Nov. 14 are the earliest and latest enacting dates of such of these laws, subsequent to the constitution, as are printed in Const, and Laws, 1842. The school law of Oct. 15, 1840, is not printed in that compilation, its place being taken by the amended law of May 21, 1841. The law of Oct. 15, 1840, is in the Hawaiian edition of the laws. * Const, and Laws, 1841, Chap. 2.

227

228

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

should be seven representatives, two from Hawaii, two from Maui and adjacent islands, two from Oahu, and one from Kauai. The representatives were to be chosen by means of ballot-letters addressed to the king, the letters to present the names of certain persons, believed by the signers to be "men of wisdom and prudence," whom they desired to "sit in council with the Nobles;" each letter might be signed by any number of voters, "and even should there be many such letters written it will be well, for the person who has the most names in those letters will be the person chosen." The qualifications of voters were not specified, but provision was made against fraudulent voting. 4 During the ten years that the law of 1840 was in effect, there were only three sessions (1845, 1846, and 1848) at which it is definitely known that the full number of seven representatives were present; "at the other sessions the number is uncertain or we know that there was a smaller number." 5 In the early years the representatives took only a small part in the work of the legislature. The former complete subordination of the common people, their dependence on the chiefs, and the respect and veneration with which they had from time immemorial looked up to and served the alii, rendered the commoners for a long time incapable of making very effective use of the power placed within their reach by the constitution of 1840. Added to this was the fact that in the legislature the representatives constituted a small unorganized minority with very little previous experience in law making. The first decade falls roughly into two periods, before and after 1844, in which year the legislature did not meet. In the first period the sessions were held at Lahaina, but from 1845 onward, at Honolulu. By the latter year the independence of the kingdom was recognized, and the legislature, in common with the rest of the government, put on an air of dignity and self-consciousness, and in the legislative enactments the quaint language of the early laws gave place to a more elaborate, precise, and formal phraseology. One senses the fact that in the early years the laws were first written in Hawaiian and then translated into English, whereas in the later period they were first written in English and then translated into Hawaiian. This symbolizes the presence and increasing influence of foreigners in the government. 6 In the meetings of the legislature during the years 1840-1843, especially in 1841 and 1842, a large number of laws were passed dealing with a great variety of subjects, and earlier laws were carefully scrutinized 4 There is in A H what appears to be one of these ballot-letters, possibly the earliest surviving Hawaiian election document. It is a letter dated Waioli, Kauai, J u n e 16, 1847, addressed to Kamehameha I I I and signed by 54 persons. The body of the letter reads as follows (in the translation): " W e write to you informing you of the men in Kauai whom we know to be capable and honest, Wana and Jesse Opunui, by name, whom we would like to legislate with the Nobles this year." A H , F.O. & Ex- One of these men, Wana, is recorded as a representative in 1848. • T . M. Spaulding, " E a r l y Years of the Hawaiian Legislature," 38 H H S Report, 30-31. • For a very interesting account of the early Hawaiian legislature, based on the original records, see the article by Spaulding cited in the preceding note. Cf. also the " N o t e s by the Compiler" in R. C. Lydecker, Roster Legislatures of Hawaii, 3-7. F o r the names of the members, see Spaulding, Lydecker, and a note by the present writer in 40 H H S Report, 37.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

229

and revised. The bulk of this material, new and old, was published in 1842 in an English translation entitled, Translation of the Constitution and Laws of the Hawaiian Islands, Established in the Reign of Kamehameha III.7 In a preface, the translator, William Richards, gives some account of the authorship of the laws; he accords credit specifically to several Hawaiians by name, and in general to the members of the legislature for their careful attention to the business, and makes the following statement: "Some of the laws . . . were first proposed by foreign visitors and commanders of vessels of war, some were proposed by foreign residents, some by foreign consuls, and one or two were written by them; but not so with by far the greatest proportion." 8 An illustration of foreign influence is to be seen in a letter from Sir George Simpson to Kamehameha III, in which the writer offers some advice on the subjects of courts, trials by jury, and various tax and revenue matters. 9 The suggestions of Sir George seem definitely to be reflected in certain of the laws subsequently passed. 10 Beyond the direct advice received from foreigners, foreign influence was brought to bear by the mere presence of so many foreigners in the country, with their complicated business and personal relations, which created the necessity for most of the laws that were enacted. Richards refrains from mentioning his own part in the work of legislation; it must, however, have been very important. He was the official teacher and adviser of the chiefs, and while he was not a lawyer he undoubtedly endeavored to bring in the best lights available. It is known that in October, 1839, he received from the United States a copy of Chancellor Kent's Commentaries on American Law, in four volumes. 11 Without attempting a general analysis of the legislation of this period (1840-1843), 12 it may be useful to mention briefly a few of the laws which had special significance, some that were causes of controversy, and others that reveal various aspects of Hawaiian life. A law of 1840 pointed out the manner in which the laws should be promulgated. 13 Before this it had been customary to assemble the people in order to have the laws read and explained to them; still earlier, as we have seen, laws were proclaimed by the public crier who went about through the streets. The new statute provided that no law should take effect "without having been first printed and made public." For some time longer, however, the people continued to be called together to hear the laws read. 14 The school 7 This volume is frequently cited as "Old L a w s " or "Blue Book" (from the color of the cover) and sometimes opprobriously referred to as " H a w a i i ' s Blue Laws." 8 Cf. the letter signed " T h e T r a n s l a t o r , " in Polynesian, Feb. 6, 1841. • Simpson to the King, March 14, 1842. A H , F.O. & Ex. 10 For references to the letter of Sir George Simpson, see Journal of the Legislature, May 2, 11, 1842, M S in A H . 11 F. W . Taylor, The Flag Ship: or a voyage around the world, in the United States Frigate Columbia . . . (2 vols. New York, 1840), I I , 272. u F o r an interesting discussion of this legislation, see W . F. Blackman, The Making of Hawaii (New York, 1899), 11CM17. See also J u d g e F r e a r ' s valuable article on " H a w a i i a n Statute L a w " in 13 H H S Report. u Const, and Laws, 1S42, Chap. 1. 14 Reynolds, Journal, April 7, 1840, July 9, 13, 14, Aug. 17, 1841, May 12, 1843. U n d e r the date J u l y 14, 1841, Reynolds says: " M a n y of the New L a w s were read w r o n g . y e s t e r d a y — t h e Crier went round in the morning to give notice of E r r o r . "

230

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

laws enacted during this period (three in number) 1 5 caused much complaint on the part of the Catholic missionaries and the French consular and naval officers, but this subject will be treated more fully in a later chapter. The law of November 12, 1840, "of marriage and divorce," 16 contains the first Hawaiian legislation on the subject of naturalization: N o f o r e i g n e r s h a l l m a r r y a w i f e h e r e u n l e s s h e first g o b e f o r e t h e G o v e r n o r a n d d e c l a r e u n d e r o a t h t h a t it i s h i s d e s i g n t o r e m a i n in t h e c o u n t r y , a n d a l s o t a k e t h e o a t h of a l l e g i a n c e t o this g o v e r n m e n t , a n d o b t a i n f r o m t h e G o v e r n o r a c e r t i f i c a t e of marriage.17

The requirement about taking the oath of allegiance was made a matter of complaint in 1846 by the British consul general, supported by a British admiral, and its repeal urged oh the erroneously assumed ground that it infringed rights guaranteed to British subjects by treaty. In commenting on the subject, R. C. Wyllie, minister of foreign relations, said: I find m u c h a p p r e h e n s i o n e x i s t s a m o n g t h e n a t i v e s , t h a t if t h e l a w s h o u l d b e repealed, e v e r y sailor w o u l d be g e t t i n g a w i f e t h o u g h only f o r a m o n t h or two, a n d t h a t n u m e r o u s n a t i v e f e m a l e s u n d e r t h e n a m e of w i v e s , p e r h a p s in a w a y t o h a v e c h i l d r e n , w o u l d b e a b a n d o n e d t o t h e i r o w n r e s o u r c e s . I t is c o n s i d e r e d t h a t if f o r e i g n e r s b e c o m e n a t u r a l i z e d , t h e r e is s o m e g u a r a n t y t h a t t h e y w i l l n o t a b a n d o n their w i v e s . "

A law "for the protection of the Sabbath," approved November 13, 1840, 19 occasioned much friction because of the interpretation at first placed upon it by the governor. People were called to account for riding on the Sabbath, even those who rode quietly—among them one of the missionaries; milk men were told that they must not deliver milk on the Sabbath; the working of ships on that day was interfered with. Agitation of the subject resulted in a somewhat more rational enforcement of the law. 20 The harbor law of 1841 21 caused a good deal of trouble, especially those sections which related to the discharge and desertion of " Oct. 15, 1840; May 21, 1841; May 13, 1842. 18 Const, and Laws, 1S42, Chap. 10. 17 The so-called "Alien law of 1838", which was not actually a law (see chapter 10, note 16), contains a somewhat similar requirement. The first instances of naturalization (i.e., of taking the oath of allegiance) on record antedate the law of Nov. 12, 1840, by about two years and were in response to a local requirement on the island of Maui, which may have been a result of the discussion of the so-called "Alien Law of 1838." " Wyllie to Barclay (No. 36), Sept. 15, 1846. A H , F.O. & Ex. T h e consul general was informed by his own government that the law was not in conflict with the treaty, but the pressure for repeal was kept up and in 1847 the law was so f a r modified as to allow a foreigner in lieu of taking the oath of allegiance, to give a bond for a sum not to exceed one thousand dollars, "conditioned for the f a i t h f u l discharge of his duties as a husband and f a t h e r . " T h e subject is covered in the following documents, in addition to Wyllie's letter just cited: Miller to Addington ( ? ) , Feb. 16, 1846, B P R O , F.O. 5 8 / 4 4 ; Miller to Aberdeen (No. 21), Sept. 11, 1846, ibid.; Palmerston to Miller (No. 3), March 22, 1847, (No. 8), Sept. 24, 1847, ibid., F.O. 5 8 / 5 5 ; Rear Admiral G. F. Seymour, memorandum dated Sept. 3, 1846, A H , F.O. & Ex.; Journal of the Legislature, Sept. 26, 1846; Paki, Kekuanaoa, Keoni Ana, Ioane Ii, Report dated April 27, 1847 (strongly opposes change in law), A H , F.O. & E x . ; W. L. Lee, Report dated Aug. 20, 1847, ibid.; Miller to Wyllie (No. 107), Aug. 15, 1847, in Polynesian, Sept. 11, 1847; Wyllie to Miller (No. 28), Sept. 4, 1847. in ibid., Sept. 18, 1847; Wyllie to Miller (No. 38), Oct. 7, 1847, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Supplement to the Investigation at the Palace . . . (Honolulu, 1846), 38-39, 65; Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, Vol. I I (Honolulu, 1847), 94-95. 19 Const, and Laws, 1S42, Chap. 11. 20 Reynolds, Journal, Feb. 1, 8, April 4, 11, 12, July 18, 1841; Chamberlain, Journal, Feb. 8, 1841; Brinsmade to Kekuanaoa, Feb. 22, 1841, A H , F.O. & Ex. 21 Const, and Laws, 1841, Chap. 27.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

231

seamen. One of the regulations for the harbor of Honolulu provided for the firing of two evening guns, one at 7:30 and the other at 8 o'clock. Between these guns, all boats and seamen were required to return to their ships, and penalties were prescribed for any seaman found on shore after the second gun. The regulation was very irksome to sailors and the shipping interests; during the fall season of 1842 it resulted in a near-riot. 22 Ship captains and local merchants petitioned for a change,23 and in April, 1843, the law was amended by moving the time for the evening guns to 9 and 9:30. 24 The first general law relating to the judiciary was the act of May 5, 1842, "for the regulation of courts." 25 It distinguished between cases which could be decided by the judges alone and cases in which juries were necessary. "This is the limit, if the fine or damages amount to less than a hundred dollars, then the judges can try the case themselves. But if they amount to more than a hundred dollars, there must be a jury." An, explanation was given of the functions of the judge and the jury respectively. The law indicated briefly the method of starting a suit and of making an appeal. It provided that there should be two sessions of the supreme court each year, in June at Honolulu and in December at Lahaina. Much of the act related to the method of selecting juries and to the composition of juries. If, in a given case, both parties were foreigners, the jury was to be made up of foreigners only; if both were natives, the jury should be composed of natives only; if there was a foreigner on one side and a native on the other, the jury must be of foreigners and natives in equal proportions. 28 But if a Frenchman was accused of a crime, he had to be tried by a jury composed of foreigners selected by the French consul, in accordance with the fourth article of the French (Laplace) convention of July 17, 1839. The British convention of February 12, 1844, extended the same privilege to British subjects. FIRST STEPS IN ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION

In some respects, the most important legislative action during this period was the adoption of a "Proclamation" (May 10, 1842) in regard to government property and the establishment of a national Treasury a

Chamberlain, Journal, Nov. 30, 1842. » [Forty ship masters] to Kekuanaoa, Nov. 22, 1842, AH, F.O. & Ex.; Peirce & Brewer et a I. to Kekuanaoa, Jan. 16, 1843, ibid. w The Laws and Resolutions passed . . . at Lahaina, April, 1843 (Lahainaluna, 1843), Section 5. By the Act to Organize the Executive Departments, enacted in 1846, it was provided that the signals should be given by the ringing of a bell at 9:30 and 10 o'clock in the evening. Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, I, 151. " Const, and Laws, 1841, Chap. 47. In the application of this statute, a hot dispute arose over the meaning of the word "foreigners." On the one side it was argued that when a person was naturalized he ceased to be a foreigner and must therefore be placed in the same category with natives. The government, on the other hand, held that naturalized subjects of the king were still "foreigners" (haole), though they were not aliens, and they were accordingly classified as "foreigners" for jury purposes. In Chancery. The Estate of William French and Francis J. Greenway . . . vs. Richard Charlton and Henry Skinner . . . (Honolulu, 1844), 3; Report of the Case 6f James Gray . . . (Honolulu, 1845), 3-9; Reynolds, Journal, June 20, 1844, March 3, 1845.

232

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

Board, 27 and the adoption, two days later, of "A Resolve in Relation to the Appointment of a Government Interpreter and Recorder," 28 for this marked the beginning of the organization of a modern administrative system. The first of these acts provides that "all Government property shall be set apart by itself, and shall be entirely at the direction of the National council" (i.e., the Legislature) and "shall be committed to the care of a National Treasury Board"; furthermore, it says, no debt contracted by anyone, even the king himself, will be paid by the government "unless the debt be contracted through the Treasury Board, and the obligation have the signature of the King and Premier [Kuhinanui]." The object and effect of this measure was to mark a distinction not before existing between the property and obligations of the government on the one hand and those of the king and chiefs on the other, 29 and to establish a control over the government finances so that the national debt and the expenses of government could and would be paid. The second act mentioned above provided that the King should appoint some foreigner as Recorder and Interpreter for the Government. His .business shall be to superintend the arrangement of Government documents, and act as interpreter at all trials of foreigners before the supreme Judges. He shall also give information as to the manner of conducting business in foreign countries. . . . It shall be his duty to attend on trials before the Governors, whenever directed by His Majesty, and . . . it will . . . be particularly proper for foreigners who wish to speak to his Majesty on any business which requires his official action, to first call on the legally appointed interpreter.

On May 10, 1842, the king and kuhina-nui signed a commission appointing Dr. G. P. Judd, Timothy Haalilio, and John Ii members of the treasury board of the kingdom,30 and on the same day a set of books was opened—the "first attempt of the Sandwich Island Government to keep anything like regular and systematic accounts." "At that time," says Dr. Judd, "the Finances were a mass of confusion requiring great labor and patience to reduce them to any kind of order." 31 On May IS, Dr. Judd was appointed translator and recorder for the government, at a salary of $760 per year; on the same day the king and kuhina-nui wrote a letter informing him of the appointment and adding, "Moreover we instruct you to aid Kekuanaoa [Governor of Oahu] in your official 31 Const, and Laws, 1842, Chap. 48. I n f o r m a " P r o c l a m a t i o n / ' this was in reality a law and was regularly passed by the nobles and representatives and signed by the king and Kuhina-nui. "Ibid., Chap. SO. 29 A short step in that direction had been taken three years earlier in the King's proclamation of J u n e 8, 1839 (see chapter 10, .note 48), which contains the following statement: " F u r t h e r more; no documents nor notes, referable to government, a f t e r this date, which have not my own signature, and also that of Miriam Kekauluohi at the bottom of said writing will be acknowledged as government papers." P. A. Brinsmade, the American commercial agent, gives the following explanation of the statement just quoted: " T h a t declaration is intended to obviate any liabilities of the Government for the private contracts of the King, little or nn distinction having been heretofore made between his official and personal obligations, in the demands of otner parties which have been enforced by foreign powers." Brinsmade to Sec. of State J o h n Forsyth, J u l y 1, 1839, U S D S , Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. I. 90 Const, and Laws, 1841, Chap. 55. W h e n Haalilio went with Richards to Europe, Paulo Kanoa was appointed to succeed him on the T r e a s u r y Board. 81 Judd to the British Commissioners, May 16, 1843, A H , British Commission Letter Book, 45-47.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

233

capacity, which relates to all business of importance between foreigners." 3 2 In letters written at different times, Dr. Judd explained how he came to be drawn into the service of the government. In one letter, written in 1843, he said: It is a fact well known to me that since I came to the Islands the Government have depended on individuals of the Mission for advice on all important measures and for aid in carrying them into execution. I will not go into details in illustration of this, but will state that for the last three or four years, an increased share of this labor has fallen upon me, and I have done it with the approbation of my brethren, using great caution, however, lest I should appear to the world too conspicuous an actor. This I was the better able to do by reason of my being a medical man, often called about the persons of the chiefs. To my brethren I made no secret of the course I had fallen into, and they advised me,—not by any formal vote, but individually,—to persevere. I found also, that in case I failed to act, others of the brethren, even ministers, were ready to serve in a similar manner. I resolved in my mind the probable consequences to the Mission of this state of things, and must confess, with pain—sometimes with alarm; but the interests of the Government demanding the service, I continued to render it. When Mr. Richards was appointed, I hoped to be released, but notwithstanding I was very much opposed to the measure, he took up his residence at Maui, leaving the metropolis without his aid. This deficiency I did supply, the uneasiness of my mind increasing until I addressed a letter to Mr. Richards explaining the case . . . expressing my wish to act no longer, and urging him to come to Honolulu to attend to business himself. I likewise offered for his consideration some other measures, one which, although against my wishts, was that I should leave the service of the Board and engage in that of the Government. Mr. Richards endeavored to encourage and comfort me in a continuance of the old course, and seeing no alternative, I did so." T h u s matters continued until the king decided to send Richards to E u r o p e ; It was then necessary for someone to take his place at h o m e ; Dr. Judd was consulted, was requested to visit Lahaina while the business was being arranged, and was invited to take up and carry on the work of Richards while the latter was away. The case was urgent. Dr. Judd, however, did not wish merely to lecture and interpret, but pointed out the importance of organizing the finances of the kingdom and suggested the plan that was finally adopted. T h e upshot was the t w o appointments already mentioned. Dr. Judd immediately resigned from the mission. 8 4 In this w a y Dr. Judd entered the Hawaiian government, of which he was for a dozen years the most conspicuous and influential member. I n the summer of 1842 when Richards and Haalilio departed on their embassy to foreign lands, Judd received f r o m the king and kuhina-nui a M T h e original commission and letter to J u d d are in A H , F.O. & E x . ; they a r e printed in L . F. J u d d , Honolulu (1928 ed.), 84-85. Stephen Reynolds' comment on D r . J u d d ' s entry into government service is characteristic; on May 20, 1842, he wrote in his journal, " G r e a t news . . . Dr. J u d d General T r e a s u r e r of the Government—what n e x t ? " O n the following day he wrote, " M u c h expectation f r o m the new Government. Missionaries have now everything in their own hands." 83 Judd to D r . R u f u s Anderson, March 20 and April 3, 1843, in Letters of Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, 1827-1872 (Fragments I I ) , 147-161. See also: Judd to Anderson, April 19, J u n e 11, 1842, ibid., 134-140; L. F. J u d d , op. cit., 63-64, 83-87, 190-198 (letter of G. P. J u d d to R. C. Wyllie, Feb. 17, 1860). » I n 1 letter to Sir George Simpson, July 3, 1844, J u d d said: " I t is impossible for me to express to you the deep anxiety I feel for the young Government of these Islands. I have unawares been drawn into the deepest assimilation of all my interests with theirs, and ready to sacrifice every thing for the welfare of the nation." Correspondence . . . 0» the Subject of Richard Charlton's Claim to Land (Honolulu, 1845), 180. The difficulty created within the Protestant Mission by J u d d ' s action lies outside the scope of thig study. I t is touched upon in the letters cited.

234

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

commission as "our officer whose duty it is to collect correct information and report to William Richards and Sir George Simpson, who are to act according to your words ;"3B and in February, 1843, he was appointed as the king's deputy on the British Commission set up by Lord George Paulet. After his first appointment, Dr. Judd proceeded to introduce some system into the government finances, but the results of his work in that department may better be spoken of in another place; how he performed the other duties assigned to him, prior to the restoration by Admiral Thomas, has been indicated in the preceding chapter. After that time, further administrative development was more or less forced by circumstances. The admission of Hawaii into the family of nations together with local complications arising from the presence in the country of numerous foreigners of several different nationalities created problems which the native rulers were unable to cope with; hence they found it advantageous to utilize the services of some foreigners in the government. On October 16, 1843, George Brown, the recently appointed United States commissioner to Hawaii, arrived at Honolulu and two weeks later was officially received by the king and kuhina-nui at Lahaina. In his address welcoming the commissioner, the king said, "You may assure your government that I shall always consider the citizens of the United States as entitled to equal privileges with those of the most favored nations." 36 Subsequently, Brown wished to know with whom he was to do business and was referred to Dr. Judd; he inquired if Judd had the proper authority, and since the circumstances seemed to make it necessary, the latter was appointed secretary of state for foreign affairs. Writing to Richards a few days later, Dr. Judd said, "I was greatly perplexed on this subject, and accepted the office under great doubt as to the expediency of it. The Admiral [Thomas], however, approves, and thus far all seems favorable." 37 Three months later arrived General William Miller, British consul general for the Sandwich and other islands in the Pacific Ocean, who was to reside at Honolulu. After a few days delay, he journeyed to Lahaina, where he was formally received in his official capacity. Immediately after his reception, Miller requested a formal ratification by the king of the settlement made in London by Richards and Haalilio in the terms stated in Lord Aberdeen's letter of September 12, 1843, as related in the preceding chapter, and this ratification was duly made on February 12, 1844.38 On the same day (February 12) the convention, or treaty, brought out by Miller was signed. Before going to Lahaina, the consul general Kamehameha I I I and Kekauluohi to Judd, July 18, 1842, AH, F.O. & Ex. "Friend, I (1843), 64; Brown to Upshur (No. 6), Nov. 4, 1843, USDS, Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I. 87 Judd to Richards, Nov. 4, 1843, Ladd & Co. Arbitration, Appendix, pp. 116-117. Cf. Judd to Richards, Dec. 16, 1843, ibid. Judd's commission for this new office was dated Nov. 2, 1843: the original is in AH, F.O. & Ex. 88 The documents relating to Miller's arrival and reception and the signing of the convention of Feb. 12, 1844 (sometimes called the "treaty of Lahaina") are in AH, F.O. It Ex. An accou t of the same, with the more important documents, is printed in Friend, I I (1844), 17-18, 21-24.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

235

had shown the draft of the convention to Dr. Judd, who immediately stated objections to the second, third and sixth articles. 30 Miller replied that he had no authority to omit or alter any article or word of the draft, but when the convention was finally signed he consented to sign also an "additional article/' to be afterwards appended to the convention if the British government approved; this additional article provided that if the French government should consent to a modification of the sixth article of its convention of July 17, 1839, the corresponding article of the British convention would be similarly modified. 40 A few days after the convention was signed, Dr. Judd addressed a letter to the British foreign minister, the Earl of Aberdeen, calling attention to the objectionable articles of the convention and expressing the hope and belief that the British government would approve the modifications desired in the two conventions (French and British) and would use its influence with the government of France to bring about the necessary changes. 41 When Commissioner Brown learned from Dr. Judd that a new treaty had been made with Great Britain, he expressed the utmost astonishment that the Hawaiian government should take such a step without first consulting him ; 42 he criticized the convention severely, and went so far as to write an official letter to Dr. Judd, in which he specifically disapproved the third article, protested against any injury which might be done to American citizens by reason of that article, and at the same time claimed for his fellow countrymen the same privileges that had been granted to British subjects. 43 In reply, Dr. Judd said that the king had M A r t i c l c I I . " T h e s u b j e c t s of H e r B r i t a n n i c M a j e s t y shall be protected in a n efficient m a n n e r in t h e i r p e r s o n s a n d p r o p e r t i e s by the K i n g of t h e S a n d w i c h I s l a n d s , w h o shall c a u s e t h e m t o e n j o y i m p a r t i a l l y , in all cases in which their i n t e r e s t s a r e c o n c e r n e d , the s a m e r i g h t s a n d privileges as n a t i v e s , or as a r e e n j o y e d by a n y other f o r e i g n e r s . " D r . Jfudd said t h a t t h i s w a s too indefinite a n d might be so c o n s t r u e d as to p r e v e n t the king f r o m g r a n t i n g a n y p r e f e r e n c e or e n c o u r a g e m e n t to his own subjects. A r t . I I I . " N o B r i t i s h subject accused of a n y c r i m e w h a t e v e r shall be j u d g e d o t h e r w i s e t h a n by a j u r y composed of f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t s , proposed by t h e B r i t i s h consul a n d accepted by t h e Gove r n m e n t of the S a n d w i c h I s l a n d s . " D r . J u d d ' s objection w a s t h a t u n d e r t h e w o r d i n g of t h e a r t i c l e a m e r e m i s d e m e a n o r would r e q u i r e a j u r y . Miller, however, e x p r e s s e d t h e opinion t h a t t h e t r u e m e a n i n g w a s t h a t in cases of c r i m e t r i e d by a j u r y , t h e j u r y should be selected in t h e m a n n e r s t a t e d , a n d not t h a t e v e r y petty offense should be t r i e d by a j u r y . A r t . V I . " B r i t i s h m e r c h a n d i s e , or goods recognized as c o m i n g f r o m t h e B r i t i s h dominions, shall not be prohibited, nor shall they be s u b j e c t to a n i m p o r t d u t y higher t h a n 5 per cent ad valorem." J u d d said t h a t since the H a w a i i a n g o v e r n m e n t w a s t r y i n g to get t h e s i m i l a r a r t i c l e of t h e F r e n c h t r e a t y modified, so as to p e r m i t the exclusion of s p i r i t u o u s liquors, it would be inconsistent to include this article in a t r e a t y with G r e a t B r i t a i n . « M i l l e r to A b e r d e e n ( N o s . 2 a n d 6 ) , Feb. 4, 12, 1844, B P R O , F . O . 5 8 / 2 5 . S e e also w h a t is said in c h a p t e r 12 about the convention of Feb. 12, 1844. 41 J u d d to A b e r d e e n , Feb. 17, 1844, A H , F . O . & E x . E v e r y t h i n g of i m p o r t a n c e in t h e l e t t e r is p r i n t e d in Rep. of Mitt, of For. Rel., 1851, A p p e n d i x , pp. 26-21. I n r e g a r d to the t h i r d a r t i c l e , D r . J u d d s a i d : " I t is not believed t h a t it w a s , or ever could be, the m e a n i n g of H e r B r i t a n n i c M a j e s t y ' s G o v e r n m e n t in t h e t h i r d article, to s t i p u l a t e u n d e r the w o r d s , ' a n y c r i m e w h a t e v e r , ' t h a t c r i m e s of a trivial n a t u r e , or petty offences and m i s d e m e a n o r s should necessarily be tried by a j u r y , b u t t h a t the operation of t h a t a r t i c l e will be r e s t r i c t e d to cases of c r i m e s u s u a l l y s u b m i t t e d to j u r i e s by o u r l a w s . " ** B r o w n to U p s h u r ( N o . 1 1 ) , J a n . 16. 1844 ( w i t h a d d i t i o n s d a t e d Feb. 9, 16, 21, 2 3 ) , U S D S , D i s p a t c h e s , H a w a i i , Vol I . ; B r o w n ' s e n t r i e s f o r Feb. 13 a n d 16, 1844, U S D S , L e g a t i o n Archive», H a w a i i , P r i v a t e a n d Official I n t e r v i e w ? , Vol. I . B r o w n ' s action on this occasion i l l u s t r a t e s a point of view which is a p p a r e n t in much of his c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . H e seems to h a v e come to H a w a i i w i t h t h e idea t h a t he was to be a sort of q u a s i - g u a r d i a n of the island kingdom, that he would be consulted on all i m p o r t a n t m a t t e r s a n d his j u d g m e n t d e f e r r e d to by the H a w a i i a n a u t h o r i t i e s . 43 B r o w n to J u d d , Feb. 14, 1844, A H , F . O . & E x . , a n d p r i n t e d in Correspondence . . . in the Case of John Wiley, an American Citizen ( H o n o l u l u , 1 8 4 4 ) , 75-77. B r o w n ' s objections to t h e c o n v e n t i o n w e r e c o m m u n i c a t e d by J u d d to Miller, who r e p o r t e d the s a m e to h i s g o v e r n m e n t w i t h a r e s u m e of his own r e m a r k s to J u d d on the s u b j e c t . M i l l e r to A b e r d e e n ( N o . 8 ) , Feb. 16, 1844, B P R O , F.O. 58/25.

236

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

been greatly disappointed by the refusal of the United States to negotiate a treaty, and that, under the existing circumstances, Hawaii could hardly refuse, when requested by Great Britain, to put that nation on the same footing as France in its relations with this kingdom; he added: I deem myself authorized, h o w e v e r , to assure you that H i s M a j e s t y will enter i n t o a s i m i l a r c o n v e n t i o n w i t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , if it is d e m a n d e d , a n d t o d e c l a r e t o y o u , t h a t in p r a c t i c e , e v e r y t h i n g w i l l b e a l l o w e d to t h e c i t i z e n s of y o u r R e p u b l i c , w h i c h are, in f a c t , u n d e r e x i s t i n g t r e a t i e s , a c c o r d e d to t h e s u b j e c t s of F r a n c e a n d Great Britain."

By this exchange of notes, taken in connection with the king's remarks to Brown at the time of his official reception, the latter believed that he had, without a treaty, secured to American citizens in Hawaii all the rights that were by treaty granted to citizens of France and Great Britain. On March 9, 1844, John Ricord was appointed attorney general of the kingdom, after having taken the oath of allegiance to Kamehameha III and renounced his allegiance to the United States,4-'1 The need for a competent legal adviser for the government had long been apparent to those directly concerned with governmental matters and to disinterested onlookers. Sir George Simpson, in the letter of advice previously mentioned, referred to the informal manner in which trials were conducted and the difficulties due to ignorance of the laws of foreign countries and told the king that it would be best for him "to hire a good smart man well versed in these matters" to aid him in legal and judicial affairs. 40 The finding of such a man, willing to enter the service of a Polynesian king, was one of the errands entrusted to William Richards. 47 The troubles and confusion of 1842 and 1843 emphasized the need; on October 5, 1843, Dr. Judd wrote to Richards, "I fear you will not be here in season to assist with your English lawyer in the adjustment of our affairs." 4 8 When John Ricord arrived at Honolulu, February 27, 1844, he was something like a godsend to Judd, struggling under a heavy load of duties and responsibilities. In conversation with J. F. B. Marshall, who returned to Honolulu about a month after Ricord assumed office as attorney general, Judd gave two reasons for causing that appointment to be made. "One reason was, that his own duties were so arduous, that he needed assistance. . . . Another reason was that Mr. Ricord was here, and he was fearful that he would be employed against him." 49 " J u d d to Brown, Feb. 15, 1844, A H , F.O. & Ex., and printed in Correspondence . . . in the Case of John Wiley, 77-78. 45 Ricord's commission as attorney general is printed in Ladd & Co. Arbitration, 236-237. Notices in regard to the appointment are printed in ibid., 223-224, and in Friend, I I ( 1 M 4 ) , 34. 46 Simpson's letter cited in note 11 above. 47 Jarves, History of the Hawaiian Islands (3 ed.), 190. 48 Ladd & Co. Arbitration, Appendix, pp. 113-114. w Ladd & Co. Arbitration, 255-256. I n reply to a question by Ricord, Marshall s*id, " D r . Judd told me he was afraid you might be employed against him, and that he considered you a fiery and headstrong fellow, and that so long as he could manage you, you would be of service." Ibid., 264. Dr. Judd discussed the appointment of Ricord with Commissioner Brown, who strongly disapproved it, telling Judd that not enough was known about Ricord to j u s t i f y giving him a responsible office; but that he might safely be hired as a lawyer to do whatever was necessary. Brown was much displeased when Judd disregarded his advice. U S D S , Legation Archives, Hawaii, Private and Official Interviews, Vol. 1.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

237

While Ricord's career, viewed as a whole, indicates that he was a sort of "rolling stone." 50 it is not to be denied that he had much native ability, a fair legal education, and a nervous energy which could drive all his mental faculties at top speed when circumstances required it. The Hawaiian situation of fhe 1840's enlisted his sympathies and called forth his best efforts for a period of a little more than three years. He had certain temperamental defects which stirred up most bitter hostility in those with whom he came into conflict and this was one of the factors which served to keep the whole community in a ferment-during this period; he seemed at times to be possessed by sheer lust of battle. 51 But in spite of serious faults, Ricord performed services of great and permanent importance to the Hawaiian kingdom. HAWAII CLAIMS PREROGATIVES OF INDEPENDENCE

With the appointment of Judd and Ricord and the arrival of Commissioner Brown and Consul General Miller, the stage was set for an interesting drama. The Hawaiian government, having been recognized by the great powers and having now learned of that recognition, claimed the status and prerogatives of a fully independent state and declined being dictated to by the local representatives of foreign powers. It adopted a firmer tone in its dealings with resident foreigners and began to shape its course so as to strengthen the government and give it dignity. This new policy was not looked upon favorably by the foreigners, who objected not merely to the policy itself but also to the aggressive manner in which it was put into operation. The foreign official representatives were well aware of the limitations imposed on Hawaiian sovereignty by the various conventions and agreements and by the terms of recognition, and they frequently intimated to the Hawaiian authorities that they were going too fast and too far in their assertion of independence. Dr. Judd commented on this state of affairs in a letter to one of the secretaries of the American missionary board: 60 Ricord received his legal education in N e w Y o r k , a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y spent s h o r t periods of t i m e in L o u i s i a n a , T e x a s , A r i z o n a , F l o r i d a , a n d O r e g o n , f r o m which t e r r i t o r y he w e n t to H a w a i i . A f t e r leaving H a w a i i in 1847, he spent a little while in v a r i o u s p a r t s of C a l i f o r n i a , s o j o u r n e d f o r a t i m e in T a h i t i and other S o u t h Sea i s l a n d s , talked of going to J a p a n , visited S i a m , r e t u r n e d b y way of S a n F r a n c i s c o , A r i z o n a , a n d T e x a s , to N e w J e r s e y to visit his r e l a t i v e s , w e n t on f r o m t h e r e to L i b e r i a in A f r i c a , a n d finally to P a r i s , w h e r e he died in 1861 at t h e home of his uncle, D r . P h i l i p p e Ricord. F o r a n i n t e r e s t i n g view of him, see G. H i n e s , A Voyage round the World . . . ( B u f f a l o , 1850) 192, 197, 224-225. H i n e s w a s a p a s s e n g e r on the s a m e vessel on which Ricord c a m e to H o n o l u l u f r o m O r e g o n . S e e also the p a m p h l e t entitled Motion in the Hawaiian Parliament, made by R. C. Wyllie . . . to release John Ricord . . . from a debt standing against him in the books of the King's Treasury . . . ( H o n o l u l u . 1 8 5 3 ) ; a n d a paper on Ricord by A . F . J u d d , 2nd, read b e f o r e the B a r Association of H a w a i i , J u n e 30, 1923, M S copy in H M C S Library". 61 R e v . R i c h a r d A r m s t r o n g m a k e s the following c o m m e n t on t h i s phase of R i c o r d ' s c h a r a c t e r : " T h e general i m p r e s s i o n , I believe is, t h a t this young l a w y e r , the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , is not t h e m a n f o r the post he occupies. H e lacks cool j u d g m e n t , sobriety in his calculations, & self diffidence. H e seems to feel the effects of a too s u d d e n elevation, c a r r i e s t h i n g s with a high h a n d a n d g i v e s a good deal of offence. I n his p r o d u c t i o n s t h e r e is a g r e a t display of law, a d e p a r t m e n t in which he has the whole field to h i m s e l f . B u t a person of good legal a c q u i r e m e n t s is g r e a t l y needed h e r e & I know of no place w h e r e person of suitable qualifications, a person of sober & sound m i n d , ample a c q u i r e m e n t , & good m o r a l c h a r a c t e r , could be m o r e u s e f u l . " A r m s t r o n g to R. A. Chapm a n , Sept. 18, 1844, A r m s t r o n g L e t t e r s . Cf. A r m s t r o n g to J u d d , A p r i l 23, 1844, A H , F . O . & E x . , in which A r m s t r o n g c o m m e n t s severely on R i c o r d ' s l i t e r a r y style, t h o u g h t , etc. I t should be b o r n e in m i n d , h o w e v e r , t h a t these l e t t e r s w e r e w r i t t e n b e f o r e R i c o r d had p e r f o r m e d t h e services which entitle him to b e n u m b e r e d a m o n g the b u i l d e r s of t h e H a w a i i a n state.

238

HAWAIIAN

KINGDOM,

1778-1854

God has heard my prayer. H e has prospered my efforts and permitted me to witness the Hawaiian Government independent and free. From this time the Government will enlarge its policy, regulate its departments and laws, and give freedom to its people. . . . Although we are independent, the representatives of other nations seem to wish us not to be so. The American Commissioner feels that we must depend on him, the English on him, and the French that we must depend on the Catholic Priests. W e feel that we must do neither, and are determined to be independent, trusting in God alone."2 I t is i m p o s s i b l e t o g o i n t o all t h e d e t a i l s of t h e h i s t o r y of t h i s p e r i o d , but s o m e f e a t u r e s o f it n e e d t o b e t o u c h e d u p o n b r i e f l y . T h e g o v e r n m e n t w a s developed and strengthened on the administrative side by the appointm e n t o f a n u m b e r of f o r e i g n e r s i n r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n s . I n J u l y , 1 8 4 4 , D r . J u d d w r o t e , "It will be necessary to e m p l o y a f e w f o r e i g n e r s of high c h a r a c t e r , in offices o f t r u s t a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , i n o r d e r t o s u s t a i n t h e relations of the G o v e r n m e n t w i t h other G o v e r n m e n t s . " 5 3 R e v . Richard A r m s t r o n g , a keen observer of passing events, describes this development i n a letter t o h i s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w in M a s s a c h u s e t t s : Since the restoration the government has been going more & more into the hands of naturalized foreigners. Encouragement is held out to take the oath of allegiance and a number have taken it, out of various classes, . . . Some of these hold important offices under govt. Dr. Judd . . . is Secy of State for foreign affairs; a M r . Ricord . . . is attorney general, or law adviser for the crown. Besides these, we have pilots, harbour masters, collector of imposts, sheriff & constables, all naturalized foreigners, who act in conjunction with the native authorities. But such is the native character, so deficient in point of intelligence, faithfulness & enterprise in business, that the more important affairs, indeed I may say all the important affairs of the government are now administered by these adopted foreigners. It must necessarily be so, seeing this nation is now shoved in among the g-eat family of civilized nations & its foreign relations a good deal involved. T h e native chiefs are far f r o m being competent to manage these complicated affairs & hence the aid of foreigners is called in/' 4 Armstrong's

reference

to naturalized

foreigners and the oath

of

allegiance m a y serve as an introduction to a subject of m u c h interest and importance.

W h e n w e t a k e a l a r g e v i e w o f t h i s p e r i o d w e c a n s e e that

1,2

J u d d to Rev. D a v i d G r e e n e , J a n . 25, 1845, in Letters of Dr. Gerrit P. Judd ¡827-1872 ( F r a g m e n t s I I ) , 170-174. R. C. W y l l i e , m i n i s t e r of foreign a f f a i r s , in a letter to Rev. R i c h a r d A r m s t r o n g , J u l y 30, 1845, A l l , F . O . & E x . , r e m a r k e d : " L a t e l y we h a v e been here s t r u g g l i n g with something h a v i n g all the a n n o y a n c e s and i n t e r m e d d l i n g s of a P r o t e c t o r a t e without its respecta b i l i t y . " I n a letter to Dr. J u d d , dated London, J a n . 1, 1845, S i r George Simpson w r o t e : " T h e H a w a i i a n K i n g d o m h a v i n g been a d m i t t e d into the g r e a t f a m i l y of civilized nations, its relations with f o r e i g n states m u s t be r e g u l a t e d strictly by the L a w of N a t i o n s , and as no hostile aggression is to lie a p p r e h e n d e d in f u t u r e , it will be able to m a i n t a i n a very d i f f e r e n t diplomatic tone f r o m t h a t which its physical weakness, a n d its w a n t of s u p p o r t f r o m w i t h o u t , h a v e h i t h e r t o compelled it to a d o p t . " A H , F . O . & E x . J u d d to S i r Geo. S i m p s o n , J u l y 3, 1844, in Correspondence to Land, 182.

. . . on . . . Charlton's

Claim

A r m s t r o n g to C h a p m a n , Sept. 18, 1844, A r m s t r o n g L e t t e r s . F a r t h e r on in the s a m e l e t t e r , A r m s t r o n g w r o t e : " I m u s t c o n f e s s , that my hopes f o r the existence a n d prosperity of t h e nation, do not rise any of late, but r a t h e r sink. F o r e i g n e r s m a y flock in & take the oath of allegiance, & be very zealous f o r the K i n g & c o u n t r y and all that & still be foreigners, p u r s u i n g t h e i r own end & at last break the nation to bits, by their squabbles & contentions. T h e t i m e has gone by f o r the n a t i v e r u l e r s to have the m a n a g e m e n t of a f f a i r s , though business may be d o n e in t h e i r n a m e , until f o r e i g n e r s i n c r e a s e so in n u m b e r s & power as no longer to need n a t i v e r u l e r s . H o w e v e r these a r e only s u r m i s e s , which t i m e may show to be g r o u n d l e s s . " A m e m o r a n d u m by D r . J u d d , dated Sept. 7, 1844, A H , F . O . & E x . , s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e w e r e at that time f o u r t e e n persons of f o r e i g n b i r t h in the service of the g o v e r n m e n t . Of this n u m b e r 6 w e r e B r i t i s h , 6 A m e r i c a n , 1 F r e n c h , a n d 1 D a n i s h . By 1851, the n u m b e r had increased to 48, of whom 25 w e r e A m e r i c a n , 21 B r i t i s h , 1 F r e n c h , a n d 1 G e r m a n . W y l l i e to P e r r i n ( N o . 2 0 ) M a r c h 21, 1851, in Rep. of Min. of For. Re!., 1851, A p p e n d i x , p. 167.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

239

the policy being followed looked to the creation of an Hawaiian state by the fusion of native and foreign ideas and the union of native and foreign personnel, bringing into being an Hawaiian body politic in which all elements, both Polynesian and haole, should work together for the common good under the mild and enlightened rule of an Hawaiian king. 55 This required, however, that those of foreign birth who entered into the union should become Hawaiians by taking the oath of allegiance to the king. As Armstrong stated, inducements were held out to foreigners to become Hawaiian subjects. Partly, this was done by the negative process of imposing disabilities upon aliens. The marriage law, as we have seen, required foreigners to take the oath of allegiance before they were permitted to marry Hawaiian women. In the matter of land holding, aliens were placed at a disadvantage. A law enacted in August, 1843, contains the statement: "And it is hereby unanimously declared that we will neither give away or sell any lands in future to foreigners, nor shall such gift or sale by any native be valid."56 By the same law, even the leasing of land was discontinued until after the return of the envoys (Richards and Haalilio) who were then in Europe. From about the beginning of 1844, all foreigners entering the service of the king were required to take the oath of allegiance,57 although there was no formal law on the subject until the enactment of the new laws in 1846. In the fall of 1844, Dr. Judd wrote a letter to the secretaries of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, expressing the desire of the king that the American missionaries become "naturalized subjects of the country to which they have devoted their lives" and stating the reasons which made this action desirable.58 The missionary board replied that it would make no objection, if the missionaries themselves wished to take such a step.59 Most 88 Cf. the following statement from a sermon preached by Rev. S. C. Damon in* 1863, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the restoration of the Hawaiian flag: " T h e most important feature of these changes during the I840's was the union of natives and foreigners in the executive, legislative and judicial offices of this kingdom. The privileges of citizenship was extended to foreigners. I am not aware that this same principle has been adopted in any other part of the world where copper-colored and white races have been brought in contact. Not only have the rights and privileges of the aborigines been better secured . . . but I maintain, also, that foreigners have been better off, inasmuch as there was so great disparity in numbers between the native and foreign population.'' Friend, X X (1863), 67. M Laws and Regulations passed by His Maj'esty Kamehameha III., King of the Hawaiian Islands and His Council, assembled at Honolulu, August ll, 1843 (broadside). I n so f a r as this r e f e r s to grants of land in fee simple, it was simply a reiteration of the principle which had been uniformly adhered to by the Hawaiian rulers. a Jarves, op. cit., 190-191. John Ricord, as previously mentioned, signed the oath of allegiance to Kamehameha I I I on the day he was appointed attorney general, March 9, 1844. Dr. Judd signed the oath on the same day. Record of Naturalizations, Book C, in A H . Each of them specifically renounced his allegiance to the United States. Richards signed a similar oath on May 8, 1845, a f t e r his return from Europe, but he had previously, in July, 1842, promised full allegiance to Kamehameha I I I . Ibid. Wyllie's oath of allegiance, dated March 26, 1845, was in a peculiar f o r m ; he did not specifically renounce his British allegiance (he held the British view that a person could not renounce his native allegiance), but declared that he would "support the constitution and laws of the Hawaiian Islands, faithfully serve and bear true allegiance to H i s Majesty Kamehameha I I I the King thereof, the same as if he had been born in His Majesty's Dominions, with a reserve only to his rights of inheritance in his native land." Ibid. Ricord was released f r o m his allegiance when he resigned from government service in 1847 and his oath of allegiance was returned to him. Polynesian, J u n e 12, 1847. M Judd to Secretaries of the A B C F M , Sept. 5, 1844, A H , F.O. & Ex., and printed in Letters of Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, ¡¡¿7-1872 (Fragments I I ) , 167-170. 69 David Greene to J u d d , Feb. 21, 1845, A H , F.O. & E x . See also Greene to S. I. Mission, Feb. 26, 1845, in General Letters. I n the following year, however, Dr. R u f u s Anderson, corresponding secretary of the A B C F M , wrote to the mission expressing decidedly his opinion that the missionaries ought not to become Hawaiian citizens. Anderson to S. I. Mission, April 10, 1846, in General Letters.

240

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

of the missionaries, however, were not at this time inclined to change their citizenship. But a considerable number of other foreigners became naturalized, believing it to be for their best interests to do so. Many, however, found the idea of taking an oath of allegiance to a Polynesian king very distasteful. For several years the subject was a sore point in the community.60 In their efforts to lend dignity to the native monarchy the king's advisers began to withdraw the king a little from the familiar and somewhat promiscuous social relations which he had formerly maintained with foreigners, and to surround the throne with a measure of pomp and circumstance. The latter detail is best illustrated by the social functions at the palace and the ceremonial connected with the opening of the legislature in 1845, which are described farther along in this chapter. In a letter written in April, 1845, R. C. Wyllie mentions one particular reason for this attention to social forms and ceremonies : From the numerical predominance of Americans in this Community, Mr. Judd fears a growing tendency to Republicanism, which he believes to be incompatible with the welfare of the Islands, and which he considers it his duty to the King to resist. Hence arises his wish to establish some sort of Royal Etiquette, and that the King's administration should be made respectable in the eyes both of Foreigners and Natives. 61

An order in council was promulgated, setting forth the rules of precedence and etiquette to be observed in the court of His Hawaiian Majesty, the rules prescribed being those adopted by the great powers at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. One requirement of this code of etiquette was that any diplomatic agent desiring an audience of the king must make application in writing twenty-four hours in advance and must appear for 80 A number of documents on this subject are printed in Polynesian, Sept. 6, 27, Oct 27 ( E x t r a ) , Nov. 15, 1845, Jan. 19, April 25, 1846. I n the same paper for 1844, 1845, and 1846 are numerous editorials and letters which discuss the question; those signed "I.ipamen" were written by John Ricord. See also Brown to Calhoun (Nos. 14 and 20), July 1, Oct. 2, 1844, U S D S Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I ; Miller to Addington, Aug. 26, 1845, B P R O , F. O. 58/36; Miller to Aberdeen (No. 58), Dec. 31, 1845, ibid.; Wyllie to Barclay (No. 4), Aug. 29, 1845, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Judd to Torbert, Feb. 19, 1844, ibid.; A. Bishop to Judd, J a n . 31, 1844 [1845?], ibid.; Same to same, Dec. 17, 31, 1844, ibid.; Wm. Hooper, Notice dated Aug. 12, 1845, published in Friend, I I I (1845), 127; Wyllie's note No. 65 in Friend, I I (1844), 91; R. CT. Davis to W . H . Davis, July 4, 1844, in Davis Collection, California State L i b r a r y ; Armstrong to Chapman, Sept. 8, 1845, Armstrong Letters; Reynolds, Journal, Aug. 21, 28, 30, 1844, May 9, J u n e 2, 3, 18, 19, 1845; Reynolds to T. O. Larkin, Sept. 15, 1844, Larkin Docs., Vol. I I , Bancroft Library, University of California; Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha I I I , Vol. I (Honolulu, 1846), 79. It may be noted that foreign residents and foreign officials, both American and British, charged that the Hawaiian authorities, especially Dr. Judd, made threats to induce foreigners to take the oath of allegiance. But an examination of the particular cases cited to illustrate these alleged threats seems to show, not that threats were made, but merely that the advantages of naturalization in the particular circumstances were pointed out to the foreigners concerned. It may also be noted that the oath of allegiance prescribed during the earlier period (at least from September, 1841) required a specific renunciation of one's native allegiance. This was a legal obstacle in the case of British subjects, since the British doctrine at that time was that a person could not renounce his native allegiance. In the law of 1846, this clause was omitted from the oath.

Statistics published in the Polynesian, Jan. 1, 1848, show that 481 persons were naturalized during the years 1844-1847 inclusive. n Wyllie to Sir Thomas Thompson, commander of H . B . M . S . Talbot ( P r i v a t e ) , April 14 1845, A H , F.O. & Ex. With the ideas here attributed to Dr. Judd, Wyllie was in the fullest accord. To the latter, the combatting of American republicanism became a ruling passion.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

241

the audience in the full diplomatic costume prescribed for his rank. 62 Some of the foreigners professed to see in this an aping of the great powers which ill befitted a nation so small and feeble. 63 A new title for the king, Ka Moi, was introduced into official usage to emphasize the majesty of the kingly office.84 The Polynesian newspaper, reestablished in May, 1844, after being suspended for two years and a half, was purchased by the government in July, 1844, and became an official journal, its editor, James Jackson Jarves, being given the title of "Director of Government Printing." The Polynesian continued to be, as it had been from the start, an able and outspoken champion of the government. 66 During the middle 1840's the Friend, edited by the seamen's chaplain, Rev. S. C. Damon, was inclined to be critical of the government and served to a limited extent as a medium for the publication of "opposition" articles. 66 But the opposition felt the need of an organ of its own, and this need was supplied by the establishment of the Sandwich Islands News in September, 1846. For two years this newspaper kept up a vituperative attack on governmental policies and official personages, the latter being defended with equal warmth by the Polynesian. One needs only to glance through the columns of these newspapers to get an adequate idea of the "sound and fury" which characterized this period of Hawaiian history. DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUDICIARY

In another direction—development of the judiciary—the government pursued a forward course under the vigorous leadership of Attorney General Ricord. From time to time cases arose which in more advanced countries would have fallen within the jurisdiction of courts of chancery (equity), admiralty, or probate. In Hawaii there was no specific constitutional or legal provision for such special courts and the existing courts of the country had not hitherto been called upon to exercise jurisdiction in cases of the character referred to. Now, as such cases arose during the middle 1840's, the attorney general seized upon them as affording opportunity to round out the judicial system 03 Order in Council of His Hawaiian Majesty prescribing a Code of Etiquette, June ¿9, 1844 ( H o n o l u l u , 1 8 4 4 ) ; printed also in Polynesian, J u l y 20, 1844. U n f o r t u n a t e l y there w a s published with the Code of Etiquette a letter of A t t o r n e y General Ricord stating reasons which in his opinion made it incumbent to g r a n t precedence to the A m e r i c a n commissioner. Consul General Miller took u m b r a g e at this and it was brought to the attention of t h e British government. T h e E a r l of Aberdeen wrote to Miller i n s t r u c t i n g him to insist on the withdrawal of R i c o r d ' s letter and to insist also that no precedence be allowed to the A m e r i c a n commissioner except on the basis of the priority of his commission. Miller presented the demand and t h e H a w a i i a n government complied. Aberdeen to Miller (No. 5), Feb. 28, 1843, B P R O , F. O . 5 8 / 3 4 ; and documents printed in Polynesian, Aug. 23, Sept. 20, 1845. 63 Miller to M u r r a y , Sept. 23, 1844, B P R O , F . O . 5 8 / 2 6 ; A b e r d e e n ' s letter cited in preceding note; J u d d to A n d e r s o n , Dec. 16, 1846, in Letters of Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, 175-176; H i n e s , op. cit., 218-219. " J . F. G. Stokes, The Hawaiian King (Mo-i, Alii-aimoku, Alii-kapu), H H S P a p e r s , No. 19 ( H o n o l u l u , 1932). M T h e r e is preserved in A H , F . O . & E x . , a letter f r o m J a r v e s to D r . J u d d , dated in Boston, Sept. 15, 1843, in which J a r v e s announces his purpose to r e t u r n to t h e islands. " I shall b r i n g out presses, p r i n t e r s , etc. and establish a governmental paper, provided the gov. will give me a suitable amount of patronage, which I think will be clearly f o r their interests. . . . I t r u s t t h a t old Honolulu will yet shine a bright light in the Pacific and when we a r e all together we m u s t work heart and hand in the c a u s e . " F o r the history of the Polynesian and other early newspapers, see the valuable article by Riley H . Allen, " H a w a i i ' s P i o n e e r s in J o u r n a l i s m , " in 37 H H S Report, pp. 69-103. H See, on this point, an editorial in the Polynesian, Sept. 20, 1845.

242

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

of the kingdom. Acting upon his advice and with his assistance, Governor Kekuanaoa, as judge of Oahu, assumed jurisdiction of these cases and decided them, as Judge Frear remarks, "in accordance with the principles of American and English jurisprudence." 67 The attorney general's reasoning, in support of this action, was substantially as follows. Hawaii having been, through the recognition of her independence by the great powers, admitted into the family of nations, was thereby endowed with the attributes of sovereignty (if she did not already possess them), among which the exercise of all manner of judicial power was one of the most fundamental. Furthermore, by the comity of nations, Hawaii was bound to provide courts into which foreigners domiciled or temporarily sojourning in the country could bring their disputes and legal questions with a reasonable expectation of having them decided justly and in accordance with legal principles and practices with which they were familiar. On the island of Oahu, where these cases commonly came up, the superior judicial power, including the powers of a judge in chancery, probate, and admiralty, resided in the governor, in his capacity as judge of Oahu. The governor, therefore, was rightly the chancellor and judge of admiralty and probate. 68 Having thus brought these courts into existence, Ricord found it necessary to provide them with a body of law by which their adjudications ought to be governed. This need was supplied by adopting the common law and civil law as administered particularly in Great Britain and the United States, the two countries which had had the greatest influence in shaping the modern civilization of Hawaii. As to the way in which this was done, Judge Frear gives an excellent brief statement: In chamber cases between foreigners the Governor generally called in the assistance of the Attorney General, who usually wrote out an elaborate opinion with marginal references to authorities and applied the principles to the case in question. The Governor would then adopt the opinion as his own and add that future adjudications would be governed by the same principles and marginal references. Likewise in law cases between foreigners he would adopt the instructions of the Attorney General delivered to the jury. Thus large branches of common law and equity, admiralty and probate law were adopted by the Governors. The Supreme Court also felt at liberty to do the same.""

The institution of the new courts was not greeted with universal approbation. On the contrary, their legality was called in question and w . F. F r e a r , The Evolution of the Hawaiian Judiciary, H H S Papers, No. 7 (Honolulu, 1894). 11. w Ricord to Kekuanaoa, May 15, 1844, in In Admiralty. Foreclosure of the Hypothecation on the British Brig Euphemia . . . (Honolulu, 1845), 33-44; Ricord to Judd, May 22, 1844, in Official Report on the existing Harbor Laws of the Hawaiian Islands (Honolulu, 1845), 14; Ricord to Kekuanaoa, J u n e 7, 1844, in Report of the Case of George Petty vs. Richard Chartton . . . (Honolulu, 1844), 25; Same to same, J u n e 18, 1844, in In Probate Court. Settlement of the accounts of Robert W. Wood, adm'r of the Estate of William C. Little, deceased, Before His Excellency M. Kekuanaoa, Probate Judge (Honolulu, 1845), 7; Same to same, July 26, 1844, in Rules, Doctrines and Principles adopted by the Admiralty Court of Oahu, Hawaiian Islands, in adjusting General Average, applied to the case of the Am. Brig Globe, Doane, Master: by His Excellency, M. Kekuanaoa, Admiralty Judge (Honolulu, 1844), 3. m Frear, op. cit., 13. For a statement by Ricord as to the derivation of the legal principles adopted in Hawaii and the reason for their adoption, see his charge to the j u r y , J u n e 19, 1844, in Report of the Case of George Pelly vs Richard Charlton, 18-22.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

243

their authority denied, and the manner in "which"they and the ordinary courts were conducted called forth much criticism.70 The objections and criticisms came more from Americans than from British subjects. In the heated atmosphere of Honolulu it was not easy to satisfy the contending factions. Together with new causes for disputes, many of the old factors underlying the Paulet intervention still existed in the community, keeping alive the ill feeling between different groups and bringing forth a plentiful harvest of law suits. 71 Cases between foreigners were tried in the court of Governor Kekuanaoa, a man of recognized ability whose integrity and good intentions were not questioned. But the governor had no legal training and very little knowledge of the English language. After the appointment of Dr. Judd, the latter assisted Kekuanaoa in the conduct of cases; and after Ricord became attorney general, the governor frequently sat on the bench with Dr. Judd on one side and Ricord, sometimes called a co-ordinate judge, 72 on the other. At such times, Ricord was the dominating figure, and on these and other occasions he made little effort to conciliate public feeling but seemed rather to get a certain pleasure out of the exhibition of his learning and a brusque exercise of his authority. There being, at first, no other lawyer in the kingdom, it was not possible to check up on Ricord's legal opinions. The result was great uneasiness and distrust of the courts among many of the foreigners. In an effort to cure the obvious defects of the existing system, Governor Kekuanaoa on September 19, 1845, appointed Lorrin Andrews to act as his substitute in all cases between or affecting the interests of foreigners, whether alien or naturalized.73 This was some improvement, although Judge Andrews had no special training in law; his talents and the work for which he is best known lay along literary and educational rather than legal lines. In several cases his court became a storm center. 74 Ricord's masterful personality and legal views hovered constantly " See, for example. Brown to Wyllie, April 5, 1845, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Brown to Judd, Feb. 20, 1845, in In Chancery. The Estate of William French and Francis John Greet'way, in Liquidation, with James P. Sturgis of Canton, China (Honolulu, 1844), 131-142; Brown to Wyllie, April 26, 1845, in ibid., 176-184, and other documents in the same volume; Sloat to Wyllie, Oct. 11, 1845, in Polynesian, E x t r a , Oct. 27, 1845. The fact is also shown very clearly in the records, published by the government, of various cases tried during this period and correspondence related thereto. See also an editorial in the Polynesian, April 5, 1845, which discusses this question and points out the difficulties under which the courts labored; and editorials in ibid., Nov. 23, 1844, Dec. 13, 1845. Wyllie (British Pro-Consul) to Judd ( S e p a r a t e ) , Nov. 22, 1844, refers to the "doubts which have recently been started respecting the legality of the origin and constitution of the Courts recently established in this Island [ O a h u ] " . A . H . , P.O. & Ex. n I n a letter written in November, 1844, Richard Armstrong comments on "men 4 things: for both are different here f r o m what they are anywhere else. As to men they are too inflammable; too easily excited & seem at once to come under the influence of our great volcano; as to things, they are all upside down, & need to be turned over." Armstrong to Chapman, Nov. 19, 1844, Armstrong Letters. ' • E . G . , Report of the Case of James Gray . . . (Honolulu, 1845), 52; F r e a r , op. cit., 15; Hooper to Sec. of State (No. 45), Aug. 28, 1845, U S D S , Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. I I . " T h e commission for Andrews was printed in the Polynesian, Sept. 20, 1845. The appointment was ratified and approved by the legislature and countersigned by the king and kuhina-nui. It may be noted that special judges for foreign causes on Hawaii and Kauai had been appointed in 1844. F r e a r , o f . cit., 16. See a note on Judge Andrews' court in the Polynesian, Oct. 18, 1845. 74 Hughes vs. Lawrence, Oct. 1845, reported with related documents in Polynesian, Jan. 3, 10, 17, 24, 1846; and some others which came up later. A very good short sketch of the life of Lorrin Andrews is published, in English, in the Hawaiian newspaper, Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, Oct. 3, 1868; there is another obituary in the Friend, X X V (1868), 84.

244

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

in the background and left the community in much doubt as to the real independence of the courts. In a letter written in 1847, J. F. B. Marshall spoke of "the very general want of confidence in the Government and the Courts, which was felt by many of . . . the Foreign Community" in the spring of 1846. 75 Marshall, because of his character and standing, is a witness whose testimony must be accepted. But we need to remember that Honolulu's foreign community was so crisscrossed with cliques and factions that it would have been impossible to make any changes extending the power of the judiciary without arousing serious opposition in one quarter or another. As the editor of the Polynesian remarked, For years the judiciary has been slowly working its way against an energetic opposition.—Parties have been divided. While one has sought the action of the courts to receive its dues, another has endeavored to disprove its jurisdiction. The contest has been clamorous and persevering between the judicial 'bulls and bears'. Piles of innocuous protests have been written, exceptions taken, appeals made, and yet justice has calmly held on her way, gaining in strength and respectability yearly."

By the act to organize the executive departments, enacted in April, 1846, it was provided that until the passage of an act to organize the judiciary, which was then in contemplation,.the governor of Oahu should appoint one or more judges to reside in Honolulu and to have original jurisdiction in all cases ("Civil, criminal, mixed, maritime, probate, equitable and legal") arising in the island of Oahu involving more than one hundred dollars in value, and appellate jurisdiction in all other cases tried in all parts of the kingdom. By this law the governors of Oahu and Maui were required to appoint police justices for Honolulu and Lahaina, to have jurisdiction in minor cases to be tried without juries. 7 7 Under this act, Lorrin Andrews was appointed, June 24, 1846, as one of the judges of original and appellate jurisdiction at Honolulu. 7 8 On December 1 of the same year, William Little Lee, a young American lawyer who had arrived at Honolulu a few weeks before, was appointed as another judge, coordinate with Judge Andrews, the two to act jointly or severally. 79 The appointment of Lee marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the Hawaiian judiciary. His character and attainments were such that under his leadership the courts won and retained public confidence. But in giving this credit to Judge Lee, we must not lose sight of the pioneering work done by Ricord under most difficult conditions. The innovations introduced by the latter were an evidence of national progress and the friction created by them, may be looked upon as in ™ Polynesian, May 8, 1847. Cf. Ten Eyck to Buchanan (No. 8), Dec. 21, 1846, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I I . 76 Polynesian, Dec. 13, 1845. See ibid., Feb. 7, 1846, for an editorial which discusses, among other things, the attacks upon the character and jurisdiction of the courts. 77 Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha I I I , I, 271-272. 78 Polynesian, J u n e 27, 1846. 79 Ibid., Dec. 5, 1846. For a sketch of Lee's career see an article by T. M. Spaulding, "Chief Justice William Little Lee," in Honolulu Mercury, I I , 346-353 (March, 1930), and a briefer article by the same writer in Dictionary of American Biography, X I , 135.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

245

large part an unavoidable evil. Furthermore, while we cannot escape the fact that Ricord's general attitude was not conciliatory and he must therefore bear some part of the responsibility for the rancorous turmoil and ill feeling that existed in Honolulu during these years, it will not do to leave the subject in that shape. Along with his disputatious temperament, Ricord had some fine qualities, such as absolute loyalty to his trust, unwearying industry in the conduct of his office, and a sort of grim delight in wrestling with hard problems. One such problem to which much of Ricord's time was devoted was the settlement of the tangled business of F. J. Greenway and William French, mentioned in the preceding chapter. That business dragged along for two years, becoming all the time more involved. In May, 1844, Greenway was adjudged insane by a jury and he became a ward of the British cbnsulate. It is probable that he was insane at the time he made his first assignment in 1842. An examination of his resources and liabilities and those of his partner French revealed that their business had never been bankrupt, although it was temporarily embarrassed. In the summer of 1844, French, in despair of any other mode of adjusting their affairs, appealed to Governor Kekuanaoa as judge of Oahu to take charge of the business under an assignment. Consul General Miller sanctioned the arrangement and Governor Kekuanaoa accepted the trust. It was the necessity of handling this business that led to the establishment of the court of chancery. Attorney General Ricord was appointed agent of the court and curator of the combined estate of French and Greenway and it was he who untangled the business, adjusted the many accounts, and in short settled the estate. It was an exceedingly laborious process, in the course of which Ricord had many sharp conflicts with various firms and individuals in the community. One of these contests cost the government the support of the American firm of C. Brewer and Company. On the whole, however, Ricord's handling of this vexatious matter reflected much credit upon him; and it removed a fertile source of discord.80 CONFLICTS WITH FOREIGN DIPLOMATS

The policy pursued during these years brought the government into conflict with the representatives of the great powers. ^Vith Consul General Miller a dispute arose over Charlton's claim to land in the village of Honolulu, this being one of the questions referred to Lord Aberdeen and decided by him in his letter of September 12, 1843, to Richards and Haalilio.81 Miller was instructed to see that the decision was carried out. By that decision, the only point left for determination in Honolulu was 80 The documents on this subject are too numerous to mention in detail. The ^printed reports connected with it fill two large volumes, and there is much unpublished m a t e r i a r i n A H , as well as some in the archives of the British consulate in Honolulu and in the British Public Record Office in London. A large number of original account books of Wm. French are deposited in A H . I n regard to the windup of this protracted affair, see the documents and editorial printed in Polynesian, March 20, 1847, and Chancery orders Nos. 15 and 16, in ibid., Feb. 13 and March 6, 1847. * See chap. 13.

246

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

the question whether the lease on which Charlton based his claim was "genuine." Miller said that nothing more was called f o r than to determine whether or not the signatures on the lease were genuine; every other point, he insisted, had been disposed of by Lord Aberdeen; and he collected evidence by which he satisfied himself that the signatures were genuine. The Hawaiian authorities, firmly believing that, even apart from the signatures, Charlton's written lease was invalid, gave a broad interpretation to the decision in an effort to bring into review the whole question of the validity of the grant. The difference of view was irreconcilable and the long and acrimonious correspondence that ensued only served to convince Miller that the Hawaiian authorities were trying to evade the effect of the decision which they had formally accepted, and to convince the latter that Miller had prejudged the case and was determined that Charlton should have the land whether he was justly entitled to it or not. Miller wrote to his government and in reply received instructions "to insist upon the land in question being immediately delivered u p to M r . Charlton." This demand was accordingly presented in August, 1845, and the Hawaiian government yielded. But a f t e r this, a fresh attempt was made to get the case on its merits before the British government. T h e latter consented to review the subject, but the final answer, presented at Honolulu in August, 1847, simply confirmed the decision previously made. 8 2 On a number of other matters, controversies arose between Miller and the Hawaiian government and were carried on in a manner that was far f r o m conciliatory and cool-headed. Some of these disputes originated in the vexed question of land titles. O n the acts of the local authorities the consul general founded charges of a denial of justice to British subjects and against these charges the Hawaiian government presented a vigorous and voluminous defense. It would be wearisome and unprofitable to go into the details of all these cases. The difficulties between the two governments were complicated by a most unseemly personal quarrel 82 An Award upon the Meaning of Lord Aberdeen's Letter, September 12, 1843, by John Ricord . . . ( H o n o l u l u , 1 8 4 4 ) ; Correspondence between H.H.M.'s Scc'y of State for Foreign Affairs and Her Britannic Majesty's Consul-General, on the subject of Richard Charlton's Claim to land ( H o n o l u l u , 1 8 4 5 ) ; Investigation by command of the King and Premier of the Hawaiian Islands, in vindication of the course pursued by His Majesty, impugned by William Miller, Esq., H.B.M.'s Consul-General, who demanded. and took possession of the land in Honolulu, claimed by Richard Charlton . . . ( H o n o l u l u , 1 8 4 6 ) ; Supplement to the Investigation at the Palace . . . ( H o n o l u l u , 1 8 4 6 ) ; Second Supplement to the Investigation at the Palace . . . ( H o n o l u l u , 1 8 4 7 ) ; Appendix to the Second Supplement to the investigation at the Palace in 1845, on the subject of Mr. Charlton's Land Claim . . . ( H o n o l u l u . 1847). T h e s e six pamphlets, totaling m o r e t h a n 700 pages, do not by a n y m e a n s contain all the m a t e r i a l on t h i s subject. F o r the final wind-up, see t h e d o c u m e n t s p r i n t e d in Polynesian, Sept. 4, 11, 18, 1847. F o r M i l l e r ' s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e with his g o v e r n m e n t it is n e c e s s a r y to r e f e r to v a r i o u s volumes of t h e F . O . 58 series in the British P u b l i c Record O f f i c e or to the a r c h i v e s of the B r i t i s h consulate in H o n o l u l u . I t may be well to note t h a t the H a w a i i a n a u t h o r i t i e s f r e e l y a d m i t t e d C h a r l t o n ' s r i g h t to t h e land actually occupied by h i m ; but his disputed w r i t t e n lease embraced an additional piece of land ( P u l a h o l a h o ) which he h a d n e v e r occupied b u t which w a s occupied by n a t i v e H a w a i i a n s . M i l l e r ' s original i n s t r u c t i o n s r e q u i r e d t h a t C h a r l t o n be p u t " i n possession of those p a r t s only of the land, which he claims u n d e r t h e alleged g r a n t , as h a v e not been a p p r o p r i a t e d by other persons, without protest, or proper obstruction on the p a r t of M r . C h a r l t o n . " A b e r d e e n to M i l l e r ( N o . 11), Sept. 29, 1843, B P R O , F . O . 5 8 / 2 1 . I n the final s e t t l e m e n t , Miller seems to h a v e d i s r e g a r d e d this p a r t of his i n s t r u c t i o n s . I t is clear t h a t Miller w a s p e r f e c t l y s i n c e r e in h i s belief that the lease w a s valid in e v e r y respect, a n d this u n d o u b t e d l y h a d much weight w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t i e s in L o n d o n .

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

247

between Miller and R. C. Wyllie, who became Hawaiian minister of foreign relations in March, 1845. The two dignitaries snarled at each other like two ill-mannered dogs and nearly came to blows on more than one occasion. 83 With the American commissioner likewise, a long drawn out battle was fought. Although Brown from the beginning was dissatisfied with various acts of the Hawaiian government, it was the case of John Wiley, charged with rape, in the fall of 1844, that stirred him into a state of open hostility to the officials directing the affairs of the government. The point at issue was the claim, pressed by Brown, that Wiley should be tried by a jury selected by the American commercial agent. The Hawaiian government, as part of the general struggle for complete independence, was trying to limit as much as possible the right of consuls to nominate juries and this case afforded a technical opportunity to gain a point in the struggle. Brown's demand was rejected, and he wrathfully declared that discrimination was being practiced against American citizens. 84 In the course of the controversy the commissioner expressed himself so freely and in a manner so undiplomatic and so offensive to the Hawaiian government that the king wrote a letter to the president requesting his recall. 85 Having been thwarted in this case, in a second case that arose in 1845 involving the same man, 86 and in some others (in one of which 8 7 he took part directly in court proceedings) Brown seemed to feel the need of vindicating himself by inflicting some defeat or punishment upon those persons (Ricord, Judd, Jarves, and Wyllie) whom he blamed for his own discomfiture. It may be conceded that he had some grounds for feeling sore; his opponents were none too conciliatory and gave blow for blow in the great battle of words. Consul General Miller, a not altogether disinterested spectator, remarked in one of his letters to Addington, "Mr. Brown is by no means scrupulous as to hard words, but I think the Officers of this Govt, outdo him in this respect." 88 83 The files of the Archives of Hawaii bulge with the multitudinous letters that were exchanged during this period. Most of the documents are to be found also in the archives of the British Foreign Office ( B P R O , F.O. 58 series), whither they were transmitted either by Miller or through the Hawaiian representative in London, Archibald Barclay. Much of the correspondence was published in the Polynesian and in government reports and other publications. The controversies were profitable at least to copyists and printers. M Correspondence between H.H.M. Secretary of State and the U.S. Commissioner, in the Case of John Wiley, an American citizen (Honolulu, 1844). See a review of this pamphlet in Polynesian, Nov. 2, 1844, and a counter-review signed " V . D . " in the Friend, I I (1844), 105-111; also editorial in Polynesian, Nov. 22, 1844; Brown to Calhoun (No. 16), Sept. 9, 1844, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I ; Same to same ( P r i v a t e ) , Sept. 10, 1844, ibid.; Same to same (No. 17), Sept. 23, 1844, ibid.; Armstrong to Chapman, Sept. 18, 1844, Armstrong Letters. 80 Kamehameha I I I to President of U.S., Sept. 20, 1844, A H , F.O. & Ex. The d r a f t of this letter is in Ricord's handwriting. I n his letter the king said: "Your Excellency will enable me to fulfil the expectations of the United States and of other friendly Powers by accrediting some Agent here, who while he conducts his intercourse with my Government by the Courtesy of Nations is instructed to negotiate such a Treaty as may prove beneficial alike to the commerce of the United States and to the internal interests of my Kingdom." 89 Correspondence between H.M.'s Minister of Foreign Relations and the U.S. Commissioner, on the Case of John Wiley, an American citizen, imprisoned at the instance of Viscount William de la Perrotiere, M.D., a French subject (Honolulu, 1845). 87 Report of the Case of James Gray, an American citisen, vs. the Hawaiian Government (Honolulu, 1845). • Miller to Addington, Aug. 9, 1845, B P R O , F.O. 58/36.

248

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

In the early part of 1845, Brown found an opportunity to strike back at his opponents. Certain statements of Dr. Judd to members of the firm of C. Brewer and Company were construed into a threat against that house, and on this basis Brown presented to the king formal charges against Dr. Judd in the hope of having the latter dismissed from office. The facts were that C. Brewer and Company had become disaffected toward the government due to some developments in the French and Green way business and manifested their displeasure in various ways including the withdrawal of their patronage from the government newspaper, the Polynesian. Dr. Judd then told the members of the firm that if they did not support the government, the government would not patronize them—if they wished war, the government would meet them on that basis. After Brown presented his charges, the king appointed a commission, consisting of John Young (Keoni Ana), John Ii, and John Ricord, to conduct an investigation. In due time the commissioners presented a report exonerating Dr. Judd from any wrong doing and expressing the opinion that his "candid remonstrance with Mr. Charles Brewer" evinced a zealous devotion to the interests of the king. Brown declined to accept such an ex parte proceeding as a real vindication of Dr. Judd; on the contrary, he professed to see in it a mere white-washing operation. 89 It was just at this time that Robert Crichton Wyllie became a member of the government. He was induced to accept the office of minister of foreign relations in order to relieve Dr. Judd of part of the burden resting upon him. For three years the latter had been performing the duties of minister of foreign affairs and head of the treasury department, and in addition had been obliged to exercise many of the functions properly belonging to a minister of the interior. He was in fact, though not in name, a prime minister holding three portfolios. "His eyesight having become impaired, and his general health having broken down, under the anxiety and labor of these accumulated trusts, he resigned the seals of the Foreign Office . . . on the 26th of March, 1845." 90 Wyllie was thereupon appointed minister of foreign relations. A "By Authority" announcement in the Polynesian gave notice of the appointment and further stated that the King had been pleased 88 Judd to H . A. Pearce [ « > ] , J a n . 1, 1845; C. Brewer and J . F. B. Marshall, Feb. 26, 1845, affidavits in reference to Dr. J u d d ' s threatening language; Brown to Kamehameha I I I , March 10, 1845; Depositions taken at the Palace upon the complaint of George Brown Esq. United States Commissioner against H . H . M . ' s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, March 14-25, 1845; John Young, John Ii, and John Ricord to the King, March 26, 1845; Brown to Wyllie, March 31, 1845; Wyllie to Brown (No. 5), Apr. 3, 1845; Brown to Wyllie, A p r . 5, 1845; Wyllie to Brown (No. 10), Apr. 30, 1845; Brown to Wyllie, May 19, 1845; G. P. Judd, Declaration respecting his conversations with Mr. Chas. Brewer, filed as of Sept. 1, 1845; all the foregoing in A H , F.O. & Ex., and part of them printed in Report of the Case of C. Brewer & Co. vs John R. von Pfister . . . (Honolulu, 1845) ; Brown to Calhoun (Nos. 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29), Dec. 26, 1844, J a n . 18, March 13, Apr. 4, Apr. 5, May 20, 1845, with their enclosures, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I ; Miller to Aberdeen (No. 24), J u n e 9, 1845, B P R O F O 58/35. 00 Rep. of Min. of For. Affairs, 1845, p. 3; printed also in Polynesian, J u n e 7, 1845, where it is called "Report of the Minister of Foreign Relations." The title of the office was not fixed until the enactment of the act to organize the executive ministry, toward the end of 1845, when it became definitely "Minister of Foreign Relations." See also Rep. of Min. of Interior, 1845 p. 3; printed also in Polynesian, May 31, 1845; Wyllie to Judd, March 21, 1845, A H , F . O Letter Book 4, p. 31.

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

249

to elevate His Excellency G. P. Judd, late His Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to be His Majesty's Principal Minister of State for the Home and Interior Departments of His Government, through whom as by proxy, Her Royal Highness the Premier [Kuhina-nui] intends during her pleasure to discharge many of the functions confided to her by the Constitution.01

Wyllie was a Scotchman, born in 1798 and educated for the medical profession, who had resided for many years in Spanish America as physician and merchant. In 1843, after having lived for some time in London, he was visiting in Mexico when Consul General Miller crossed that country on his way to Hawaii. Wyllie accompanied Miller to Honolulu, expecting to go on to England by way of China. H e served as honorary secretary to the consul general at the signing of the convention of February 12, 1844, and later in the year, when Miller sailed from Honolulu (July 21) 9 2 in order to visit the islands in the south Pacific included in his consular jurisdiction, Wyllie was appointed pro-consul and as such represented the British government during Miller's absence. While thus detained in Honolulu, Wyllie diligently collected a mass of information in regard to conditions in the Hawaiian islands and wrote an extended series of "Notes" on the subject which were published in the Friend during the last half of 1844. Miller returned to Honolulu on March IS, 1845 j98 eleven days later Wyllie was appointed Hawaiian minister of foreign relations. At that time, Wyllie did not expect to remain permanently in Hawaii, but in reality he never left the islands; for twenty years, until his death in 1865, he continued at the head of the Hawaiian foreign office. Wyllie himself said that one of his reasons for accepting the office was a hope entertained by him that he might be able to effect a reconciliation between the American commissioner and the king's government. 94 But the breach there was too wide to be closed. Wyllie not only failed as a peace maker, but almost immediately found himself drawn into the battle, dealing heavy verbal blows in defence of his adopted sovereign and his colleagues in the government. Commissioner Brown grew more bitter with each rebuff to which he was subjected. In his dispatches to the secretary of state in Washington, he poured out a torrent of invective against the naturalized officers who were managing the Hawaiian government. 95 Rev. Richard Armstrong, in one of his letters to his brother-in-law in Massachusetts in September, 1845, gives an impartial view of the government officials and of Commissioner Brown and Consul General Miller. The letter is too long to reproduce in its entirety, but a couple of sentences may be quoted: "Mr. Polynesian, March 29, 1845. Dr. Judd's commission as minister of the interior was dated March 28, 1845. The original is an A H , F.O. & Ex. M Polynesian, July 27, 1844. « Polynesian, March 22, 1845. " W y l l i e to Sloat, J u n e 7, 1843, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Privy Council Record, I , 33 (Aug. 13, 1845). « U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vols. I and I I I .

250

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

B[rown] has some good traits of character, is open, frank & direct, but hasty, impetuous, determined & implacable. And on the other side also there has been a want of prudence, a want of caution, simplicity, and experience in diplomacy." 96 In another letter, Armstrong writes of Brown: " H e is a man capable of good feelings, but when anything runs across him, he is the most hot headed, insolent, overbearing, bullying, & profane fellow I ever had any thing to do with." 97 On July 29, 1845, the king, with the advice of his privy council, interdicted Brown from all correspondence with any department of the Hawaiian government. Wyllie, as minister of foreign relations, was ordered to complain to the United States government about the conduct of Brown and to inform the latter that his presence in Hawaii was "considered prejudicial to the peace of the Kingdom, and to the subsistence of harmony and friendship with the United States." 98 Shortly afterwards, Brown received from Secretary of State John C. Calhoun instructions, dated January 20, 1845, approving the course pursued by him in the first case of John Wiley. "Notwithstanding the United States have no treaty stipulation with the Government of the islands, they can not, under the circumstances, consent that the privilege of being tried by a jury of foreigners shall be withheld from our citizens while it is accorded to the subjects of Great Britain and France." Calhoun stated the willingness of the United States to enter into treaty stipulations with Hawaii on the basis of the British and French conventions and gave Brown full powers to conclude such a convention. 99 In view of the interdict against him, Brown could not do anything directly. The American consul demanded a new trial for Wiley, and the demand was reiterated by Brown through the medium of a United States naval officer who was in Honolulu at the time. A new trial was not granted, but Minister Wyllie explained to the American secretary of state that no discrimination had been practiced against John Wiley and that, if any similar case had arisen involving a British subject, the same ground would have been taken by the Hawaiian government. 100 86

Armstrong to Chapman, Sept. 8, 1845, Armstrong Letters. Armstrong to Chapman, Nov. 5, 1846, ibid. « W y l l i e to Brown (No. 26), July 29, 1845, AH, F.O. & Ex.; printed in Polynesian, Aug. 2, 1845, and in Correspondence . . . on the Case of John Wiley . . . imprisoned at tht instance of Viscount William de la Perrotiere, M.D., a French subject, 137-138. The circumstances leading to the interdict of Brown can be traced in the following: Wyllie to the Minister of State, Washington (No. 3), May 10, 1845, AH, F.O. & Ex.; Same to same (No. 4), May 16, 1845, ibid.; Wyllie to Secretary of State, Washington (No. 5), June 24, 1845, ibid.; Same to same, (No. 6), Aug. 7, 1845, ibid.; Same to same (No. 7), Sept. 1, 1845, ibid.; the originals of these letters, with their enclosures (not all in proper order), are in USDS, Notes [from Hawaiian Legation], Vol. I. Brown's side of the case is given in his dispatches previously referred to (Note 95); see especially No. 34, Aug. 18, 1845; No. 36, Aug. 28, 1845; No. 38, Aug. 29, 1845; No. 59, Jan. 27, 1846; all of these are in Vol. III. •"Calhoun to Brown (No. 4), Jan. 20, 1845, in Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess., No. 77, pp. 63-64. The instruction was received by Brown on Aug. 12, 1845. Brown's letter of Aug. 27 cited in following note. 100 Brown to Buchanan (No. 35)', Aug. 27, 1845, USDS, Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I l l ; Same to same (No. 54), Dec. 2, 1845, ibid.; Abell to Kekuanaoa, Nov. 14, 1845, and a small file of papers marked "1845—Nov.—Case of John Wiley," AH, F.O. & Ex.; Wyllie to Secretary of State, Washington (No. 9), Oct. 15, 1845, ibid., original in USDS, Notes [from Hawaiian Legation], Vol. I. 97

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION

251

After the incoming of the administration of President Polk, Brown was recalled and Anthony Ten Eyck appointed as commissioner to the Hawaiian islands. 101 In the first instructions to Ten Eyck, dated September 10, 1845, and signed by Secretary of State James Buchanan, the new commissioner was informed that the president disapproved Brown's conduct, especially his appearing in a court of law as an attorney, a course "highly improper for a diplomatic representative of the United States." Ten Eyck was furnished with full powers to negotiate a treaty and he was told that the existing convention between Great Britain and Hawaii might serve as a model, modifying the sixth article to conform to any change that might be agreed to by the British and French governments. "The United States in their commercial arrangements desire no advantage over other powers; and least of all would they wish to obtain them from the Hawaiian Government." 102 Ten Eyck arrived at Honolulu, June 9, 1846, on the U. S. frigate Congress,103 Until then and for nearly two months longer, Brown remained at Honolulu 104 and the new commissioner became thoroughly indoctrinated with the views of his predecessor. 105 There is a striking parallel between the experiences of Brown and Ten Eyck in Hawaii: each took the same general attitude toward the Hawaiian authorities and had very similar relations with the local government; each lived for many months under an interdict from the government to which he had been accredited; and the conduct of each was finally disapproved by his own government. The two matters with which Ten Eyck chiefly busied himself during his stay in Hawaii were his attempts to negotiate a treaty and the controversy which arose between the Hawaiian government and the American firm of Ladd and Company. The treaty negotiations will be discussed in a later chapter, but the Ladd affair—the one American case that did more than any other to inflame public opinion in Hawaii during the 1840's100—belongs with the other difficulties described in the present chapter. 101 Pres. Polk to Kamehameha I I I , Sept. 10, 1845, in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1846 p. 12; The Dwry of James K. Polk, edited by M. M. Quaife (Chicago, 1910), I, 22. It was made to appear that the removal of Brown was in response to the king's letter of Sept. 20, 1844, but he would probably have been removed even if there had been no request for his recall. Ten Eyck's appointment was decided upon soon after the inauguration of Pres. Polk. W. D. Alexander, Brief History of the Hawaiian People (New York, 1899), 348 (gives date of Ten Eyck's appointment as April 19, 1845); Buchanan to Ten Eyck, May 29, 1845, U S D S , Special Missions, Vol. I (acknowledges receipt of Ten Eyck's acceptance of appointment). Soon after the middle of August, 1845, news was received in Honolulu that Ten Eyck had been named to succeed Brown. Polynesian, Aug. 23, 1845. Brown's resignation was received in Washington on Sept. 1, 1845. Brown to Sec. of State (No. 29), May 20, 1845, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I ; the date of receipt is endorsed on the original dispatch. 102 Buchanan to Ten Eyck (No. 1), Sept. 10, 1845, U S D S . Special Missions, Vol. I. The original is in U S D S , Legation Archives, Hawaii, Instructions, Vol. I. los Polynesian, June 13, 1846. 104 Brown, with his son and Captain John Dominis, sailed from Honolulu, Aug. 5, 1846, on the brig Wm. Neilson (Polynesian, Aug. 8, 1846), which was never heard from afterwards. Rev. S. C. Damon, visiting the Micronesian Islands in 1861, heard a story which pointed to the possibility that the Wm. Neilson was wrecked by a typhoon among those islands and that Brown, Dominis, and some others landed in a small boat on the island of Ebon, where they were killed by the natives. Pacific Commercial Advertiser, Honolulu, Aug. 15, 1861. 1 Letter of J . S. Green in Polynesian, July 14, 1849. Feb. 14, 1846, and letters of J . S. Green in ibid., May 2, Sept. 26, Oct. 3, «» Polynesian, 1846, July 14, 1849. Writing in the Polynesian of Sept. 26, 1846, Green said: " T h e district is offered for sale as an experiment on the people—as an incitement to awaken industry and thrift—as a test to the question—'Can the common people of Hawaii be induced to abandon their listless, improvident habits, and acquire and maintain habits of enterprise and frugality, such as distinguish the common working population of England and the U. S t a t e s ? ' " « Polynesian, Sept. 2, 1848. " R . C. Wyllie, report on land, capital, and labor, Dec. 1, 1847, A H , F.O. & E x . , printed in Rep. of Min. of For. Ret., 1854, pp. 61-72. Cf. Rep. of Min. of Interior, 1847, p. 10.

284

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

agreement between the landlords and the government. If the lands of the kingdom were to be put, as a whole, on a fee simple basis, the great problem to be solved was how to divide the lands so that all parties in interest would receive their appropriate shares of the landed domain. PROBLEM OF DIVIDING THE LANDS

The land commission initiated the study of the problem and suggested a division, one third to the king, one third to the landlords, and one third to the tenants, but no very serious consideration was given to that idea as a practical solution. After extensive discussion in the legislature, nine "resolutions on the subject of rights in lands and the leasing, purchasing and dividing of the same," were adopted on November 7, 1846.49 The resolutions defined the rights of the hoaaina (tenant), the konohiki (landlord), 8 0 and the government, and set forth the procedure by which the tenant might purchase the land which he himself cultivated 91 and by which the shares of land belonging to the konohiki and the government might be apportioned off to them. These resolutions, though useful as a definition of rights, did not provide a very workable or expeditious plan for dividing the lands. 82 They did, however, contain the principle that the division between the government and the konohikis must be arranged between those parties and have the approval of the king in privy council, and the further principle that, in such division, the rights of the hoaaina must be respected. It came finally to this, that the solution of the problem depended upon the division of the lands between the king and the konohikis. Some years later than this period, Dr. Judd made the statement: "The King and chiefs labored in vain for two years to make some division among themselves which would enable each to own some land independently." 83 The records of the legislature and the privy council bear out this statement, although they reproduce very little of the debate and fail to give us a very clear picture of what was going on. A dominant note through the whole discussion was the fundamental feudal conception that the king was the superior lord from whom all the other landlords received their lands. But the feudal conception was breaking down or giving way before the new ideas introduced from the outside world. In the course of the discussion of the land problem, it came to be recognized that, in relation to the land, the king as head of the government and "Statute Laws, I I , 70-72. Journal of the Legislature. Oct. 19, 22, 24, 30. Nov. 2. 5. 6. 7. 1846. M The word konohiki is used in several different senses. I n this place, it means the landlord, who was next in the feudal scale below the king and who had, theoretically at least, received his land from the king and had tenants under him. Frequently, the landlord appointed an agent or agents to look a f t e r his lands, particularly those which were at a distance from his place of residence, and to direct the work of the tenants; such an agent was also called a konohiki; the word hokuaina was used in the same sense. The lands held by the landlords were commonly called "konohiki lands." It may be remarked that in the present chapter the words "chiefs," "landlords," and "konohikis" designate substantially the same group of individuals. See In re Title of Kioloku, 25 Hawaiian Reports, 357, 360-361. n The resolutions provided that when a tenant had obtained an allodial title to the land which he had himself cultivated, he should "be no longer liable to the government labor tax, nor to the labor tax of the konohiki." " Cf. 2 Hawaiian Reports, 721. » L . F . Judd, op. cit., 196.

LAND REVOLUTION

285

the king as a private individual were distinct, and that, from this viewpoint, the king was both the superior lord over all the other landlords and also one of those landlords, though of higher rank and therefore entitled to greater consideration. From this it would follow that when the feudal plan was abandoned in favor of an allodial system, the king's rights as superior lord became the rights of the government, but he still retained as private rights under the new system his former rights as a konohiki.64 So that when the lands came to be divided, it was necessary to assign some lands to the king and some to the government; and the problem, from being one of dividing between the king and the konohikis, became one of dividing between the king, the government, and the konohikis, reserving, as before, the rights of the hoaaina or tenants. With this was associated the view, expounded by the land commission, that the government's share amounted to one third of all the lands of the kingdom. The conflict between the new ideas and the old ones undoubtedly created much confusion in the minds of the chiefs and it took a long time for them to see their way through the puzzle and to arrive at a decision on what was a truly momentous question. The first definite suggestion that appears in the legislative records regarding a basis for division is found in the minutes of the legislative council for October 22, 1846, in the form of a report by Paki of what passed in a conference between the king and certain chiefs on the subject of "the interests in the King's lands which he gave to the landlords from Hawaii to Kauai." The suggestion was that, if the king had given ten lands, then in the division about to be made two should belong to the government, two should belong to the king, and six to the landlords; if seven had been given, three should be for the king and government and four for the landlords; if three had been given, one should belong to the king and government and two to the landlords; if only one had been given, it should be returned to the king, and the government and landlords should go without any. The record states that "the matter was discussed at length but was not passed." 65 Two days later, it was decided simply that the lands would have to be divided between the king and the landlords, but the following note was added: "This however does not refer to the Government's interest, nor to the interest of the common people."68 Thereafter, for more than a year, the records show that much time was spent in making lists of lands and landlords and in trying to agree on what lands belonged to the king. Several times it was decided to defer action on certain matters until after the division of lands between the king and the landlords had been made.67 On December 2, 1847, it was noted that "a discussion arose incidentally [in the privy council] upon the division of lands, in which the Chiefs seemed to take much interest." 68 M

See below, note 78. »Journal of the Legislature, Oct. 22, 1846.

"Ibid., Oct. 24, 1846. "Ibid., June 21, 1847;

M

Privy Council Record, I I , 308 [309], IV, 226. Privy Council Record, IV, 226.

286

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

Nine days later, the subject came before the privy council and a discussion took place among the native members, the gist of which was embodied in a memorandum by Dr. Judd. 6 9 The king now claimed to be konohiki of a great portion of the lands; he made known to the other konohikis that they were only holders of land under him, but he would only take part and would leave part to them; if a landlord held four lands, he (the king) proposed to take three; out of three he would take two; out of two, one; out of one, one half; but chiefs who sat in the privy council would be more liberally treated. The chiefs did not greatly object to this division, but they asked whether the government would have a one third interest in the lands left to them. The king said yes, and the government would have a one third interest in his lands. To this, some of the chiefs objected and said, "Let us have an allodial title to what the King has left us, subject only to the rights of the tenants." In other words, they thought the government's portion should all come out of the king's lands, on the theory that king and government were one. 60 The question was thus brought up for final decision and a debate begun, which was continued on the fourteenth and the eighteenth of December. 81 Dr. Judd expressed the opinion that the division proposed ought to be made and an allodial title given to each chief for the lands left to him, and that the king ought to divide his lands, retaining a portion for himself and devoting the remainder to the support of the government. 82 The chiefs, represented in this debate by Governor Kekuanaoa and John Ii, were willing to accept the basis of division proposed by the king, but did not want the government to have a one third interest in their lands after the division was made. 63 Wyllie thought the views of the land commission ought to be regarded; he was of the opinion that the king and the government were one, and that all the lands should be returned to the king and then re-divided in the proportions suggested by the land commission. 84 Judge Lee was at first inclined to agree with Wyllie, 65 but, after studying the question, gave it as his decided opinion that, in relation to property, the king and the government were separate and distinct; he thought it would be agreeable to the constitution and the principles of the land commission for the king to retain his private lands as his individual property, and then for the remaining lands to be divided into three parts, one third to the government, one third to the chiefs, and one third to the tenants. 66 In response to a resolution of the council, the plan suggested by Judge Lee was incorporated by him in a set of seven rules to serve as a guide in 68

This was probably for the benefit of Wyllie and Lee, neither of whom understood Hawaiian. And perhaps for the f u r t h e r reason that the king was proposing to take so large a part of the lands. 61 Privy Council Record, I V , 250-308. The record is entered only on the even numbered pages. « Ibid., 252. "Ibid., 256, 272, 292, 294, 296. Ibid., 254, 264-270. "Ibid., 254, 256. «Ibid., 272, 274, 278-280.

LAND REVOLUTION

287

the division about to be made.67 A long argument took place in regard to these proposed rules. The chiefs were reluctant to adopt any rules on the subject before knowing what lands the king intended to take for his own, and Dr. Judd seemed to agree with them on that point. Lee and Wyllie, however, argued strongly in favor of the immediate adoption of the rules and they were finally adopted, with one amendment, on December 18.68 It may here be remarked that, although these rules were formally adopted by the privy council, they were not adhered to in all particulars in the changes which followed. In deference to the scruples of the chiefs, the following resolution was also adopted: Resolved that a Committee be appointed to determine what are the lands that the King is to retain for himself, His Heirs and Successors for ever, . . . & that all questions between the King and the Chiefs be discussed before that committee, and settled by mutual consent of the King and each Chief or Landlord, after which, the King and each Chief to sign & Seal the settlement that may be made, never to be thereafter disturbed." T H E MAHELE

The committee appointed in pursuance of the foregoing resolution was composed of the following members: John Young (Keoni Ana), G. P. Judd, J. Piikoi, and M. Kekuanaoa. 70 The way was thus cleared for the Mahele (division). It was well understood that upon this commitee, in cooperation with the king, rested the responsibility for dividing the lands between the king and the chiefs. 71 And it was also understood that after this division had been made, the government would have an interest in the lands of both king and chiefs, an interest which could be extinguished by commutation. The king had clearly admitted this with respect to his lands; and with respect to the lands of the chiefs the principle was clearly implied in the rules adopted.72 Three days after its appointment, the committee met and arranged a plan of procedure. The preliminary part of the business occupied a month, and on January 27 the work of making the final settlement and record was begun. Two hundred and forty-five konohikis came forward to arrange their lands and divide with the king. A separate division (mahele) was made by the king with each one, and the division recorded in a book called the "Mahele Book." The record of each division was entered in the book in two parts, on opposite pages. On one side were "Ibid., 280-288. M

Ibid., 296-306. The rules, without the amendment, are printed in W . D. op. cit., 13-14. « Privy Council Record, I V , 300, 306. 70

Alexander,

Ibid., 306.

A few days after the appointment of the committee, Wyllie wrote: " A Committee to ascertain what lands belone to the Kins: personally—what belong to him as Head of the Government— what belong to the Chiefs and Landlords, and what will remain to the poor occupants or Tenants, and to separate them permanently f r o m each other has been appointed. If the effect be, to define & separate the tenures completely, so as that each Proprietor can dispose of & give a good title to the land which he may wish to sell or lease, it will give a great impetus to native industry, and much enhance the value of the Islands." Wyllie to Barclay (No. 33), Dec. 23, 1847, A H , F.O. & Ex. M Cf. Dr. Judd's report on the private lands of the king, Dec. 17, 1847, A H , F.O. & Ex., summarized in Privy Council Record, I V , 292.

288

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

listed the lands to be kept by the king, beneath which was written a certificate, signed by the konohiki, as follows: "I hereby agree to this division; it is satisfactory. The lands above inscribed are the King's; I have no right to them." On the opposite page were listed the lands given to the konohiki, beneath which was written a certificate, signed by the king: "I hereby agree to this division; it is satisfactory. The lands above inscribed are 's; he has permission to take them before the Land Commission." The first mahele was signed on January 27, 1848, and the last one on March 7. 73 Although there were thus a large number of separate maheles, yet, as Judge A. F. Judd stated in an important decision, "It was all one act. . . . The whole work was one scheme; one part was contemporaneous with every other part." 74 The whole process, therefore, is properly called The Mahele; sometimes, in recognition of its importance, it is spoken of as the Great Mahele J5 It should be noted that the Mahele by itself did not give the chiefs (konohikis) title to their lands. It was necessary for them, but not for the king, to present their claims to the land commission and receive awards for the lands assigned to them in the Mahele.78 Since many of the chiefs failed to present their claims within the period fixed by law and therefore forfeited the rights intended to be secured to them by the Mahele, several acts were subsequently passed, one as late as 1892, for the relief of such konohikis, enabling them or their heirs to obtain titles for the lands assigned to them in the Mahele Book.77 DIVISION OF THE KING'S LANDS

The Mahele had separated the lands of the kingdom into two groups, those of the king and those of the chiefs (konohikis or landlords). On the day after the division with the chiefs was concluded, the king divided his lands into two parts. The smaller part he reserved as his own private lands and they came to be called the "Crown Lands." 78 The other and larger part the king gave and set apart forever "to the chiefs and people" 73 Keoni Ana, G. P. Judd, M. Kekuanaoa, I. Piikoi, Report on the Mahele, March 30, 1848, A H , F.O. & E x . ; 6 Hawaiian Reports, 64 (Kenoa vs. Meek), 198-199 ( H a r r i s vs. C a r t e r ) ; Mahele Book. Dr. Judd had an important part in the making of this division. Writing in 1860 to Wyllie, he comments: "You know that the work was done, and how thoroughly; but you can never know what obstacles had to be encountered; whose feelings were h u r t ; whose rights, in his or her estimation, were disregarded; but I have the satisfaction of knowing that, on the whole, the division was fair, and a great blessing to the Hawaiian nation." I,. F. J u d d , op. cit., 197. 74 6 Hawaiian Reports, 203. 75 " A t the close of this division the King held in his possession about half of all the lands in the Kingdom." W . D. Alexander to W . O. Smith, March 31, 1893, House Ex. Docs., 53 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 47, p. 200. 70 6 Hawaiian Reports, 67 , 204-205; W . D. Alexander, Brief History of Land Titles, IS. ''''Laws, 1854, p. 25; Laws, 1860, pp. 27-28; Laws, 1892, pp. 165-167. 78 One line of reasoning made the crown lands the king's personal or private property in the same sense that the lands awarded to the chiefs becamc their private property, and this apparently was the view taken by Kamehameha I I I . There were, however, grave disadvantages in this theory. Another line of reasoning attached the crown lands not to the wearer of the crown but to the crown itself, and this was the view which finally prevailed, a f t e r a long controversy on the subject. The crown lands, therefore, comprised a separate class of lands distinct both from government lands and from ordinary privately owned lands. Consistently with this theory, however, the king could (and did) own other land as a private Individual, but the crown lands had a different status. On the crown lands, see the article by Spaulding cited in note 42 and court decisions cited by him.

LAND REVOLUTION

289

(i.e. to the government), to be subject to the control of the legislative council or of agents appointed by it, to be "managed, leased, or sold, in accordance with the will of said Nobles and Representatives, for the benefit of the Hawaiian Government, and to promote the dignity of the Hawaiian Crown." 79 These came to be called "Government Lands." The division of his lands by the king is recorded in the Mahele Book and is by some writers spoken of as if it were part of the Mahele.80 Later in the year, a law passed by the legislative council ratified and confirmed this act of the king and accepted the lands made over to the chiefs and people, declaring them "to be set apart as the lands of the Hawaiian Government, subject always to the rights of tenants." 81 During the summer of 1850, many of the chiefs surrendered to the government portions of their land, which were accepted by the privy council as full commutation of the government's interest, and fee simple titles were accordingly given to those chiefs for the lands which remained to them. 82 The lands thus surrendered were added to the government lands. QUESTION AS TO LAND FOR THE COMMON PEOPLE

The lands of the kingdom, with a few minor exceptions, had now been divided into three groups, held by the king, the government, and the chiefs, independently of each other, but each group subject to the rights of the tenants. The common people, therefore, had not been forgotten, even though a third or a fourth or any other specified fraction of the land had not been divided off and given to them in the general settlement. But it is probable that a large majority of the common people were not greatly concerned about the matter. A few of them had obtained fee simple titles by purchase or otherwise, and a way was open for others to convert their present holdings into fee simple estates, but it must have been, from the tenants' point of view, an expensive and difficult process. From their standpoint, likewise, there were disadvantages as well as advantages in having fee simple titles,83 and many— perhaps most of them—would doubtless have been content to let things go on as they were, rather than risk the unknown perils of the new and unfamiliar system. But there were some among them who had come under the influence of foreign ideas and who raised their voices in favor of 79

Report by Keoni A n a et at. cited in note 73; 6 Hawaiian Reports, 200-201; Mahele Book. I n popular usage, the name Mahele or Great Mahele has come to be loosely and incorrectly applied to the whole revolution in Hawaiian land tenures. The Mahele, properly speaking, was only an episode in that larger movement. 81 Laws, 1848, pp. 22-43. Journal of the Legislature, April, May, J u n e , 1848, passim, particularly April 27, May 2, 8, J u n e 6, 7. By the same act of the legislature, some of the lands given by the king to the government 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 Oahu." These came to be known as " F o r t Lands." 83 Cabinet Journal, I , 22 (April 25, 1850), M S in A H ; Privy Council Record, I I I , 655-785, passim, especially 739-785; W . D. Alexander, op. cit., 16-17. 83 One of the principal advantages of a fee simple title was the freedom which it gave f r o m the old labor tax. One disadvantage was the loss of the privilege of pasturing one's cattle and horses on the kuta or grassland belonging to the konohiki. I n at least one place—and there were doubtless analogous cases elsewhere—the tenants, a f t e r getting fee simple titles for their kuleanas, made an agreement with the konohiki whereby they agreed to continue working on the landlord's three labor days each month in return for the continued privilege of pasturing their horses on the grassland. See case of Oni vs. John Meek, 2 Hawaiian Reports, 87ff. 80

290

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

a change. The petitions of 1845 indicate that there must have been a considerable number of the common people who thought it would be a good plan to try the haole's way of managing these matters. In a letter written in the summer of 1846, David Malo said: I believe it best that at this time, the people should o w n lands as they d o in f o r e i g n l a n d s ; t h e y [the people in foreign lands] w o r k all the harder k n o w i n g t h e y o w n the land, and v e r y likely it is the reason w h y they l o v e their country, and w h y they do not g o to other places and perhaps that is the reason w h y they are great farmers. 8 4

But quite aside from any desire or lack of desire on the part of the common people, there were causes which made the change inevitable. The land system could not exist permanently part allodial and part feudal. A revolution of this kind, having proceeded so far, could hardly do otherwise than go on to completion. The influences which started it continued to operate until it was finished—they gained in strength with each succeeding year. One such influence which loomed large during this period was the anxiety of many of the foreigners, particularly the missionaries and foreigners in government service, to improve the condition of the natives. A specific aspect of the problem much discussed was how to make the Hawaiians an industrious people. These foreigners were brought up to believe that the normal and correct way to live was to be always industriously engaged in some "profitable" employment. Sustained work and acquisition of property were fundamental in their philosophy of life. The apparent absence of these things from the Hawaiian way was a phenomenon that puzzled and irritated the foreigners. Modern anthropological views were unknown to the latter and they simply looked upon the Hawaiians as being indolent and improvident, a condition for which the feudal land and labor system was held to be largely responsible— though the climatic factor was not entirely overlooked. Hence they believed one remedy for the evil would be to give the people land in fee simple and to free them from the odious labor tax. 85 As land began to be sold after the Mahele, the question arose as to how the rights of the tenants were to be protected. Since the tenants held their lands by an essentially feudal tenure, owing duties to both landlord and government and having rights which were in effect limitations upon the fee simple title which a purchaser received, it was natural that difficulties should arise. The question of how to secure the rights of the native tenants in such cases came before the privy council and the cabinet in the " Malo to Richards, June 2, 1846, AH, F.O. & Ex. « These ideas found expression in many places. The following are some examples: Answers to Questions Proposed by His Excellency, R. C. tVyllie, His Hawaiian Majesty's Minister of Foreign Relations, and addressed to all the Missionaries in the Hawaiian Islands, May, 1846 (Honolulu, 1848), passim, especially the answers to questions 26, 27, and 75; Miller to Kamehameha I I I , July 19, 1844, AH, F.O. & Ex.; Report by E. W. Clark printed in Culick, Pilgrims of Hawaii, 238-239; Wyllie to Armstrong, July 9, July 24, 1849, AH, F.O. & Ex.; Editorials in Polynesian, Oct. 25, 1845, April 29, Sept. 16, 1848, June 23, July 14, 1849; Letters of J. S. Green in ibid., Nov. 14, Dec. 26, 1846; Letter by "Scribo" in ibid., May 12, 1849; Letter by "Gimel" in ibid., June 2, 1849; Letter of "An Old Farmer" in ibid., Aug. 18, 1849; Letters of "Hawaii" in ibid., Dec. 1, 1849, Jan. 5, 1850.

LAND REVOLUTION

291

fall of 1849 and led to extended discussion in both places.8® In the same year, new doubts as to the continued existence of the native monarchy were raised by the aggressive policy of the French and by rumors of filibusters who were said to be about to descend upon the islands from the California coast. The latter menace in particular furnished a powerful argument in favor of giving the natives fee simple titles at least for the lands occupied by them. In a letter to Dr. Judd, written in November, 1849, Wyllie spoke of the danger that the king's government might be overthrown by such marauders and a republic set up by them. I n s u c h a case, it is o n l y p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y t h a t w o u l d be w i s e t o p u t e v e r y n a t i v e f a m i l y t h r o u g h o u t g o o d piece of land, in f e e simple, a s s o o n a s possible. h a v e d o n e o u r d u t y in p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e p o o r natives, only d o t h e m j u s t i c e ; f o r b y t h e principle a d o p t e d poor natives a r e entitled to one-third." THE KULEANA

is respected, a n d t h e r e f o r e it t h e I s l a n d s , in possession of a If d a n g e r come, w e shall t h e n a n d if it d o n o t come, w e shall by the Land Commission, the

GRANT

Wyllie brought the subject to the attention of the cabinet and the cabinet requested Judge Lee to "prepare some plan for appropriating a certain portion of land, in Fee Simple to every native family, throughout the whole Islands." 88 Judge Lee accordingly prepared and introduced in the privy council four resolutions providing that fee simple titles, free of commutation, be granted to all native tenants for the lands occupied and improved (i.e. cultivated) by them, but not including houselots in Honolulu, Lahaina, and Hilo, the only condition being that the tenants' claims must be recognized as genuine by the land commission. The resolutions further provided that some government land on each island should be set apart to be sold in fee simple in lots of from one to fifty acres to such natives as were not otherwise furnished with sufficient lands, at a minimum price of fifty cents per acre. The resolutions were discussed at length and finally adopted by the privy council on December 21, 1849.89 It was this action, afterwards confirmed by the legislature, 90 that gave the common people their kuleanas and swept away the last legal vestige of the old feudal land system. It was described by the editor of the Polynesian as "the crowning fact that gives liberty to a nation of serfs." 91 In regard — Privy Council Record, I I I , 384 (Oct. 19, 1849); Wyllie's rough minutes of cabinet council meeting, Nov. IS, 1849, AH, P.O. & Ex., Privy and Cabinet Councils. *> Wyllie to Judd (No. 10), Nov. 19. 1849, in Retort of Secretary at War, 1855, Appendix, p. 7-8. In the printed report, tbc letter is misdated March 18. Dr. Judd at this time was away rom Hawaii on a mission to the United States, Great Britain, and France. " Wyllie's rough minutes cited in note 86. " P r i v y Council Record, I I I , 404, 411-412, 415, 417-419; Polynesian, Jan. 5, March 2, 1850. The lands granted were those actually occupied as houselots (except in the three principal towns) or cultivated for their own use by the native tenants at the date of the resolutions. Claims for these parcels of land had of course been presented to the land commission not later than Feb. 14, 1848, the last date for filing claims. In regard to commutation, the theory was afterwards developed that the commutation of a kuleana was included in the commutation of the larger division (ahupuaa or »7») within which it was situated; but this idea does not seem to have been suggested in the course of the contemporary discussion in 1849 and 1850. "Laws, 1850, pp. 202-204, act approved Aug. 6, 1850. The act added three sections to the four resolutions. « Polynesian, Jan. 5, 1850. Cf. Rep. of Min. of Interior, 1850, p. 13, which speaks of the resolutions of Dec. 21, 1849, as the "crownwg act of His Majesty's reign."

?

292

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

to it, Richard Armstrong, who had become minister of public instruction in 1848 after the death of Richards, wrote to his brother-in-law: The government has lately granted fee simple titles to all the natives, for the lands they have lived on, & occupied. This gives the final blow to the old odious feudal system, & makes this a nation of free holders. It is a point for which I have long contended & finally on my motion it was carried by the King & council. On their part it cost a great struggle, as it cuts them off at once from the labour of all their tenants, & they must now work their lands by hired labour."

David Malo, in conversation with Rev. J. S. Green, declared that the "Resolutions of the Privy Council relating to the Kuleana ainas had afforded him much satisfaction,. . . and inspired him with hope of seeing better days." 98 A correspondent writing in the Polynesian under the pseudonym "Hawaii" expressed the opinion that the action of the government would rouse the industry of the people.94 But while the prevailing note was one of gratification, some doubts were entertained as to whether the people would properly appreciate and take advantage of the opportunity offered to them. It was pointed out that it would not be strange if they failed to do so. "Having been born in a condition of vassalage, and trained to look up to their superiors for every species of direction, and to submit to all manner of dictation without a murmur, it would be wonderful, indeed, were they found in a state of preparation for the liberty now so fully conferred upon them." 96 One danger foreseen was that the natives might unwisely sell their lands. In Wyllie's rough minutes of the meeting of the privy council on December 20, 1849,96 appears the following note: A discussion took place upon the means of guarding the natives from the improvident sale of their lands, after they have got them. Mr. Hopkins said the King's view was that if the native Proprietors should know that it was his wish, that the natives should not sell their lands for an iradequate consideration, they would not do so. Mr. Wyllie suggested that such advice from the King & bearing liis signature should be endorsed on every title granted to the natives. The principle of any further restriction was considered to be very doubtful.

The same danger was referred to by a writer in the Polynesian, who said, however, that he knew of no remedy. 97 There seems to have been a reluctance to impose any restriction upon the use which the individual proprietor might wish to make of his own property. For this reason, apparently, no effective steps were taken to guard the people at this point w Armstrong to Chapman, Jan. 15, 1850, Armstrong Letters. »Polynesian, May 11, 1850. ** Ibid., Jan. 26, 1850. "Hawaii" added: " I have little doubt that we shall soon find as a consequence, numerous and beautiful oases springing ug, adorning this hitherto sterile desert, and ultimately extending themselves until they shall meet and all the wilderness be converted into a fruitful field." Ct. Rep. of Min. of Interior, 1850, p. 13. " Polynesian, Jan. 5, 1850. •• Filed in AH, F.O. & Ex., Privy and Cabinet Councils. " L e t t e r by "Senex" in Polynesian, March 23, 1850. "All of us can advise the people to keep their lands, cultivate them, and thus have comfortable and happy homes. Having done this, we must leave tnem to act in the premises as a sense of obligation to God and their own families shall impel them. If they fail to secure the rich benefit now within their reach, on them be the responsibility."

LAND REVOLUTION

293

against their own ignorance and lack of experience—not even the weak measure of restraint suggested in the privy council meeting of December 20. The door was thus left open for the evil that afterwards crept in. 97a Armstrong and Lee, members of the privy council who were deeply interested in the welfare of the Hawaiians, prepared short addresses to the commoners, which were printed in the Blele, explaining the nature of the kuleana grant, giving some excellent advice to the people, and urging them to take full advantage of the present opportunity. In closing his remarks, Judge Lee said: "Two courses then are open for you. Either to secure your lands, work on them and be happy, or to sit still, sell them and then die. Which do you choose ?"98 By the resolutions of December 21, 1849, the land commission was "empowered to award fee simple titles" on the claims of the tenants for their kuleanas, and for this reason allodial (fee simple) awards are more numerous than any other class of awards made by the commission. The latter body worked hard and faithfully from the time of its organization until its dissolution, March 31, 1855. Its operations would be a suitable topic for a special study, but we have not room here to give its history in detail." In the final report of the commission, the total number of claims filed is given as 13,514. The number of awards made by the commission was 9,337. 100 Land commission awards and the Mahele Book are the bases on which all land titles in Hawaii have rested from that time down to the present day. In its final report the commission said: But perhaps the greatest benefit that has resulted from the labors of the Commission, coupled with the liberality of our late Sovereign [Kamehameha III], is the securing to the common people their Kuleanas in fee simple; thus raising them at once from a condition little better than that of serfs or mere tenants at will of the Konohikis, to the position of absolute owners of the soil. In carrying out this part of the work assigned them, the Land Commissioners have had to perform an onerous and often disagreeable duty. Standing between the hereditary lords of the soil on one hand, and the newly enfranchised makaainanas on the other, thus placed as it were between two fires, the task of the Commissioners has been at times a most trying one. To prevent the former from bearing down so hard upon the latter as to deprive them of the benefits apparently secured to them by liberal legislation, and It is on this point that the change in the land system has been most severely criticised. I t is contended that when the lands were given to the native occupiers the title papers should have contained a non-alienation clause. One commentator remarks, " I t was this failure of the government and its advisers to provide against alienation of the land, a provision thoroughly feasible, that was responsible for the present largely landless condition of the native Hawaiian." Criticism is also directed against the requirement about presentation of claims to the land commission. The writer just quoted makes the following comment: " T h i s requirement that, in a society so little used to fee simple tenure of land, claimants must present their claims to a commission, was at the bottom of much of the miscarriage of justice. The commission should have gone in the field to investigate who were in fact the occupiers of kuleanas, not claimants, and heard their claims in the open. This mistaken policy resulted in many natives not submitting claims, because of lack of knowledge as to how to proceed." 88 Translations printed in Polynesian, Feb. 16, 1850. 90 The work of the board of commissioners to quiet land titles is summarized in the reports of the minister of the interior from 1848 to 1856. Its "Final Report," written by G. M. Robertson, is printed in Rep. of Min. of Interior, 1856, pp. 10-17. 100 Ibid., p. 15. I n regard to the claims not awarded, the commission said that at least 1500 were duplicates, perhaps 1500 were rejected as bad, and of the balance, many were not prosecuted before the commission, many were relinquished to the konohikis by the claimants, and in hundreds of cases, the claimants died, leaving no legal representatives.

294

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

to prevent the latter from taking a great deal more than they could fairly lay claim to, at the expense of the former, has required the exercise of untiring patience and watchfulness.101

For various reasons it is impossible to give exact statistics showing how the lands of the kingdom were distributed as a result of the changes described in this chapter, but estimates made by the government survey department in 1893 indicate that when the land commission came to an end in 1855 the distribution was about as follows: Crown Lands, somewhat less than 1,000,000 acres; Government Land, nearly 1,500,000 acres; Chiefs' lands, a little more than 1,500,000 acres; while the kuleanas of the common people totaled a little less than 30,000 acres. 102 It must be remembered, however, that nearly all of the kuleanas were lands very valuable for native agriculture as long as the appurtenant water rights were assured to them, while extensive areas of crown, government, and chiefs' lands were useless mountain wastes or lava strewn deserts or were covered with forests which benefited all by conserving the water supply. RIGHT OF LAND OWNERSHIP GRANTED TO FOREIGNERS

To complete the history of the land revolution, it will be necessary to show how the interests of aliens were dealt with. As the subject developed, it fell into three distinct phases : (1) relating to the claims of aliens to ownership of lands in their possession before the enactment of the new laws; (2) the question whether, in case such claims were allowed, the claimant would have to pay the customary commutation in order to obtain a fee simple title; (3) the question whether aliens should be allowed to buy land in fee simple after the new laws went into effect. From the time when it became apparent that a definite policy was about to be adopted by the government, the resident foreigners who had not been naturalized exhibited great concern on the subject. As early as February, 1845, there was some public discussion of a possible interference by foreign governments to compel a change in the Hawaiian land policy as it then existed. The editor of the Polynesian maintained that there was no danger of anything of the sort, for the reason that such interference would be contrary to international law and the avowed policy of the powers to respect the independence of Hawaii. 103 Several cases arose which served to keep up a discussion of the subject. 104 One case, that of James Ruddack's claim to land, was insistently urged by Consul General Miller, who invoked the aid of a British admiral to lend weight to his own efforts. Miller wanted the Hawaiian government to acknowledge Ruddack's claim without reference to courts or land commission, and appealed to his government for approval of his course. The British government, how101

Ibid., 16-17. 102 W. D. Alexander to S. M. Damon, J u n e 24, 1893, and accompanying statistics, in House Ei. Docs., 53 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 47, pp. 639-641. "» Polynesian, Feb. 22, 1845. 104 One of the cases was that relating to the estate of Joseph Bedford, an American citizen. See documents cited in note 19; also Table of Consular Grievances, 1843-JS46 [Honolulu, 1862], 9.

LAND REVOLUTION

295

ever, in 1847 informed the consul general that Ruddack would have to submit his case to the regular Hawaiian tribunals. 105 On the general subject of the claims of those foreigners who had been long settled in the country holding lands from the king or chiefs, both the American consular representative and the British consul general held the opinion, which was undoubtedly shared by many other foreigners, that such aliens ought to be given fee simple titles for their lands in all cases where they had had undisturbed possession for five years or longer. 106 The land laws of 1845 and 1846 declared plainly that aliens could not "acquire any allodial or fee simple estate in lands" unless the right to a fee simple title had been acquired by an alien prior to the passage of those laws. 107 This left the matter in a somewhat uncertain status, but the sections of the law relating to commutation 108 together with the principles adopted by the land commission made it very clear that even if the old settlers were finally allowed to have fee simple titles, they, as well as Hawaiian subjects, would have to pay the regular commutation of one third or one quarter. 109 T o this the foreigners strenuously objected ; one may gather that they looked upon the commutation as a device for making them pay for what they already owned. United States Commissioner Ten Eyck arrived in Honolulu shortly after the publication of the statute containing the new land laws, and he made himself in a sense the spokesman of the foreigners on this point. In his treaty negotiations with the Hawaiian government in 1846 and 1847, 110 he tried, but without success, to induce the Hawaiian authorities to agree that American citizens might have fee simple titles for the lands already in their possession, upon payment to the government of one per cent of the value of the lands. 111 The principles adopted by the land commission were published in June, 1847, 112 and were reported to have "caused quite a sensation amongst the foreign community" of Honolulu. 113 1W Ibid., 93-97; Supplement to the Investigation at the Palace . . . (Honolulu, 1846), passim; Rep. of Min. of For. Re!., 1847, pp. 3-5, 14. 17; Miller to Aberdeen (No. 20), Sept. 10, 1846, B P R O , F.O. 58/44; Miller to Palmerston (No. 3), Feb. 1, 1847, ibid., F.O. 58/56; Palmerston to Miller (No. 2 ) , Feb. 27, 1847, ibid.. F.O. 58/55. The decision of the British government was announced by Miller to the Hawaiian government in August, 1847. Documents printed in Polynesian, Sept. 11, 1847. « " H o o p e r to Sec. of State (No. 41), March 11, 1845, U S D S , Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. I I ; Miller to Addington (No. 54), Dec. 13, 1845, B P R O , F.O. 58/36. 1( " Statute Laws, I , 76, 100, 109. These provisions are contained in the second organic act, which was passed April 27, 1846. 1« Ibid., 109. I t should be noted that in a small number of cases both native and foreign, in addition to the kuleanas of the common people, the payment of commutation was waived by the privy council, in some cases because of the high rank of the claimants and in others because of important services rendered by the claimants to the king or government. 110 These negotiations will be more fully dealt with in a later chapter. 111 Ten Eyck's dispatches Nos. 5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 21 (Oct. 1, Dec. 21, 1846, March 27, May 25, J u n e 2, Nov. 3, 1847), U S D S , .Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I I ; Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1850, Appendix, pp. 41-64. See also Ten Eyck's entries for July 21, 22, 1846, in U S D S , Legation Archives, Hawaii, Private and Official Interviews, Vol. I. Polynesian, J u n e 19, 1847. 118 Ten Eyck to Buchanan (No. 23), Nov. 23, 1847, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I I . Although these "Principles" were not published until June, 1847, a d r a f t of them had been shown to Ten Eyck by Attorney General Ricord in August, 1846. Ten Eyck's entry for Aug. 18, 1846, in Private and Official Interviews, Vol. I , cited in note 111.

296

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

The general discussion of the subject convinced the Hawaiian authorities that there was substantial merit in the claims of the old settlers for fee simple titles, and the legislature, in June, 1847, passed an act enabling aliens to obtain royal patents in fee simple for lands in their possession at the date of the act, upon payment of the regular commutation, and with the limitation that such lands could not afterwards be sold in fee simple to any others than Hawaiian subjects. 114 Although this new law placed aliens on the same footing as Hawaiian subjects, so far as lands already in their possession were concerned, the foreigners were far from being satisfied, their objection to the payment of commutation and to the restriction on the sale of land being as strong as before. As the final date approached for the filing of claims with the land commission, Ten Eyck renewed his efforts to obtain by treaty a settlement of the question in accordance with the views of the foreigners, so that aliens would be freed from the commutation requirement and would have the right to buy land in fee simple. 115 He presented a long argument in support of those views, 116 entered a formal protest against the land laws, 117 and expressed the opinion that the enforcement of the laws would "afford just cause for the active intervention of foreign Governments, on behalf of their citizens and subjects, who [would] be deprived of their rights, by the operation of those laws." 118 He offered, in return for the abandonment of the commutation requirement, to pledge the United States government not to permit the importation of spirituous liquors into Hawaii by American ships and said he would advise his government to use its influence to obtain a similar pledge from the governments of France and Great Britain. But the efforts of the American commissioner were wholly unsuccessful. In reporting to the secretary of state in Washington upon these matters, Ten Eyck stated emphatically his opinion that the Hawaiian land laws were "unjust" and "iniquitous" in their bearing upon aliens, which he attributed to the circumstance that the Hawaiian government had been, as he expressed it, "usurped by a few unprincipled white men, who have their own ulterior objects in view;" and he asked for instructions to govern his future actions in dealing with the question. 119 In reply Secretary Buchanan reminded Ten Eyck that the United States had recognized Hawaii as a fully independent nation and for that reason could not quesu < Statute Laws, I I , 78-79 (Act of J u n e 28, 1847). T h e preamble of the Act reads: "Whereas, The value of real estate in the principal towns of the Hawaiian Kingdom, has been greatly increased by the outlay of the capital of foreigners: and Whereas, It is the desire of H i s Majesty's government to bestow every favor a n d privilege upon such foreigners not inconsistent with the best interests of the native subjects: therefore . . . " 115 Rep. of Min. of For. Ret., 1850, Appendix, pp. 64-87, where part of the correspondence is printed; Ten Eyck's dispatches Nos. 30 and 36 (Feb. 15, J u n e 8, 1848) and enclosures, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol., I I . 116 Ten Eyck to Wyllie ( P r i v a t e ) , Feb. 10, 1848. enclosure with Ten Eyck's dispatch No. 30. 117 Ten Eyck to Wyllie (No. 53), Feb. 12, 1848, in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1850, Appendix, pp. 85-86. M Ten Eyck to Wyllie (No. 58), April 29, 1848, in ibid., 67. " » T e n Eyck's dispatches Nos. 23 and 30 (Nov. 23, 1847, Feb. 15, 1848), U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I I . See also Brinsmade to Buchanan, Aug. 25, 1848, U S D S , Miscellaneous Letters, July, August, September, 1848.

LAND REVOLUTION

297

tion the unqualified right of the Hawaiian government to prescribe the rules by which real estate should be held in the islands; he remarked that most governments as a matter of policy withheld from aliens the right of holding land in fee simple. If, as you represent, citizens of the United States have improved lands and other real property in the Islands under the impression that their titles thereto were perfect, [and] that their government would concur with them in this opinion and would require the Hawaiian Government to conform thereto, they certainly are mistaken. Their rights must be measured by the laws and customs of the Islands as expounded by the Judicial tribunals.

He said that Ten Eyck might exert his influence in favor of the claims of American citizens, but he must "avoid the appearance of dictating to the Hawaiian Government what course [it] should pursue." 120 The Hawaiian land laws were likewise brought to the attention of the British government by Rear Admiral Sir G. F. Seymour and by Consul General Miller, and the latter received instructions showing the attitude of the British government to be substantially similar to that of the United States. 121 The discussion of this question in the privy council disclosed a wide difference of opinion among the king's foreign-born ministers. Wyllie agreed with Ten Eyck on most points and favored giving to aliens the right to acquire and dispose of land in fee simple.122 Dr. Judd, on the other hand, while willing to confirm the rights and privileges that foreigners had already acquired, was strongly opposed to giving aliens the unrestricted privilege of acquiring and disposing of fee simple titles to land. 123 In 1848, Dr. Judd's view prevailed, but two years later, when he was absent from the kingdom, a law was passed, July 10, 1850, giving to aliens resident in Hawaii the right to acquire and hold land in fee simple and to dispose of the same to any person resident in the kingdom, whether subject or alien.124 During that interval of two years, the question had continued to be a live one. The amazing developments in California and Oregon opened a convenient market for the agricultural products of Hawaii; to develop Hawaiian agriculture so that full advantage might be taken of the opportunity thus presented, it was argued that foreign capital and foreign enterprise were needed and that these could not be had unless aliens were allowed to acquire and hold land by a permanent title. A change of policy was also favored as a means of keeping up the population of the country. Two editors of the Polynesian supBuchanan to Ten Eyck (No. 7), Aug. 28, 1848, U S D S , Instructions, Hawaii, Vol. I I . 131 Falmerston to Miller (No. 2 ) , Feb. 27, 1847, B P R O , F.O. 58/55; Same to same (No. 3), March 22, 1847, ibid.; Miller to Addington, May 19, 1847, ibid., F.O. 58/56; Miller to Falmerston (No. 26), Dec. 9, 1847, ibid.-, Falmerston to Miller (No. 5), Oct. 16, 1848, ibid., F.O. 58/61. 133 Wyllie to King and Council (Private 4 Confidential), Feb". 12, 1848, A H , F.O. & Ex.; Wyllie to Ten Eyck (Private), Feb. 13, 1848, enclosure with Ten Eyck to Buchanan (No. 30), Feb. 15, 1848, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I I . 128 Judd's Notes on Ten Eyck's d r a f t of proposed treaty with U.S., Feb. 16, 1847; " M r . Judds remarks upon Mr. Ten Eycks d r a f t of a new Treaty, with the U.States," Feb. 20, 1848; both in A H , F.O. & Ex. «« Penal Code [and Laws of} 1&50, pp. 146-147.

298

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

ported the plan of placing aliens on the same footing as Hawaiian subjects in respect to land tenures. 125 The act of July 10, 1850, was proposed by Judge Lee and was approved by the privy council before being introduced in the legislature. 126 In the legislative council, the proposal was the subject of a long debate. "The Nobles were all in favor of passing the Act, but the majority of the Representatives were against it, because they were afraid the foreigners who were not naturalized would own all the lands and some day there would be trouble." 127 Discussion overcame the objections of the representatives and the act was passed without difficulty. 128 Although Dr. Judd in 1848 and earlier opposed the policy embodied in this act, there are grounds for believing that in 1849 and 1850 he would have been willing to yield the point if a suitable quid pro quo, such as a guarantee of Hawaiian independence, could have been obtained' from the United States. 129 By the act of July 10, 1850, the change in the Hawaiian land system was completed. The old feudal arrangement of joint and undivided ownership had given place to the system of individual allodial tenures, and aliens had been admitted to the enjoyment of the same rights as Hawaiian subjects in the ownership and use of land. This development, coupled with the incitement to agriculture which has been suggested above and which will be more fully discussed in the following chapter, caused considerable activity in the buying and selling of land during the next few years. W. D. Alexander, for many years head of the Hawaiian government survey, is authority for the statement that "between the years 1850 and 1860, nearly all the desirable Government land was sold, generally to natives." 130 The activity was not confined to government land. v* Polynesian, Nov. 25, 1848 (C. E . Hitchcock), Feb. 16, 1850 ( E . O. H a l l ) . Privy Council Record, I I I , 681, 687 (June 17, 24, 1850). 127 Journal of the Legislature, J u l y 9, 1850; Polynesian, July 13, 1850. While the reasons are not stated in the record, it is easy to see why the chiefs should favor the act in question. They owned large amounts of land which were of little use to them but which had marketable value if buyers could be found. Aliens had money with which to buy land if they were permitted to do so. 128 Journal of the Legislature, July 10, 1850. Privy Council Record, I I I , 409 (Dec. 11, 1849); Eames to Clayton (No. 1), Oct. 22, 1849, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I V . "0 w . D. Alexander, Brief History of Land Titles, 24. Much evidence of this activity is to be found in the official records and in the newspapers, letters, and other contemporary writings.

CHAPTER XVI

COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL PROGRESS While the entrance of Hawaii into the family of nations and the changes in government and in land policies which have been described in the last four chapters were exceedingly important phases of the latter half of the reign of Kamehameha III, they were nevertheless only part of the whole history of the period. We need always to keep in mind that while some men busied themselves with affairs of state, others spent their time in buying and selling, in cultivating the soil, in attending to religious matters, or in carrying along the work of education; and that these diverse activities were not distinct one from another, but were intimately interrelated—interwoven, as it were, into a complicated fabric. Hence, we must now attempt to weave in these other strands in order to fill out the complex pattern of national history. In the present chapter, attention will be centered mainly upon the development of commerce and agriculture, picking up the threads of the narrative at the points where they were left in earlier chapters. HAWAIIAN COMMERCE, 1830-1854

By 1830, as previously indicated, Honolulu had become an important commercial port, from which trading operations radiated somewhat like spokes from the hub of a wheel, to Manila, Canton, Kamchatka, the coasts of North and South America, and the South Seas; as if to complete the figure, trading vessels frequently skirted portions of the rim of this immense circle, running along one or more of the radii from center to circumference or vice versa at the beginning or end of the voyage. By 1830, likewise, whaling ships were visiting Hawaiian ports in large numbers, but they were not yet the all-overshadowing feature they came to be during the middle of the century. These activities, of both traders and whalers, were carried on mainly by Americans. During the decade and a half after 1830, changes occurred which altered greatly the picture sketched in the preceding paragraph. For the Americans who made Honolulu a base, the northernmost section of the Pacific was nearly eliminated as a field of general trading operations and their attention was more concentrated upon the American coast from the Columbia River southward to Valparaiso; and British traders became more numerous and more active in the Hawaiian field. The influences which caused these changes require some explanation. The Americans were driven out of the Northwest Coast trade by the Russians and the Hudson's Bay Company. From 1834 onward, Russia, relying on the expiration of the fourth article of the Russian-American treaty of 1824, prohibited American vessels from fishing and trading with 299

300

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

the Indians on the coast north of 54° 40' north latitude. 1 This prohibition apparently did not apply to trade with the Russian settlements at Norfolk Sound (Sitka), Okhotsk, and Kamchatka, but trade at the two latter places was not very profitable. 2 After the consolidation of the North West Company with the Hudson's Bay Company in 1821, the latter organization, under the able leadership of Governor George Simpson and Chief Factor Dr. John McLoughlin, quickly made itself master of the old Oregon country. 8 In order to drive the Americans out of the coastal f u r trade, in which they had been so long engaged, the company established forts (trading posts) at strategic points and kept several small vessels constantly employed along the coast. In 1835 the steamer Beaver was sent out from England to serve as flagship of this fleet.4 Instructions sent, probably in 1835, from the London office of the Hudson's Bay Company to the officer in charge on the Northwest Coast contained the following : I t a p p e a r s t h a t M r . F r e n c h , an A m e r i c a n at t h e S a n d w i c h I s l a n d s , c a r r i e s o n an intercourse w i t h the Russian Company, and has a contract with them for the s u p p l y of c e r t a i n a r t i c l e s ; a n d t h a t h e c o m b i n e s w i t h t h i s a f u r t r a d e a l o n g t h e c o a s t , o n t h e r e t u r n o f t h e s h i p t o t h e S a n d w i c h I s l a n d s . I t w o u l d be o f i m p o r t a n c e , i f it can be accomplished, without loss, to interrupt this intercourse by offering t o supply t h e R u s s i a n s o n b e t t e r terms.®

The plan suggested was carried out, and a few years later an agreement was made between the Russian and British companies which resulted pretty effectively in squeezing out the American traders. 8 The Hudson's Bay Company did not confine its activities to the collection of furs, but undertook the development and exploitation of the natural resources of the Columbia River region. Salmon fisheries, saw mills, farms, and grist mills were established and in a short time the company was exporting salted salmon, lumber, spars, wheat, flour, and other products not only to the Russian settlements but also to the Hawaiian 1 Jones to Forsyth, Feb. 23, 1835, Nov. 24, 1836, and enclosures, U S D S , Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. I ; Robert Greenhow, Memoir, Historical and Political, on the Northwest Coast of North America, and the Adjacent Territories (New York, 1840), 188-190, 197; Benjamin P. Thomas, Russo-American Relations, 18131867 (Baltimore, 1930), Chap. 6. 2 Josephine Sullivan, A History oi C. Brewer & Company, 46-47, gives account of two trading voyages to those ports in 1834 and 1835 by vessels owned by an American firm in Honolulu, a f t e r which that route was abandoned by that firm; Du Petit-Thouars, Voyage . . . sur la fregate la Venus . . . 1836-1839, I I , 41-43, gives account of wreck of the Hawaiian schooner Kalama, en route to Kamchatka in 1837 with a cargo of salt; Reynolds, Journal, Sept. 27, 29, 1841, voyage of Morea to Kamchatka and Norfolk Sound. I n the lists of vessels given in Bancroft's History of California are occasional notices of trading vessels arriving in California ports f r o m Honolulu via Sitka. A note by Peirce & Brewer in the Polynesian, Sept. 4, 1841, speaks of "the former trade to Norfolk Sound having ceased, in consequence of the Russians obtaining their supplies direct f r o m Europe." 8 The old Oregon country was all the region west of the Rocky Mountains lying between 42* and 54* 40' north latitude. 4 F. W . Howay, British Columbia; the Making of a Province (Toronto, 1928), 79-82; H. H . Bancroft, History of the Northwest Coast ( S a n Francisco, 1884), I I , 600-601, 623 ff. The Beaver came into the Pacific under sail, her machinery being set up a f t e r arrival at Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River. The little vessel stopped en route at Honolulu in January, 1836. 4 H H S Report ( f o r 1896), 9-10. 5 Bancroft, op. cit., 624, note 3. ®Ibid., 643-653, 693; Bancroft, History of Alaska (San Francisco, 1886), 556-557; Greenhow, op. cit., 197; Howay, op. cit., 82, 85.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

301

islands.7 Lumber was shipped to the islands as early as 18298 and salmon as early as 1830,9 and within a few years this trade was well established. Hawaiian products taken in exchange were principally salt, sugar, molasses, and coffee. To put the business on a firm footing, the company located an agency at Honolulu, the first agent, George Pelly, arriving from England in August, 1834, and opening a mercantile establishment that continued in existence for a quarter of a century. 10 Thus it came about that, although the American traders at Honolulu were effectively excluded from the Northwest Coast trade, the commercial relations between the Hawaiian islands and the Oregon country were put upon a more solid and enduring basis. From the local Hawaiian standpoint, the lumber trade was perhaps of the greatest permanent importance. It is probably safe to say that the Honolulu and other growing Hawaiian towns of the middle of the last century were built very largely with lumber brought from the Columbia River and Puget Sound; from that period down to the present day, Hawaii has drawn the bulk of its lumber supply from the same region, although lumber is also brought from California and at one time a little came from New England and New Zealand. At the outset the work of the Hudson's Bay Company agency at Honolulu seems to have been confined rather closely to the business of selling the produce of the company's establishments in the Oregon country which was brought to the islands in the company's ships, and of collecting the local Hawaiian products, foreign goods, specie, and exchange that entered into the return cargoes. But soon the scope of the enterprise was broadened into a general wholesale and retail business and cargoes of goods were brought from England especially for the Hawaiian market. The change occurred about 1840, and Alexander Simpson, whose name appears on other pages of this history, claimed that he was in some measure responsible for it. 11 Stephen Reynolds in August, 1840, noted the arrival of the barque Forager from London with a "cargo for Pelly & Simpson—from the Hudson's Bay Company, to drive all Yankees off the Islands—and out of Pacific!! !"12 The historian Jarves, writing about two years later, referred to the "bold attempt" of the Hudson's Bay Company to monopolize the trade of the Hawaiian islands and voiced the fear that that company, with its enormous resources, might be successful in the attempt. 13 T A good account of this development is in R. C. Clark, History of the Willamette Valley Oregon (Chicago, 1927), 172-173, 180-181, 197-204. 'Ibid., 202. ' Ibid., 201. 10 Chamberlain, Journal, Aug. 7, 1834; T. G. T h r u m , " H i s t o r y of the Hudson's Bay Company s Agency in Honolulu", 18 H H S Report, 35-49, reprinted in slightly expanded form in Haw'n Annual, 1912, pp. 43-59. Pelly was also agent for Lloyd's. 11 A. Simpson, The Sandwich Islands, 50-51. 12 Reynolds, Journal, Aug. 18, 1840. J . F. B. Marshall wrote in the spring of 1841: " A n English Brig was in port and another arrived on the same day with our ship and efforts were making to undersell the 'D—d Yankees' as Mr. Pelly terms u s . " Marshall to Hunnewell, March 11, 1841, Hunnewell M S S .

" J a r v e s , History of the Hawaiian or Sandwich Islands (1 ed., Boston, 1843), 366-367. Whether the company really had such a purpose may be open to question.

302

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,

1778-1854

Other English traders entered the field in competition with the Americans, and this, combined with other causes, gave rise to the bitter feeling within the community which served as a background for the Paulet intervention. The Yankees were not driven from the islands, but they had to share the business with their British and other competitors. The commerce of the islands was growing and there was room for a larger number of traders. Consul General Miller, in a report written at the end of 1845, mentioned that there were three English commercial houses in Honolulu: the Hudson's Bay Company Agency, Messrs. Starkey, Janion & Company, and Messrs. Skinner & Company. 1 4 T h e firm of Starkey, Janion & Company had been established only a few months b e f o r e ; 1 5 it was the beginning of a mercantile business that has had a continuous history down to the present day, being now carried on under the name of Theo. H . Davies & Company, Limited. The Americans, however, continued to have by f a r the greater share of the business of the islands and their predominance in that respect was never seriously endangered. During the period of which we are now speaking (1830-1845), the California, Mexican, and South American trade were each of greater value than that of the Oregon country and Russian settlements combined. Such statistics as are available, 16 admittedly very imperfect, give the following as the value of imports into the Hawaiian islands f r o m the four regions mentioned during the eight year period 1834-1841: Northwest Coast California Mexico Chile and Peru...

$117,000 . 374,500 . 187,000

. 216,000

Exports (including exchange) to those regions f r o m Hawaii were necessarily in about the same ratio. In the whole American coast region south of Oregon the bulk of the foreign trade was in the hands of Boston and other American and English trading houses, some of which had agents or branches in the important towns, such as San Francisco, Monterey, San Diego, Mazatlan, Lima, and Valparaiso. Honolulu merchants, though they were competitors in trade, nevertheless did some business with the American and British merchants established in the various ports, in addition to direct transactions with the local Spanish speaking population. During this time, the characteristic feature of California commerce was the hide and tallow trade so graphically portrayed in R. H. Dana's Two Years before the Mast. Honolulu merchants had a small share of this 11

Miller to A b e r d e e n (N'o. 5 8 ) , Dec. 31, 1845, B P R O , F . O . 5 8 / 3 6 . " A n E n g l i s h B r i g has j u s t a r r i v e d with a cargo of $80,000 b r i n g i n g out a M r . J a n i o n , p a r t n e r of S t a r k e y who is going to establish a house here. H e has h i r e d L a d d ' s store f o r t h e p r e s e n t . I do not think that we Y a n k e e s will be obliged to e v a c u a t e the I s l a n d s in c o n s e q u e n c e . " J . F . B. M a r s h a l l to J a m e s H u n n e w e l l , Sept. 4, 1845, H u n n e w e l l M S S . W . S. W . R u s c h e n b e r g e r , A Voyage Round the World . . . in iStf, 1836, and 1837 ( P h i l a delphia, 1 8 3 8 ) , 488-489; Polynesian, Sept. 12, 1840, Sept. 4, 1841; W i l k e s , Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1845), V , 526. 15

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

303

trade. Smuggling, by various devices and with the connivance of the California officials, was a regular feature of the California trade, and traders from the Hawaiian islands had a reputation for being accomplished smugglers.17 On the other hand, some of the California merchants were very dilatory in meeting their obligations.18 Voyages were made to California with cargoes of general merchandise, including some local products, which were exchanged for hides, principally, sometimes horses, furs, lumber, and soap; the hides were frequently taken direct to the Lima market, but at other times were taken to Honolulu and from there shipped, together with hides produced in the islands, either to Valparaiso or to the United States. At Lima and Valparaiso, especially at the latter place, could be obtained cargoes of general merchandise and copper for the islands and for other markets. During the 1840's, Valparaiso was an important source of supply for the Hawaiian trade. Among other things, large quantities of flour were brought from there; for example, in 1847, out of a total of 4050 barrels of flour imported into Honolulu, 1719 barrels came from Valparaiso, 1668 barrels from the Columbia River, 588 barrels from the United States, and 67 barrels from California. 19 Thus there developed to a limited extent a triangular trade with Honolulu as one apex. The statistics indicate that the greater part of the commodities obtained in California by island traders were brought direct to Honolulu; of those commodities, only horses, lumber, and soap entered extensively into the local island trade. The trade with Mexico was of a somewhat different character; imports from that country were principally specie and bullion which supplied a substantial part of the money that made up the circulating medium of the Hawaiian islands.20 The bulk of the general merchandise (manufactured goods) taken by traders from Honolulu to the American coast, Russian settlements, and South Sea islands, as well as that sold locally, was first imported into Hawaii from the United States, China, and Great Britain. The total volume of business being small was easily influenced for good or ill by adventitious circumstances; in 1841 it was remarked that the visit of the United States exploring squadron was "very beneficial to so small a trading community—a large amount of money was put into circulation, giving the natives an opportunity to sell a large amount of provisions, etc., and 17 H . H . Bancroft, History of California (San Francisco, 1885), I I I , 367-368; I V , 88, 375I. B. Richman, California under Spain and Mexico (Boston, 1911), 294. » Chas. Brewer, writing f r o m Honolulu in the fall of 1848 a f t e r the gold discoveries in California, said: " W e have some hopes that our California friends will now be able to do us justice by meeting our claims. W e were much gratified to receive from our old friend Spear in Gold dust a short time since the balance of an account against him, although of thirteen years standi n g l " Brewer to H . D. Fitch, Oct. 28, 1848, Fitch Documents in Bancroft Library, University of California. u

Commercial statistics for 1847 in Polynesian, J a n . 8, 1848. " This paragraph is based mainly upon a study of the commercial statistics for the period; correspondence in the Hunnewell M S S ; correspondence in the Vallejo Documents (vols. 28-34), Larkin Documents (vols. 1-3), and Fitch Documents in the Bancroft l i b r a r y , University of California; and the commercial chapters in Bancroft's History of California.

304

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,

1778-1854

the merchants the means of making profitable remittances to other countries." 2 1 During the later years of the reign of Kamehameha I I I , there were significant changes in the direction of Hawaii's foreign trade, and by the end of the reign the commerce of the islands had already fallen very largely into the channels which it was to follow during the remainder of the century. Commercial relations with the American coast came to be concentrated upon California and that portion of the old Oregon country which was added to the United States in 1846; the fast growing American population in California and Oregon served like a magnet to draw Hawaiian commerce more and more into that channel; trade with Mexico and South America nearly ceased. In supplying the general merchandise that entered the Hawaiian market, the United States continued to lead by a widening margin; Great Britain, aided by her Australian colonies, gained a strong position, and China continued to be an important factor, though of diminishing relative importance; after 1850, imports into Honolulu from Germany increased with great rapidity—in 1854 and in many later years they surpassed in value the imports from Great Britain and the British colonies. The introduction of this strong German influence into Hawaiian economic life dates from about 1849, in which year Captain H. Hackfeld arrived from Hamburg with a small stock of goods and opened a store in Honolulu, thus beginning the history of the firm of H. Hackfeld & Company, which became one of the great leaders in Hawaiian economic development and was the predecessor of the present corporation American Factors, Limited. Other German merchants followed the example of Hackfeld and within a few years Honolulu had a substantial German colony. 22 Judged by present day standards, the business transacted at the Hawaiian islands during the reign of Kamehameha I I I was small indeed, but it more than tripled in volume during the last dozen years of the reign. T h e business was based only to a very limited extent upon the natural resources of the kingdom, but in this respect there was some improvement from year to year. These statements are illustrated by the statistical table printed on page 305. From the table it will be seen that the imports into the islands were immensely greater in value than the exports. The larger part of the difference between the two is accounted for by the value of foreign goods sold to ships of various kinds, principally to whaling ships, and paid for by them with specie or bills of exchange. The extent of these transactions is an index of the relative importance of the whaling industry in the economic life of the islands; the great and rapid increase in the volume of business was caused mainly by the tremendous increase in the number of whaling ships that visited Polynesian, Sept. 4, 1841. T . G. T h r u m , " H i s t o r y of the House of Hackfeld & C o . " , in Haw'n Annual, 1902, pp. 4 3 - 5 4 ; same author, " H o n o l u l u ' s German Colony of the F i f t i e s " , in ibid., 1913, pp. 71-74. 21

22

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

305

the ports of the kingdom. In 1841, Peirce & Brewer wrote, "It is estimated that about one-half of the imports of Honolulu, are purchased by traders, and exported to the Coast of California, Russian Settlements, Southern Islands, &c., the other half is supposed to be consumed in the Islands." 23 But in the period 1844-1854 (and later), the amount of forHAWAIIAN COMMERCE, 1844-1855

(Compiled from Custom House reports)

Year

1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855

Imports of Foreign Goods

Exports of Foreign Goods

Exports of Domestic Produce

Total Exports

Estimated Value of Domestic Produce Supplied to Ships

$ 350,347.12 $ 60,054.06* $ 49,187.90 $109,241.96* $ 60,400.00 98,402.78* 202,700.00 31,390.85 581,441.72 67,011.93* 170,800.00 46,525.00 189,950.74 598,382.24 143,425.74 140,600.00 68,418.58 354,472.82 738,150.19 286,054.24 66,819.43 518,870.40 Not given 605,618.73 452,050.97 81,340.00 729,739.44 89,102.07* 103,743.74 192,845.81* 42,829.72* 380,322.63 423,152.35* 156,200.00 1,035,058.70 111,940.00 197,888.94 579,291.49 1,823,821.68 381,402.55 127,638.00 129,613.69 510,757.20 759,868.54 381,143.51 126,925.00 154,674.17 346,071.83 1,281,951.18 191,397.66 152,975.00 121,054.70 432,147.67 1,396,786.24 311,092.97 160,925.00 113,816.67 411,676.49 1,306,355.89 297,859.82

* Figures for Exports of Foreign Goods for 1844, 1845, 1849, and 1850, include only goods re-exported and claiming drawback of duties paid at the custom house; hence are much smaller than corresponding figures for other years. For the same reason the figures for Total Exports for those years are much below what they should be.

eign goods purchased by traders and exported from the country was much less than one half. The whaling industry was the main cause of this change; the business transacted at the islands with whaling ships came to be of much greater value than the trade with neighboring parts of the Pacific which had absorbed so much of the attention of the Honolulu merchants in the earlier period. The California excitement, it is true, caused an abnormal development of the foreign trade during 1849-1851, but this was a temporary phenomenon. T H E WHALING INDUSTRY

Hawaii was first visited by whaling ships in the fall of 181924 and thereafter, as a result of the discovery of the important sperm whaling grounds off the coast of Japan, the number of ships stopping at the islands rose quickly to a fairly high figure—there are said to have been as many M Polynesian, Sept. 12, 1840. The expression "consumed in the I s l a n d s " means sold in the local market; a large part of the goods thus sold were purchased for the use of ships visiting the islands. " Sailor's Magazine and Naval Journal (New Y o r k ) , V I , 357 (Aug. 1834).

306

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

as sixty in 1822—and the people of the islands, both native and haole, began to take an interest in supplying the wants of these new customers.25 During the 1820's and 1830's, island life and island business adjusted themselves to the semi-annual visits of the whaling fleet, but down to 1840 the size of the fleet was not such that it completely overshadowed all other economic interests. On page 307 is presented a table showing the number of arrivals of whaling ships at the ports of the Hawaiian islands from 1824 to 1861. It should be noted that the figures do not represent the number of different ships that arrived each year but the number of times they arrived at the various ports. Since many of the ships came to the islands twice a year and many of them visited more than one port, the number of arrivals was considerably greater than the number of ships. It is impossible to tell (except for a few years) what the ratio was, but it is believed that over the whole period the number of ships was about one-third less than the number of arrivals. The table shows that the number of arrivals rose by a somewhat irregular curve to a sharp peak in 1832, then receded for a few years, and after 1840 took a sudden and spectacular spurt upward, reaching the record figure of 596 in the year 1846. The period 1843 to 1860 may be compared to a high plateau region in which appear three great peaks (1846, 1853, 1859). This period was the golden age of whaling in the North Pacific and the very heart of the whaling era of Hawaiian history. The reign of Kamehameha I I I came to an end in the midst of this stirring epoch. During the last twelve years of the reign the average annual number of arrivals was 419. The eight year period 1852-1859 shows an even higher average of 484. The astounding increase which set in immediately after 1840 and the revival after 1851 were caused very largely by the successive discoveries of new whaling grounds off the northwest coast of America south of Alaska, in the Okhotsk, Bering, and Anadir Seas, and in the Arctic Ocean north of Bering Strait. The visits of the whaling ships were crowded together in two short periods in the spring and in the fall, so that Hawaii had two very busy seasons and two very dull ones in each year. While ships called in at nearly all the ports of the group—shopping around, so to speak—Honolulu and Lahaina were, generally speaking, the only places visited by large numbers of whalers until after 1840, because they were the only towns of any size or importance and hence the only ones that could supply all the needs of the ships; Honolulu was the only port having proper facilities for repairing ships. In later years, other ports were resorted to more than before, especially the rising town of Hilo; 2 6 Kawaihae, shipping point for the rich district of Kohala; Koloa, on the island of Kauai; and others to less extent. 2 5 G. F . Mathison, Narrative of a Visit to Brazil, Chile, Per-u and the Sandwich Islands, during the years 1821 and 1822 (London, 1 8 2 5 ) , 4 5 9 ; W . Kills, Narrative of a Tour through Hawaii (Honolulu, 1 9 1 7 ) , 311. M Rev. Titus Coan, writing J u l y 23, 1846, said that more than 120 vessels had visited Hilo during the preceding twelve months. M H , X L I I I ( 1 8 4 7 ) , 135.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

307

ARRIVALS O F W H A L E S H I P S AT PORTS O F T H E HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, 1824-1861 (Compiled from the following sources: Statistics by Wm. Richards and E. Spaulding printed in Sailor's Magasine and Naval Journal [New York], VI, 358 [Aug. 1834]; Wyllie's "Notes" in the Friend, II [1844], 49, 113; Figures from Lahaina consulate records printed in Pacific Commercial Advertiser, Feb. IS, 1857 ; Custom House Statistics from 1844 onward, published in the newspapers in Jan., Feb., or March of each year.) Year

1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 •1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861

Honolulu

87 36 107 82 112 111 95 81 118 107 111 76 73 67 76 60 47 60 74 136 165 163 167 167 148 120 125 90 226 246 189 171 150 142 224 249 179 110

Lahaina

Other Ports

17 42 31* 16 45 62 62 78 80 82 Figures for Lahaina not available 62 72 56 39 73 98 247 325 379 429 239 ICI 154 112 103 189 177 224 184 121 122 141 116 62 24

27 104 110 112 113 95 123 161 184 84 56

Total

104 "1 78 138

Average for 4 years = 104

98

157 173 157 •• 159 198 189,

129" 148 116 86 133 172 383' 490 542 596 406 309 » 274 237 220 519 533 525 468 366 387 526 549 325 190

Average for 6 years = 172

Average for 6 years = 131

Average for 12 years = 419

* The number of arrivals at Lahaina in fall of 1826, missing from the reports, has been estimated at 12.

308

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

Because of the concentration within two short seasons and at a few ports, there were frequently a large number of ships in port at the same time—the number has become almost legendary and has grown like any other legend.27 In testing this point, a check was made, by the writer, at selected periods when the numbers might be expected to be large, of the lists of vessels in port published in the newspapers. The highest number actually found, at Honolulu, was on November 20, 1852, when there were 131 whalers and 18 merchant vessels in port. It is possible there may at times have been a greater number anchored in the roadstead at Lahaina. While the visits of the whaleships were confined to a few ports, the effects were felt in many other parts of the kingdom. Much of the domestic produce, such as potatoes, vegetables, beef, pork, fowls, and firewood, that was supplied to the ships was raised in the back country and had to be taken to the ports for sale. The demand for firewood to supply so many ships over so great a period of time must have had an appreciable effect in reducing the forest areas and helping to create a serious problem for later generations. Cattle for beef were, where possible, driven to the ports on the hoof and slaughtered as needed; at times they were led carelessly through the streets, to the annoyance and danger of the peaceful populace.28 To supply the shipping at Lahaina, beef cattle were sometimes shipped to that place from ranches on the island of Hawaii. 29 The activity at the ports during the shipping season attracted thither many of the people, especially the younger ones, both men and women, from the outlying districts, and some who were thus drawn to Honolulu, the metropolis, remained there permanently. Hawaiian youths from all parts of the kingdom were to be found among the seamen recruited for service on the whaleships. The importance of the whaling industry to the Hawaiian islands is to .be measured not alone by the great increase in the number of ships but also by changes in the routine of the industry caused by the ever lengthening duration of the voyages. Between the early years of the century and the mid years when the industry was at flood tide, the average length of a whaling voyage nearly doubled; in the 1850's, voyages of three and a half or four years were not at all uncommon.30 The reasons for this change are not important for our purpose, but the effect on Hawaii needs to be noticed. Ships which remained away from their " A n interesting illustration of this fact is to be found in the reminiscences of Sereno E. Bishop. Mr. Bishop returned to Hawaii in January, 1853, on the clipper ship Sovereign of the Seas, after an absence of thirteen years. Writing a half century later, he said, "Inside the harbor we found probably 100 whaling ships." S. E. Bishop, Reminiscences of Old Hawaii (Honolulu, 1916), 58-59. Reference to the Polynesian, Jan. 22, 1853, shows that the Sovereign of the Seas arrived at Honolulu on Jan. 16, 1853, at which date there were 34 whale ships and 16 merchant ships in port, a total of 50. » D. Baldwin to Wm. Richards, July 21, 1845, original letter in HMCS Library. " Vallejo Docs., Vol. XXXIV, No. 287, in Bancroft Library, University of California, is an agreement between Joaquin Armas of Lahaina and Wm. French; Armas agreed to receive cattle from the ships and kill and sell the beef for French. French's cattle ranch was on the island of Hawaii. •> E. P. Hohman, The American Whaleman: A Study of Life and Labor in the Whaling Industry (New York, 1928), 84-85.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

309

home ports for such extended periods could not carry with them all the supplies they would need on their voyages and they would require frequent refitting and repair; since Hawaii possessed the only good harbor within a radius of two thousand miles at the very center of the whaling theatre, it was naturally resorted to for those purposes, and the necessary consequence was a substantial development of the mercantile community and marine facilities at the islands. Honolulu profited most from this development, but the other ports secured part of the increased business. Another development adding to the importance of Honolulu was the practice which became rather common, apparently about 1850, of transshipping oil and whale bone from whaleships which intended to remain out longer to whaleships that were homeward bound or to merchant ships sailing between Honolulu and New England. 81 Many merchant ships came to Honolulu for the express purpose of loading oil and bone; one of them, the famous clipper ship Sovereign of the Seas, took into her hold 8,000 barrels of oil in January and February, 1853.82 During the forties and fifties, New Bedford was the whaling capital of the world, but Hawaii was the principal field base of the industry in the Pacific, where six-sevenths of the whaling fleet was operating. Small wonder, then, that a substantial part of the profits derived from the industry went into the pockets of Honolulu business men. New England owners of whaling ships felt that Hawaii was getting more than its share of the profits. 33 One of the historians of the industry wrote about 1876: It has been said, and probably with a very great degree of truth, that the "whaling-fleet made Honolulu," and when one considers for how many years large fleets of whalemen . . . rendezvoused there, the known prodigality of the sailor, and the increasingly heavy bills for refitting, of all of which Honolulu reaped the benefit, it is easy to believe the statement."

Not content with merely keeping shops and shipyards for the convenience of the whalers, Honolulu business men themselves fitted out whaling ships and promoted whaling voyages. The first enterprise of this sort was as early as 1831,36 but there was no extensive development until nearly the end of the reign of Kamehameha III, and this phase of Hawaii's relation to the whaling industry belongs more appropriately with the later history of the kingdom.36 Between 1830 and 1870, but more especially during the two decades in the middle of the century, the economic life of Hawaii was to a very 81 Data on this phase of the business are not given in the custom house statistics earlier than for the year 1851. A table showing the amount of oil and bone transshipped during the years 1851-1859 is printed in Polynesian, J a n . 28, 1860. 32 Polynesian, Jan. 22, Feb. 5, 12, 1853. 38 A. Starbuck, History of the American Whale Fishery from Its Earliest Inception to the year (Report of the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries for 1875-1876, Vol. I V ) , 110-112. M Ibid. ™L. Chamberlain, Journal, Nov. 29, 1831; Sullivan, op. cit., 40. 38 T. G. T h r u m , "Honolulu's Share in the Pacific Whaling Industry of By-gone Days," in Haw'n Annual, 1913, pp. 47-68.

310

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

great degree dependent upon the whaling industry. In 1834, Henry A. Peirce, one of the leading merchants of Honolulu, wrote somewhat disdainfully of the business of supplying whaleships,37 but ten years later, in the midst of the boom years of the 1840's, R. C. Wyllie said, it is obvious that the prosperity of these islands has depended, and does depend, mainly upon the whale-ships that annually flock to their ports . . . Were the whale fishery to fall off . . . or were the vessels engaged in it to abandon these islands for some others in this ocean, or for ports on the Main, the Sandwich Islands would relapse into their primitive insignificance."

This was written just when the flush times were getting under way. One can gain a vivid impression of the growth of Hawaii's mercantile community, of the multiplication of facilities and arrangements for serving the whaleships, and of the extent to which the economic life of the islands was tied up with this great industry, by running through the newspaper files, noting the advertisements and reading the editorials and other articles that touch upon the subject. So much was the government impressed with the value of the whaling industry to the islands that it adopted the policy of encouraging the visits of whaling ships by giving them preferential treatment in the matter of harbor and transit dues and by exempting them from the payment of import duties on goods to the value of $200 for each ship to be used in bartering for supplies.39 In the opinion of many people the islands became too dependent upon this one resource. The whalers brought prosperity to the Hawaiian mercantile community, but it was a fluctuating and precarious prosperity not rooted in the soil of the kingdom. This may be illustrated by the experience of the years 1845-1848. The immense fleets of whalers visiting the islands in 1845 and 1846 caused heavy importations to be made in 1846, 1847, and early part of 1848, in anticipation of a continuance of the whaling business on the same scale. Eighteen forty-six was a highly prosperous year, but there was a great falling off in the number of ships in 1847 and the decline continued in 1848 and for several years longer. The occupation of California by the Americans during the Mexican War afforded some relief in 1847 by providing a market, but in spite of this, the Honolulu mercantile community at the beginning of 1848 faced a most discouraging possibility of depression and loss,40 from which it was saved by a purely fortuitous circumstance, the discovery of gold in California. It is true that the visits of the whaleships led to a certain amount of agricultural activity—this will be spoken of farther on—but there was no assurance that the floating market for Hawaiian beef and potatoes would always be at hand year after year. The whaling industry " P e i r c e to Hunnewell, Oct. 2, J834, Hunnewell M S S . » Wyllie's "Notes" in Friend, I I (1844), 61. » Constitution and Lows, 1S41, 183; The Laws and Resolutions passed . . . at Lahaina, April, 1S43, Sec. 8; Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, I , 142, 145; I I , 76-78. u See the article "Business of Honolulu" in Polynesian, Oct. 30, 1847, and editorials in ibid., Jan. 15, Feb. 19, 1848.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

311

did little to promote the growth of staple crops such as sugar, coffee, cotton, and tobacco; on the contrary, it probably retarded the development of plantations. As long as the ships continued to visit the islands, money could be made more easily by catering to their needs than by engaging in plantation agriculture, which involved hard work, heavy investments of capital, and grave risk of failure. Still, what was desirable for the individual business man might be highly undesirable for the community as a whole. 4 1 It was repeatedly pointed out that the only way to be reasonably sure of the future was to develop the natural resources of the kingdom and to produce staple crops suitable for export. T h e possibility that the whalers might fall off hung like a sword of Damocles over the islands, but during the last years of the reign of Kamehameha I I I it required something more than that danger to create very much interest in plantation development. T h e effects of the whaling industry were seen not alone in the economic sphere, but in social conditions as well. T h e presence in port of thousands of seamen during several months of each year created problems not alone for the shipmasters, but for the local authorities and for the consuls of foreign governments and particularly for the American consul. In the routine of the whaling industry, desertions of seamen were exceedingly common in spite of the severe penalties attached to that means of escaping from the hardships of life on a whaleship. 42 In the early years there were many desertions at the Hawaiian islands but with the better organization of the government this evil was greatly lessened. Many sick and disabled seamen were discharged at Hawaiian ports; for the care of these unfortunate men the consuls were responsible, and consular expenses on this account were very large; in 1851 the American consuls at Lahaina and Honolulu expended more than $40,000 for this purpose. 43 Contemporary accounts of the whaling industry unite in speaking of the seamen on whaleships as being on the average on a very low moral plane and there can be no doubt that, from a moral standpoint, the semi-annual visits of thousands of these seamen had a most pernicious influence. 44 Whaling seamen on shore leave were a boisterous, pleasureseeking rabble, whose ideas of pleasure were not over-refined; too frequently their tastes rose no higher than the grogshop and the brothel, and a brawl with a native constable was entered upon with real zest. During the shipping season disorders were common, and there was ever present the danger that riots might occur, a danger that actually materialized on a number of occasions, most notably in 1852 when a mob of See, for illustration, editorials in Polynesian, Oct. 9, 1847, Feb. 19, 26, 1848. Hohman, op. cit., 62-69, 316-317. " Friend, I X ( 1 8 5 2 ) , 44. The expenditures of the Lahaina consulate for this purpose were greater than those of any other American consulate in any part of the world. On this subject, and for evidence of graft in connection with the care of sick and destitute seamen, see Marcy to Gregg (No. 9 ) , Oct. 2, 1854, U S D S , Instructions, Hawaii. Vol. I I ; Gregg to Marcy (No. 8 9 ) , April 13, 1855, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. V I ; both of these documents are also in the Gregg Collection, concerning which see below, chap. 19, note 8. Some other dispatches of Gregg relate to the same subject. ** Hohman, op. cit., 59, 112; and a very strong statement in the Polynesian, J u n e 26, 1847. 11

312

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

sailors burned down the police station at Honolulu and terrorized the town for more than twenty-four hours. 45 Interest in the welfare of seamen, together with the importance of Honolulu as a seaport, led to the establishment there of a Seamen's Bethel in 1833, in charge of a chaplain, Rev. John Diell, appointed by the American Seamen's Friend Society. The Bethel served as a kind of moral lighthouse, but the ministrations of the chaplain were not exclusively of a religious nature—he helped seamen in many different ways. Nor did he confine his attention to seamen. He believed that his work should touch the foreign population of the town, and in May, 1837, he organized the Oahu Bethel Church, the first church for foreigners residing in Honolulu. 45a After the death of Diell, Rev. Samuel C. Damon, in 1842, took up the work of the chaplaincy and carried it on for more than forty years. It was Damon who, in 1843, began the publication of The Temperance Advocate and Seamen's Friend, which- was later called simply The Friend and which today proudly proclaims itself the "oldest newspaper west of the Rockies"—its files are of inestimable value to the student of Hawaiian history. During the busiest years of the whaling era, the Seamen's Friend Society supported a chaplain at Lahaina also and for a time a similar work was carried on at Hilo. 46 The whaling industry had some effect upon the population of Hawaii. It is generally believed that the debaucheries which the industry inflicted upon the islands were a great factor in spreading disease, accelerating the death rate, and retarding the birth rate; no doubt there is substantial ground for the belief, though the importance of this factor has probably been over-estimated. The nation undoubtedly suffered an appreciable loss through the enlistment of Hawaiian youths as sailors on whaling vessels, but it is impossible to get any conclusive statistical measure of the extent of the loss. During the three years 1845-1847, nearly two thousand Hawaiians enlisted as seamen on foreign ships, and during those years there was some discussion of the subject.47 It was pointed out that many of these native seamen never returned to live in Hawaii and the population was thereby reduced, both absolutely and potentially. On the other hand, the editor of the Polynesian expressed the opinion that many who did return were improved in self-reliance and industrious habits by their experiences on shipboard; and he remarked that the loss to the nation could not be prevented "except by affording these same youths supe" For a good account of the sailors' riot of 1852, see W . C. Parke, Personal Reminiscences of William Cooper Parke, Marshal of the Hawaiian Islands, From 1S50 to 1884 (Cambridge, U.S.A., 1891), 35-44; and an article by T. G. T h r u m in Haw'n Annual, 1921, pp. 62-68. Sailor's Magazine and Naval Journal (New Y o r k ) , X, 400, 429 (June, July, 1838). * On the Seamen's Bethel at Honolulu, see the interesting article by Ethel M. Damon in the Friend, C I I I (1933), 124-131, and other articles mentioned by her. See also an article by S. E . Bishop in the Pacific Commercial Advertiter, Nov. 7, 1907. On the Seamen's Chapel at Hilo, there is an interesting note by Rev. T . Coan in Friend, V I I (1849), 70. "Rep. of Min. of Interior, 1846, pp. 7-8; 1847, p. 9; 1848, p. 7; Letter of J . S. Green in Polynesian, May 23, 1846, and editorial comment in ibid., April 4, May 23, 1846.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

313

rior inducements to remain on shore." Figures for later years are not available, but other evidence indicates that during the 1850's the number of Hawaiians enlisting as seamen on foreign ships probably averaged not less than four or five hundred each year. 48 The commercial development during this period, by magnifying the importance of a few ports, gave momentum and direction to a townward drift of population; the population of the kingdom as a whole was steadily going down, but the population of Honolulu, Lahaina, and Hilo was growing. AGRICULTURE DURING THE WHALING ERA

We turn now to the development of agriculture during this interesting period. In an earlier chapter the subject was brought down to about 1840, at which period an awakening interest in agriculture was observed. Before that time the whalers had created a limited market for fresh vegetables, fresh meat, and fruit; the great increase in the number of whaleships after 1840 caused a corresponding increase in the demand for such products of the soil. In bulk and value, potatoes (sweet and Irish) ranked first in this traffic. In the early days only, sweet potatoes had been obtainable at the islands, but after 1830, if not sooner, cultivation of the Irish potato was taken up and during the 1840's and 1850's became of great importance. It was shortly before 1840 that Irish potatoes were first raised in the Kula district of Maui, which proved to be so well adapted to them that it soon came to be called the "potato district." Jarves describes the region as it appeared to him in July, 1846: It ranges along the mountain [Haleakala] between 2000 and 5000 feet elevation, for the distance of 12 miles. The forest is but partially cleared, and the seed put into the rich virgin soil. The crop now in the ground is immense. The fields being all in blossom have a fine appearance, spreading as they do, over the broad surface of the mountain."

From this upland region the potatoes were carried down to the shore and taken to Lahaina or were sold directly to ships which called at Kalepolepo. In the spring of 1847 it was estimated that the crop would amount to 20,000 barrels. 50 Irish potatoes were raised in other parts of the kingdom, such as Waimea on the island of Hawaii, but nowhere else so extensively as in Kula. In 1854, G. D. Gilman estimated that the local Hawaiian market, including the whaleships, could be depended on to consume about 20,000 barrels of Irish potatoes.51 The whaleships bought many other kinds of products, and the nature of the agricultural activity caused by their visits is well sugM Treasury receipts for "Shipping Native Seamen" and for "Native Seamen's Taxes," given in reports of the minister of the interior and the minister of finance. «Polynesian, July 25, 1846. See also ibid., May 8, 1841, Nov. 23, 1844 (letter of J . S. Green); and article by G. D. Gilman in R H A S Transactions, VoL II, No. 1, pp. 136-141. W Polynesian, Feb. 20, 1847. n Article cited in note 49.

314

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

gested by the typical list, printed on page 315, of produce supplied to eighty ships which called at Hilo in the course of twelve months in 1853 and 1854. In the list it will be noticed that fresh beef ranks next in value after potatoes; the sale of beef was more or less closely related to the export trade in hides, which will be noticed farther on in this chapter. There was no practical way of telling exactly the amount or value of the produce furnished to ships at all the ports of the kingdom, but each year an estimate was made based upon the number of ships and the amount of produce supposed to have been purchased by each ship; these estimates are given in the table on page 305; they show clearly the value currently attached to this form of business and its relative importance in the economic life of the kingdom. SUGAR, 1840-1848

Another phase of agriculture, of more significance in the long run, was the production of staple articles suitable for export. In chapter eleven were described various early efforts to produce sugar, coffee, cotton, and silk. Of those four, cotton and silk were abandoned by, 1845 or thereabouts; only sugar and coffee survived and gave promise of becoming permanently established. In 1840, although sugar cane was being grown in all parts of the kingdom and there were many small sugar mills, there was only one real plantation, the Koloa enterprise of Ladd and Company. At that place improvements were made and fields expanded during the next few years, resulting in a better grade of sugar and an increased output; but during the middle years of the decade the enterprise was much neglected as a result of the misfortunes and failure of its proprietors, and it was not until 1848, when Dr. R. W. Wood acquired full possession of the plantation, that proper attention was given to it. 62 The sugar enterprise at Wailuku, Maui, mentioned in chapter eleven, failed and was abandoned, for reasons which are not perfectly clear. 63 But elsewhere, definite progress was being made. 64 The tendency at this time appears to have been for the numerous small, inefficient mills to give way to larger and more efficient ones, and for the tiny patches of cane to be replaced by more extensive fields; the plantations were fewer in number but larger in aggregate area and in capital investment. In the spring of 1846, Wyllie wrote that there were then eleven n3 R H A S Transactions, Vol. I , No. 1, pp. 67-68, Vol. I I , No. 1, p. 19; Polynesian Tan 8 1848 (sale of Koloa plantation to D r . Wood, Dec: 28, 1847); A. C. Alexander, Koloa Plantation chap. 2. M Polynesian, Feb. 27, 1847 (letter of J. S. G r e e n ) ; E . Bailey to W m . Richards, April 15. 1847, original in H M C S L i b r a r y ; Friend, V (1847), 111, has advertisement of sale at Wailuku, Aug. 26, of "all the remains of the late Sugar Establishment at that place." Stephen Reynolds makes statements showing that there was trouble in regard to the management of this establishment in 1842. Reynolds' Journal, J u l y 23, 27, 1842, J a n . 3, 1843. There is an article on this subject in Ka Nonanona, March 1, 1842. M See, for example, encouraging notes in Polynesian, Sept. 4, 25, Oct. 9, 20, 1847.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

315

DOMESTIC PRODUCE FURNISHED TO EIGHTY SHIPS AT PORT O F H I L O D U R I N G Y E A R E N D I N G MAY 1, 1854 (From R H A S Transactions, Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 147-148) Fresh beef Salt beef Fowls Turkeys Hogs Goats Potatoes (sweet) Potatoes (Irish) Coconuts Breadfruit Taro Pumpkins Cabbages Bananas Arrowroot Coffee Oranges Pineapples Melons Pulu Wood Molasses Syrup Sugar Sole leather

55,066 lbs. 5,710 lbs. 140 doz. 339 10,000 lbs. 174 1,602 bbls. 1,493 "

@

3,325 1,200 820 bunches 580 lbs. 3,952 " 3,950 1,380 1,979 lbs. 158 cords 3,860 gals. 737 " 8,082 lbs. 377 "

.07 .08^ 3.00 1.00 .06 .50 2.00 2.50

.10 .03 .25 .06 .12 y2

.06 10.00 .15 ..37'/2 .06 .25

$

3,854.62 485.35 420.00 339.00 606.00 87.00 3,204.00 3,732.50 121.00 137.20 84.00 332.50 36.00 205.00 34.80 494.00 98.75 30.40 64.40 118.74 1,580.00 579.00 276.37 484.02 94.25

$ 17,499.80 SUGAR E X P O R T E D F R O M T H E H A W A I I A N ISLANDS, 1836-1861 (Compiled from statistics in Polynesian, Sept. 12, 1840, Sept. 4, 1841; Friend, I I [1844], 61; Custom House reports for 1844-1861) Year

Pounds

Year

Pounds

1

8,000 4,286 88,591 100,000 360,000 60,000

1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861

653,820 750,238 21,030 729,877 634,955 581,777 289,908 554,805 700,556 1,204,061 1,826,620 1,444.271 2,567,498

1836 1837 1838 1839 1840« 1841» 1842* 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1

1,145,010 513,684 302,114 300,000 594,816 499,533

Figures for this year are taken from a letter of Wm. Hooper dated May 28, 1836. These figures are from Jan. to Aug. only. 8 Aug. 1840 to Aug. 1841. 4 No figures for this year, but figures of following year doubtless include both 1842 and 1843. 3

316

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

establishments for the manufacture of sugar and molasses, two on Kauai, six on Maui, and three on Hawaii. 65 He mentions no names, but from other sources some additional information can be gleaned. One of the plantations on Kauai was of course the pioneer at Koloa; the other was probably an adjoining plantation owned by Messrs. Stephens and Morgan. 66 On Maui the industry was localized in two districts on the western slope of Mt. Haleakala, Honuaula and Makawao; the leading planters were Linton L. Torbert in the former place and William A. McLane in the latter. On Hawaii there were establishments in Kohala and in Hilo, all being run by Chinese.67 It is interesting to notice the lack of attention to sugar on Oahu during these years. From four tons in 1836, the first year for which we have definite figures, sugar exports rose to 180 tons in 1840; during the next eight years the average was 213 tons annually; in 1847 nearly 300 tons of sugar were exported. (See table on page 315.) These figures take no account of sugar consumed in the islands nor of sugar sold as supplies to ships visiting the islands. We have no reliable data from which to estimate the total production. Large quantities of molasses were obtained as a by-product and much of it was exported. COFFEE, 1840-1848

Reference has already been made to the early history of the coffee industry. Before 1840 cultivation of coffee had been undertaken on the two islands Oahu and Hawaii, and the Kona district of the latter island was early recognized as one especially well suited to its growth. It was on Kauai, however, that the first extensive coffee plantations were established. A plantation was started at Hanalei in 1842 by Bernard and Rhodes, the plants and seeds being brought from the parent field in Manoa valley, Oahu. A few years later a second plantation was started at Hanalei by Charles Titcomb. In 1847 the plantations at Hanalei were reported to be in a flourishing condition.68 In the same year mention is made of coffee being raised on Maui, at Wailuku and Waikapu, 69 and there are references to two coffee plantations in the Kona district of Hawaii, one, of which Charles Hall was the proprietor, being described as "large". 60 There was also 86 " M r . Wyllic's answers to questions put by M. Dudoit, Consul of F r a n c e / ' April 22, 1846, A H , F.O. & Ex. » Polynesian, Sept. 4, 1847. " E t h e l M. Damon, Father Bond of Kohala (Honolulu, 1927), 73; C. S. Lyman, Around the Horn to the Sandwich Islands and California . . . (New Haven, 1924), 81, 83; Polynesian, Feb. 14, 1846, Nov. 27, 1847; S. S. Hill, Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands (London, 1856), 303-306. '»Polynesian, Sept. 4, 1847. "Ibid., Feb. 27, 1847. » W . P. Alexander to W . Richards, May 7, 1847, original in H M C S L i b r a r y ; John Peter« to R. C. Wyllie, Sept. 14, 1847, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Hill, op. cit., 219-220.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

317

a coffee plantation at Hilo 61 and several small ones on Oahu. 62 The first recorded exportation of coffee was 248 pounds in 1845; this was followed by 10,000 pounds in 1846, 26,243 pounds in 1847, and 58,065 pounds in 1848.63 Besides the quantity exported, some coffee was consumed locally and a good deal was sold to the visiting whalers. At this time, therefore, the prospect for the coffee industry was encouraging and it was predicted that sugar and coffee would eventually be the chief staple exports of the Hawaiian islands.84 While on this subject it may be as well to mention some other articles which figured in the lists of exports of domestic produce, such as kukui oil, arrowroot, mustard seed, tobacco, pulu,6B salt, hides and goatskins. Most of these were of small importance. Rather large quantities of pulu were exported, but mostly at a later time than the period of which we are now speaking. Salt was a familiar article in Hawaii's commerce from the early days. The amount exported was not large—a few thousand barrels annually—but it held a place in the list of exports until long after the reign of Kamehameha III. 6 6 CATTLE INDUSTRY

The export trade in hides was an outgrowth of the cattle industry, which in turn took its rise from the cattle introduced into Hawaii by Vancouver. The hide and tallow trade of California suggested a use for the wild cattle which had become very numerous on the mountain slopes and plateaus of Hawaii. That trade and the demand for beef, fresh and salted, caused the Establishment of cattle ranches. In 1846, Wyllie estimated that there were at least 25,000 wild cattle and 10,000 tame ones on the various islands of the group. 67 Six years later, the whole number of cattle was estimated at more than 40,000, including at least 12,000 wild ones, and the opinion was expressed that cattle (and horses) were increasing at a ruinous rate. 68 Before the close of the reign of Kamehameha III, some steps were taken to improve the quality of the cattle and to introduce better methods of managing the industry. 69 " L y m a n , op. cit., 86; Hill, op. cit., 304, 317. " Wyllie, document cited in note 55. 83 T . G. Thrum, "Notes on the History of Coffee Culture in the Hawaiian Islands," in Htrnfn Annuel, 1876, pp. 46-52. Ethel M. Damon, Koamalu. A Story of Pioneers on Kauai and of What They Built in that Island Garden (2 vols. Honolulu, 1931), contains numerous references to coffee on Kauai, which can be found by means of the index to that book. •» Letter of " A p i s " in Polynesian, Sept. 4, 1847. " " P u l u is the Hawaiian name for the brown, silky hair which densely covers the buds of both the giant tree ferns and the [amaumau] ferns. The ancient Hawaiians used it for stuffing the body cavity, in embalming their dead, and for dressing wounds. I n more recent times it has been used to stuff pillows and mattresses." E. H . Bryan, J r . , Hawaiian Nature Notes (Honolulu, 1933), 124. See the article by T. G. Thrum, " P u l u , I t s Rise and Decline," in Haa/n Annual, 1929, pp. 77-82. See also Otto Degener, Illustrated Guide to the . . . Ferns and Flowering Plants of Hawaii National Park . . . (Honolulu, c. 1930), 27, 29, 40. " " H a w a i i a n Salt Making," in Haw'n Annual, 1924, pp. 112-117; W . D. Westervelt, "Honolulu Salt Beds," in Paradise of the Pacific (Honolulu), Vol. X I X , No. 12 (Dec. 1906), pp. 43-46. m Wyllie, document cited in note 55. « R H A S Transactions, Vol. I , No. 3, p. 91. Cf. ibid., Vol. I , No. 2, p. 6. 88 Data on this and other points are collected by L. A. Henke in A Survey of Livestock in Hawaii (University of Hawaii Research Publication, No. 5. Honolulu, 1929).

318

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

It is not known definitely when the wild cattle began to be slaughtered f o r their hides. The business was carried on more largely at Waimea, Hawaii, than anywhere else. Wilkes, who got his information about 1840, says that in 1830 Governor Adams (Kuakini) took up his residence at Waimea for the purpose of taking the wild cattle. 70 Bingham, who visited Waimea in 1830, speaks of seeing "several striking exhibitions of seizing wild cattle, chasing them on horseback, and throwing the lasso over their horns . . . and subduing or killing these mountainfed animals." 71 It is, therefore, safe to conclude that the Spanish or Mexican cowboys—paniolos, as the Hawaiians called them—who gave such romantic interest to the history of Waimea, 7 2 were brought to the islands not later than 1830. In the fall of 1833, Henry A. Peirce remarked in a letter to James Hunnewell, "Spaniards are now employed at Hawaii in obtaining a cargo of Hides and Tallow for the Lima market." These Spaniards were employed by Kamehameha I I I and the hides and tallow were to go toward the payment of a debt of $3,500 owed by the king to Peirce. 7 3 Among the exports from the islands in 1834 and 1835 we find listed bullocks' hides to the value of $26,000 74 and this item doubtless included the hides spoken of by Peirce. F r o m that time, hides were a regular item in the lists of exports; down to 1840 they averaged more than 5,000 a year. In 1840 a kapu was laid for five years upon the killing of wild bullocks. 75 This reduced the number of hides available for export, but during the last ten years of the reign of Kamehameha I I I (1845-1854), the average exportation was more than 2,000 hides each year. During the same period, salted beef became an article of export on a small scale, and as before noticed, large quantities of beef, both fresh and salted, were supplied to the whaling ships. When attention began to be turned to agriculture, a conflict developed between the interests of the cattlemen and those who were trying to raise sugar, potatoes, and other products of the soil, and complaints were made about the depredations of cattle upon cultivated fields. During the 1840's the grievances of the agriculturists were especially acute on the island of Maui, whose central plain was used as a cattle range; fences being either non-existent or inadequate, the cattle invaded the cultivated areas on the slopes of Haleakala and in the valleys on the other side of the plain and caused a great amount of damage. 76 Earlier laws on the sub™ Wilkes, op. cit., I V , 218. 71 Bingham, Residence, 379. 72 Curtis J. Lyons, "Traces of Spanish Influences in the Hawaiian Islands," in H H S Papers, No. 2, p. 26; Bernice Judd, "Early Days of Waimea, Hawaii," in 40 H H S Reports, 16-20. *» Peirce to Hunnewell, Aug. 10, 1833, Hunnewell M S S . Writing two months later, Peirce thought the chances were good for getting a cargo by February. Peirce to Hunnewell. Oct 4. 1833, ibid. ™ Ruschenberger, op. cit., 488-489. The hides were valued at $2 each. ™ Remarks by Peirce & Brewer in Polynesian, Sept. 4, 1841. 76 J. S. Green to W . Richards, Sept. 15, 1845, original in H M C S L i b r a r y ; E . W . Clark to Richards, Dec. 2, 1845, ibid.; Polynesian, Feb. 14, Oct. 3, 1846. Answers to Questions, 69. T h e depredations of cattle upon cultivated fields were a p r i m a r y cause for the building of stone fences around kuleanas and cultivated a r e a s ; many of these old stone fences still exist on the several islands; they w e r e called pa-aina, and the same name applied to the area enclosed by such a fence.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

319

ject evidently were ineffective or insufficient and the legislature therefore on November 7, 1846, in response to numerous petitions, passed a joint resolution imposing a fine of five dollars upon owners of cattle, horses, etc., for each trespass committed by such animals upon cultivated ground, and furthermore requiring the cattle owners to pay for all damage caused by their cattle.77 Cattle owners felt this law to be oppressive78 and they in turn appealed to the legislature for relief, with the result that the resolution was amended in June, 1848, by reducing the fine from five dollars to one dollar.79 INFLUENCE OF AMERICAN OCCUPATION OF CALIFORNIA AND OREGON

During the years 1846-1850 a new and powerful influence was brought to bear upon the course of Hawaii's development, arising from the acquisition of Oregon and California by the United States, the discovery of gold in California, and the extraordinarily rapid settlement of that territory by an American population. The influence was felt in every department, economic, political, and social. The progress of events in that region, from the first announcement of the settlement of the Oregon question to the admission of California as a state in the Union, was watched by the people of Hawaii with intense interest not unmixed with anxiety. Even before the discovery of gold, but more clearly afterwards, it was recognized that the filling up of Oregon and California with an expansive and "go-ahead" 80 American population could not fail to have a profound influence upon the future of Hawaii. While there was some difference of opinion as to the probable effect on the mercantile business of the islands, it was generally agreed that the new states on the Pacific seaboard would provide a large and convenient market for the tropical products of Hawaii, in particular for sugar, molasses, and coffee.81 The tremendous excitement caused by the gold discoveries was reflected in a violent disturbance of the normal routine of life in the islands. Without going into minute detail, it will be worth while to indicate some of the effects, both temporary and permanent, produced by the developments in California and Oregon. During the years of the "gold rush" there was an ebb and flow of a human tide between Hawaii and California. The discovery of gold was announced in the Polynesian of June 24, 1848, and two weeks later the same paper stated that the gold fever was beginning to rage with unprecedented fury in Honolulu. Ships could hardly be dispatched fast enough to take all those who wished to try their hands at gold mining 17

Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha I I I , I I , 72. ™ R. G. Davis to W . H . Davis, May 8, 1848, Davis Collection in California State Library. •"Laws, 1848, pp. 12-13. 80 This expression, applied especially to the Yankees, appears frequently in the writings of the period. « Polynesian, Aug. 1, 1846, March 13, Oct. 9, 1847, J u n e 24, Sept. 2, Oct. 14, 1848; Armstrong to Chapman, Nov. 5, 1846, Armstrong Letters; L. F. J u d d , Honolulu (1928 ed.), 137.

320

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

along the streams of the new El Dorado; in the course of a few months the number of persons leaving the islands for California mounted into the hundreds. The emigration carried off a large proportion of the foreign population, among them being many mechanics and laborers, the departure of so many of whom caused a sharp rise in wages. Consul General Miller noted the fact in one of his letters, with the comment that "the few Mechanics who have not left us will only do about half a days work for $5." 82 Among the gold seekers were scores of Hawaiians, some few of whom were successful in their quest, 83 while others soon found themselves in distress. 84 With the approach of winter, many of the miners came from California to escape the perils of that season by spending a few months in the Hawaiian islands, going back again to the mines in the spring; and this ebb and flow continued for several years until conditions became more settled. 85 The developments in California gave a decided stimulus to the mercantile trade of the islands. The demand from the coast region in 1847 and 1848 afforded an outlet for accumulated stocks of foreign goods in the stores and warehouses of Honolulu; in the early part of October, 1848, the Polynesian reported that every store in the place, wholesale and retail, had been entirely stripped of goods adapted to the California market. 86 Commercial statistics indicate that large quantities of the same class of merchandise were taken from Honolulu to California in 1849, 1850, and 1851. During those years goods were shipped to California from many places as a speculation; trading conditions were chaotic and prices fluctuated violently. Conditions were abnormal in Hawaii as well. The drain of goods to California coupled with the winter inflow of people from that region at times raised island prices of many commodities to a dizzy level.87 But this was a transitory phase. As conditions became more normal and a strong mercantile community came into existence in San Francisco, a change began which in time amounted to a reversal of the trade relations between California and Hawaii; whereas in the earlier period Honolulu was an emporium from which California purchased a substantial part of the manufactured goods which it needed, at a later time San Francisco became the emporium from which Honolulu merchants made the greater part of their wholesale purchases of foreign merchandise; to balance the account, Hawaii sent the bulk of its exports to California; and trade between Hawaii and the Atlantic seaboard of the United States diminished, relatively, as 82 Miller to Bidwell, Nov. 21, 1848, B P R O , F.O. 58/61. w Polynesian, Oct. 28, 1848. 84 Suwerkrop to Wyllie, Dec. 30, 1848, A H , F.O. & E x . ; G. T. Allan to Wyllie, Dec. 31, 1848, ibid. Sam Alexander and Fred Lyman, seeking a fortune in California in 1857, met a group of Hawaiians whom they considered of f a r better character than the whites about them in the mining region. Mary C. Alexander, William Patteison Alexander, in Kentucky, the Marquesas, Hawaii (Honolulu, 1934), 405. Cf. I,. F. Judd, op. cit., 141; Friend, V I I (1849), 82-83; M H , X L V I (1850), 248. ® Polynesian, Oct. 28, 1848; Armstrong to Chapman, Jan. 15, March 29, 1850, Armstrong Letters; L. F. Judd, op. cit., 149. w Polynesian, Oct. 7, 1848. See also ibid., Aug. 5, Oct. 21, 1848. 87 Armstrong to Chapman, Nov. 18, 1848, Jan. 15, March 29, 1850, Armstrong Letters; Polynesian, April 13, 1850; L. F. Judd, op. cit., 149; M. C. Alexander, op. cit., 303.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

321

trade between Hawaii and California increased in volume. But this transformation was not completed in the lifetime of Kamehameha III. GENERAL AGRICULTURE, 1849-1854

Agriculture, likewise, felt the stimulating influence of the California excitement. The influx of gold seekers together with the comparative neglect of agriculture in California created a demand for potatoes and other vegetables, as well as for sugar, molasses, and coffee, which began to be felt strongly in Hawaii in the latter part of 1849. Some potatoes had been exported in 1847, but the potato "boom" commenced in the fall of 1849. At the beginning of November a correspondent wrote from Maui to the Polynesian: The call for [potatoes] is loud and pressing, as some vessels bound for California have taken as many as a thousand barrels each. The price is high, and the probability is that the market can not be supplied this autumn. Kula, however, is full of people. Strangers from Wailuku, Hamakua and Lahaina are there preparing the ground and planting, so that if the demand from California shall be as urgent next spring as it is now the people will reap a rich harvest. . . . They often repeat the saying of a foreigner, who, after having visited the mines of California, came back to Maui quite satisfied, and said to his neighbors at Waikapu, "California is yonder in Kula. There is the gold without the fatigue and sickness of the mining country.""

The foreigner's remark caught the fancy of the Hawaiians and they were soon referring to Kula as "Kalifonia" or "Nu Kalifonia" 89 and working with great diligence to extract the wealth from the rich pay dirt on the slopes of Haleakala. To encourage the spirit of enterprise which had been thus awakened among the native people, the privy council voted to have the government lands in Kula surveyed and divided into small lots of from one to ten acres and offered for sale to the natives at a price of three dollars per acre. Rev. W. P. Alexander, one of the teachers at Lahainaluna, was employed to do the surveying and arrange the sales, and he devoted six weeks or more to this work in the spring of 1850.90 Other districts of the kingdom produced potatoes, but in lesser quantities than Kula. The demand for potatoes continued strong all through 1850 and the first half of 1851. In the former year the exports of Irish potatoes amounted to 51,957 barrels, of sweet potatoes, 9,631 barrels.91 In 1851 Irish potatoes were exported to the amount of 43,923 barrels, sweet potatoes to the amount of 56,717 barrels.92 Eighteen fifty-one was a year of disasters in California and of drought and depression in Hawaii. The potato trade was the only branch of industry that presented a cheerful 88 Letter of "Rusticus" in Polynesian, Nov. 24, 1849. Cf. letter of "Hawaii" in ibid., March 9, 1850, and letters cited in next note. 88 Letters of J. S. Green and "A Hawaiian Pastor" in ibid., Jan. 26, Feb. 2, 1850. " Privy Council Record, I I I , 425-426; Polynesian, Jan. 5, 1850; M. C. Alexander, of. cit., 303-309. The latter reference gives interesting notes on conditions in Kula in 1850. See also letter of J. S. Green in Polynesian, Jan. 11, 1851. " Polynesian, Feb. 1, 1851. "Ibid., Feb. 7, 1852.

322

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

aspect, and by the fall of the year the potato boom was over. Mrs. Judd reports that in August the market was over-stocked, and there were no purchasers or ships to take [Hawaiian produce] to California. Irish potatoes rotted in the ground, and onions and other vegetables scarcely paid the expense of digging. This was very discouraging to the agriculturists, who had expected to realize fortunes speedily by turning over the soil."'

From this time, except for a slight revival in 1853 due to floods in California, 94 the export trade in Irish potatoes rapidly dwindled away, 96 but sweet potatoes continued to be exported in small quantities for many years longer. A report to the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society in 1854 stated that the Hawaiian potato growers in 1849-1851, in their eagerness to gain all they could from the trade, shipped many inferior potatoes to California, and Hawaiian potatoes thereby got a bad reputation. 96 A more important reason for the decline of the Irish potato trade between Hawaii and California was the fact that the Californians began to raise potatoes themselves and in addition received large quantities from the neighboring Oregon territory. The trade in other vegetables which could be transported to California followed in general the same course as the Irish potato trade. The two combined were a rich vein quickly worked out; and the natives, unfortunately, like many of the California miners, gained little of permanent value from the brief golden harvest. G. D. Gilman wrote in 1854: " O f the many natives who have handled thousands, there are few if any that can show as many dollars, either in improved places, stock, or money. The fields are in a measure deserted, and the happy ( ? ) proprietors quietly awaiting another shower." 97 With the decline of the export trade in Irish potatoes, the attention of some agriculturists, both native and haole, was turned to the raising of wheat. This grain had been cultivated in a small way, principally on Maui, from about 1835 but the demand for Irish potatoes during the 1840's led the natives to go in for the raising of potatoes rather than wheat. After the partial collapse of the potato boom of 1849-1851, attention was re-directed to wheat and the acreage devoted to it was greatly expanded in 1852 and subsequent years, still, however, being confined almost exclusively to Maui. Rev. J . S. Green of Makawao was the apostle of wheat. It is interesting to observe that the best sample of wheat exhibited at the meeting of the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society in 1856 was raised by a native Hawaiian named Kekaha, 98 who « L. F. Judd, op. cit., 170. Cf. Wyllie to Min. of For. Aff. of Denmark, July 17, 1852, AH, F. O. & Ex. M. C. Alexander, op. cit., 333; Polynesian, April 30, 1853; Bancroft, History of California, V I I , 16. 06 RHAS Transactions, Vol. I , No. 3, p. 90; Vol. I I , No. 1, p. 9. Custom House statistics give the following figures for exports of Irish potatoes: 1852, 8,223 barrels; 1853, 15,464 barrels; 1854, 7,585 barrels; 1855, none; 1856, 189 barrels. » RHAS Transactions, Vol. I I , No. 1, pp. 139-140. •» Ibid. «Ibid., Vol. I I , No. 3, p. 51.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

323

had received a premium the preceding year for the best crop of wheat." The building of a flour mill on Maui was projected, but it was finally decided that it would be better to place the mill in Honolulu, where it could be operated in connection with D. M. Weston's machine shop, both using the same steam engine. The corner stone of the combined establishment was laid December 9, 1853 j the flour mill was completed in May, 1854, and began manufacturing corn meal and wheat flour in the following month. In 1855, 450 barrels of flour were exported from the islands, and for ten years thereafter flour appeared in the lists of domestic exports; but the raising of wheat and the manufacture of flour did not become permanently established as Hawaiian industries.100 SUGAR AND COFFEE, 1849-1854

With the staple tropical crops, sugar and coffee, the case was different. For these things, the growing population of California and Oregon afforded a large, convenient, and permanent market. It is to be noted that the remarkable changes taking place in the new American territories on the borders of the Pacific were contemporary with the revolution in the Hawaiian land system, and the two developments strengthened the conviction held by a good many people that Hawaii had a future based on agriculture; they mark clearly the beginning of a new stage in the history of the Hawaiian sugar industry. To be sure, the road ahead was not free from difficulties. The California and Oregon market, which looked so promising, was surrounded by a high tariff wall ; 101 and after getting over that hurdle, Hawaiian sugar had to compete with sugar brought from Manila and elsewhere. Money was scarce and interest rates high.102 The local labor supply was inadequate. But in spite of these and other handicaps, the last half dozen years of the reign of Kamehameha III were marked by distinct evidences of progress. The rush of population to California in 1849 and 1850 had the same effect (Mi the sugar and coffee industries that it had on the trade in potatoes and vegetables—there was a strong demand, resulting in high prices. Sugar planters prospered, land values rose, and something like a boom followed.108 In order to take advantage of the high prices, producers shipped to the coast all the sugar they could scrape together, including »Ibid., Vol. I I , No. 2, pp. 14, 21. Ibid., Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 98-102; Vol. I, No. 4, pp. S, 98-101, 155; Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 5-6, 65, 81-82, 95, 113-119, 135-136; Vol. I I , No. 2, p. 5; Polynesian, Feb. 6, 1841; Nov. 23, Dec. 21, 1844, Aug. 21, 1852, Feb. 19, Aug. 13, Sept 3, Oct. 15, Dec. 10, 1853, Jan. 14, Feb. 11, June 3, 17, 24, July 1, 1854; Custom House statistics. m The U. S. tariff act of 1846, in force all through this period, levied an import duty of 30 per cent ad valorem on all kinds of sugar. 9 U. S. Stats, at Large, 42-49. " * The ordinary rate of interest was one per cent a month. The Polynesian of Aug. 18, 1849, contains the following comment: "The question has often been asked, why do not plantations thrive better at the Sandwich Islands? We believe for the simple reason that most of the plantations have been begun on borrowed capital, and that it is demonstrable that, under ordinary circumstances, no business can prosper that borrows capital at 12 per cent. It must prove ruinous." In the depression year 1851, a rate of interest even higher than 3 per cent per month was current Wyllie to Green (No. 1), Jan. 30, 1860, A H , F. O. & Ex. Armstrong to Chapman, Jan. 15, March 29, May 12, 1850, Armstrong Letters. 100

324

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

much that was of inferior quality. Hawaiian sugar, which previously had earned a good reputation and enjoyed a price advantage in the California market, fell into some disrepute because of this unwise attempt to exploit the market. 104 Other sugar producing countries likewise sought to take advantage of the opportunity created by the rush of people to California; immense quantities of sugar and coffee were thrown upon the California market, and in 1851 prices fell to a ruinously low level. In 1850, three quarters of a million pounds of sugar were exported from Hawaii, but in 1851 the exports amounted to only 21,000 pounds. Coffee went through the same cycle: exports in 1849 amounted to 28,231 pounds; in 1850, 208,428 pounds; in 1851, only 27,190 pounds. In Hawaii the boom conditions of 1849 and 1850 were followed by a serious depression in 1851 and the early part of 1852, which was made worse by a severe drought throughout the islands and by a very poor whaling season.105 Many planters became bankrupt. Richard Armstrong wrote in September, 1851, "Agriculture among us has received a heavy check; times are harder than I have ever known ;" 108 and at the beginning of 1852 he said, "Times are hard here, money scarce, & property greatly depreciated. . . . Our planters are much discouraged, & Swinton, Gower, Munn, Torbert, Hubertson & Perry have failed !" 107 This certainly was a gloomy state of affairs, but the depression of 1851 and 1852 was only a temporary setback. As intimated above, substantial progress was made during this period, and we shall now turn to that aspect of the subject. One especially encouraging feature of the history of the sugar industry during these years was the interest and active participation of some men who had previously been exclusively devoted to commercial enterprises. Henry A. Peirce, who had returned to Boston after a successful business career in Hawaii, again visited the islands in 1849 in the course of a trading voyage to China; on Kauai he was struck with the possibility of developing a sugar plantation in the vicinity of Nawiliwili Bay and for that purpose organized the firm of H. A. Peirce & Company, Judge W. L. Lee and Charles R. Bishop being associated with him in the venture. Out of this beginning grew the Lihue Plantation. Peirce applied to this enterprise the same far-sighted initiative and courage that characterized all his undertakings. The original capital was sixteen thousand dollars, of which Peirce contributed one half, but before a single pound of sugar was produced, several times that amount had been spent in the purchase of land and equipment, in the erection of buildings, and in other necessary expenses. J. F. B. Marshall was early drawn into the enterprise as a partner and manager of the plantation. The editor of the Polynesian in m

RHAS Transactions, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 70-71. m»Ibid., Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 3, 8-9; Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 3-4, 90; Sullivan, History of C. Brewer & Company, 99-100; Polynesian, NOT. 15, Dec. 6, 1851. " J . Armstrong to W. H. Armstrong, Sept. 10, 1851, Armstrong Letters. " " R. Armstrong to W. N. Armstrong, Jan. 14, 1852, ibid. See also J. P. Green to W. N. Armstrong, Nov. 11, 1851, and S . Armstrong to W. N. Armstrong, Feb. 2, 1852, ibid; Damon, Koamalu, I, 139.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

325

February, 1853, wrote of the Lihue Plantation as an excellent example of the way in which a sugar plantation should be established.108 The plantation had its full share of troubles, expected as well as unexpected ones, to contend with. The first crop, taken off in 1853, amounted to a little over one hundred tons; the second, in 1854, was reduced from an expected 400 tons to 50 tons by untimely storms which caused the cane to rot. But the plantation overcame all obstacles and with its ample financial backing and progressive management developed into a profitable and permanent enterprise. 109 Another trader who turned planter was Stephen Reynolds. In 1844, Reynolds wrote somewhat slightingly of the prospects of the sugar industry, 110 but evidently the changes during the next half dozen years caused him to alter his views, for in December, 1849, he bought a half interest in the Haliimaile Plantation in East Maui and a few years later became sole owner of it. Reynolds spent considerable money upon the plantation, but in 1855 he became insane and left the islands, and in the following year the plantation was purchased by Charles Brewer 2d and Captain James Makee and was thereafter generally referred to as the Brewer Plantation. 111 Dr. Robert W. Wood was a physician rather than a trader, but he was also a capitalist and became deeply involved in the sugar industry through loaning money to Ladd and Company on the security of the Koloa Plantation. As we have seen, he finally became the owner of that plantation in December, 1847. Dr. Wood evidently had faith in sugar, for about two years later he and A. H. Spencer became associated in a plantation which was located on the island of Maui and was called the East Maui Plantation. He was thoroughly alive to the importance of improving the quality of the product by the use of the best equipment and the best methods.112 The reports of the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society furnish much evidence of the interest in agriculture shown by other business men and government officials during this period. These years were also marked by a great improvement in the sugar manufacturing machinery used in the islands, a natural consequence of the deepening interest in the sugar industry. Mills imported in the fall of 1850 for the East Maui and Lihue Plantations 118 were reported to be the largest in the kingdom; the rolls of the Lihue Mill were 4 f e e t in length, 26 inches in diameter, and weighed about 3 tons each.114 Steam Polynesian, Feb. 5, 1853. Cf. ibid., Sept. 21, 1850. " » R H A S Transactions, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 53; Vol. I, No. 4, pp. 49-50, 55-57; Vol. I I , No. 1, pp. 7-8, 17-18; Damon, op. cit., I, 408-450; Sullivan, op. eit., 72. 110 Reynolds to Larkin, June 27, 1844, Larlcin Documents, Vol. I I , Bancroft Library, University of California. Sullivan, op. cit., 111-112; J. S. Green to W. N. Armstrong, April 12, 1853, Armstrong Letters; RHAS Transactions, Vol. I I , No. 3, p. 60; 2 Hawaiian Reports, 72, 74; 16 H H S Reports, 22. See his article on "The Manufacture of Sugar" in R H A S Transactions, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 65-71; Polynesian, Sept. 20, 1851. ** Polynesian, Oct. 19, 1850, Jan. 25, 1851. RHAS Transactions, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 118-119.

326

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

engines and improved water wheels were introduced,115 and attention given to field implements; a heavy, deep plough, particularly useful in cane fields, was devised by Samuel Burbank of the Koloa Plantation. 118 To facilitate improvements along these lines, a law was passed in 1850 exempting from customs duties all sugar and coffee mills, steam engines, and other machinery and implements imported into the kingdom for use in agricultural industries. The same act gave a similar exemption to seeds and plants and to livestock introduced for the purpose of improving the breeds of animals within the kingdom.117 The most important forward step during this period was the introduction of the centrifugal machine for separating sugar from molasses. The centrifugal principle had previously been applied to the drying of textile fabrics, and in the 1840's or even earlier centrifugal machines were designed for use in the sugar industry. 118 It was probably in 1850 or the early part of 1851 that Hawaiian planters received reports showing the practical value of this invention and hence they wished to make trial of it. Fortunately, David M. Weston, an ingenious and skilful mechanic who had been sent out by H. A. Peirce to set up the mill at Lihue, was in the islands; from the description of the apparatus, he was able to make a small centrifugal machine which was put into operation in October, 1851, on the East Maui plantation of Messrs. Wood and Spencer. The results obtained were so remarkable that Weston received orders for several such machines of larger size, a commission which he successfully executed in spite of the initial lack of proper facilities for making and finishing the castings required for the machines. Later on, Weston designed an improved type of suspended centrifugal which is very extensively used at the present time and which still bears his name. The introduction of the centrifugal machine was hailed as a "revolution in sugar manufacturing" and it well deserved the title; the chief advantages gained were (1) a shortening from weeks to minutes of the time required for separating the molasses from the sugar, and (2) the obtaining of a greatly superior quality of sugar which sold at a much higher price. 119 The manufacture of the first centrifugals used in Hawaii and the subsequent perfection of the machine were not Weston's only contribution to Hawaii's industrial progress. After going back to Boston in 1852, he discussed with Peirce the project of establishing a foundry and machine shop in Honolulu. Peirce endorsed the plan and loaned Weston $2,000 to aid him in carrying it out, and in 1853 the latter returned to Honolulu and established the Honolulu Iron Works. In doing this, he 115

Ibid., Vol. I I , No. 1, pp. 93-94; Polynesian, Aug. 6, 1853. " • R H A S Transactions, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 118; Vol. I, No. 4, pp. 66-67. Burbank was manager of Koloa Plantation from 1851 to 1857. 117 Penal Code [and Laws oj\ 1850, 144-145. " » N . Deerr, Cane Sugar . . . (Manchester, 1911), 372; J. G. Mcintosh, The Technology of Sugar (London, 1916), 256-257; Circuit Court of the United States, District of Massachusetts. In Equity. David M. Weston et al. v. Nathaniel C. Marsh et al. Opinion of the Court (Boston, 1875). Polynesian, Nov. 1, Dec. 6, 1851, Sept. 4, 1852; R H A S Transactions, Vol. I , No. 2, p. 119; Deerr, op. cit., 373-375; Mcintosh, op. cit., 258-261.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

327

effected some sort of cooperative arrangement with the flour mill company which was organized about the same time, so that the two concerns occupied the same building and obtained their power from the same steam engine. The business started by Weston was destined to play an important part in Hawaii's economic development.120 Regarding the history of the coffee industry during the last years of the reign of Kamehameha III we have relatively little information. In 1852 we hear for the first time about the smut or blight 121 which in later years was exceedingly destructive, but apparently it did little damage in the period with which we are now concerned, and the industry was generally looked upon as a promising one. Exports of coffee during 1852 amounted to 117,210 pounds; in 1853, 50,506 pounds; in 1854, 91,090 pounds. ROYAL HAWAIIAN AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY

The Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society has been mentioned several times. The existence of that organization was a sign of the times, an evidence of a change in public feeling on the subject of agriculture, and the first concrete illustration of that cooperation in agricultural enterprise for which Hawaii has been especially distinguished. "An Old Farmer," writing in the Polynesian of August 25, 1849, proposed the holding of an agricultural convention, to be attended by all the planters; he said that "a union of interest and feeling, and concert of action" were needed if agriculture was to prosper. In the following spring a call was issued for a meeting of "all farmers, planters, graziers, and other persons interested in the formation of a Society for the promotion of Hawaiian Agriculture" 122 and such a meeting was held in Honolulu on April 29, 1850.123 This meeting was preliminary and tentative but it showed that the idea met with public favor, and therefore it was decided to go ahead with the project. A committee appointed to handle the details published a circular 124 explaining the reasons for the organization of the society; attention was directed to the difficulties which Hawaiian agriculture had had to contend with in the past and to the brilliant prospect opened by the recent developments on the Pacific coast and the changes in the Hawaiian land system; it was a new day for Hawaii and brought with it a great opportunity. Under these circumstances, a convention was held in Honolulu and the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society was formally organized on August 13, 1850.125 **> H. A. Peirce to J. F. B. Marshall, Nov., 1852, Jan. 4, March 3, 1853, Hunnewell MSS; Privy Council Record, V I I , 197 (May 23, 1853); Polynesian, March 19, Aug. 13, 20, Dec. 10, 1853, Jan. 14, Feb. 11, May 20, 27, 1854; RHAS Transactions, Vol. I, No. 4, p. 4; Vol. I I , No. 1, pp. 65, 95, 136; "Honolulu Iron Works Company," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Centenary number, April 12, 1920, pp. 60-61; H H S Papers, No. 10, pp. 22-23. I have been unable to ascertain the exact date of Weston's return to Honolulu in 1853, but it was probably in April or May. m RHAS Transactions, Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 67-69. 143 Polynesian, April 27, 1850. "* Ibid., May 11, 1850. ™Ibid„ June 1, 1850. us Ibid., Aug. 17, 24, 1850; RHAS Transactions, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 10-22.

328

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

For a number of years the society was quite active and for that period its published reports 128 are an important historical source. The membership roll contained the names of most of the influential foreigners in the kingdom together with a sprinkling of native Hawaiians. During the first five years, Judge Lee was president and J. F. B. Marshall followed him in that position. Some years later, the editor of the Pacific Commercial Advertiser remarked that "so long as Judge Lee and Mr. Marshall guided its affairs, it went on prosperously, and was a national benefit, enjoying the confidence of planters and agriculturists." Afterwards it became "a lifeless skeleton."127 During its active period, the annual meetings of the society were well attended; the addresses, papers, reports, and discussions touched upon all phases of agriculture and brought to light virtually every problem that Hawaiian agriculturists have had to struggle with from that time down to the present. An agricultural exhibit was held in connection with the annual meeting. To a limited extent the society sponsored scientific experimentation and the introduction of improved varieties of plants and animals, and doubtless would have done more if its financial resources had been greater. THE LABOR PROBLEM

One problem to which the society gave attention at the outset was that of labor. The very factors which ushered in the new era of Hawaiian agriculture tended to make the labor problem acute: the California excitement led to an emigration of young Hawaiians from the islands; the demand for potatoes and other vegetables induced some of the people to leave their ordinary employments in order to become farmers; and finally, the change in the land system caused many natives to become landowners on a small scale and to devote their whole time to the cultivation of their kuleanas. In addition to these special causes, the old and constant factor, the decrease of the native population, was still at work; during the last years of the reign of Kamehameha III the decrease was accelerated by a fearful series of epidemics that swept the people away by thousands. Hence there were fewer hands available for work on the plantations just at a time when more laborers were needed. At the preliminary agricultural meeting in April and at the convention in August which organized the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society, the labor question was discussed. There was a general agreement upon the proposition that the bringing in of foreign laborers was necessary but a difference of opinion as to the source from which the laborers should be obtained. The Polynesian gives the following account of the discussion in the August meeting: The necessity of introducing laborers within a short period, in order to conduct, successfully, the plantations already commenced or contemplated, was made apparent RHAS Transactions, seven numbers published (1850-1856). v Pacific Commercial Advertiser, March 12, 1864.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

329

to all, we believe. And the most desirable source whence laborers were to be procured, in order to secure the greatest permanent degree of prosperity to the Islands, was also pretty clearly indicated. Northern Europe, more particularly Germany, was regarded as affording the class of laborers best adapted to secure the results aimed at by the Society, but at the same time the introduction of Chinese, to a limited extent, to supply the more immediate demand, was not regarded with disfavor.""

This was not the first time that the introduction of laborers from Germany had been suggested; 129 and the bringing in of Chinese had been frequently proposed before this time. 180 The agricultural society appointed a committee "to devise means for procuring more labor, and also for economising what we have." In September the members of the committee entered into a contract with a merchant of Honolulu who had resided in China, for the importation of two hundred Chinese coolies, to be engaged for a period of five years. For some reason this contract was not carried out, but in the following year a new arrangement was made with Captain Cass of the British bark Thetis, which sailed from Honolulu August 12, 1851, and returned January 3, 1852, bringing from Amoy nearly two hundred Chinese. Later in the year about a hundred more were brought in by the same vessel. The Chinese coolies were engaged for five years at $3 per month in addition to transportation from China, food, clothing, and house. Thus was inaugurated the policy of importing foreigners to work as contract laborers on the sugar plantations of Hawaii. On the whole the Chinese proved to be satisfactory workers, though experience showed them to have some faults, and it was suggested that Chinese women, wives of the men, ought to be brought in along with the latter. 131 The king's speech at the opening of the legislative session of 1850 contained the following remark: "The prosperity of the Islands and their altered position relatively to Oregon and California, require a greatly increased cultivation of the soil, which will not be possible without the aid of foreign capital and labor." 132 The legislature passed two laws bearing directly upon the labor problem. One was an act prohibiting native subjects of the king from emigrating to California or any other foreign country, except for certain specified reasons. 133 The main purpose of this particular law was to stop the loss of native population which resulted from voluntary emigration, but the preamble shows that it also had reference to the existing labor shortage. 138 Polynesian, Aug. 24, 1850. See also editorials in the same number and in ibid., Aug. 10 and 31, 1850; and the note of caution sounded by "Justus" in ibid., Oct. 26, 1850. m R. C, Wyllie to the King, Dec. 1, 1847, AH, F.O. & Ex., printed in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1854, Appendix, pp. 61-72. This is Wyllie's report on land, capital, and labor. 130 Wyllie's "Notes," No. 20, in Friend, I I (1844), 63; Polynesian, Sept. 4, 1847, March 25, 1848, Feb. 3, 1849; Privy Council Record, I I I , 539-541 (March 5, 1850). m Polynesian, Aug. 16, 1851, Jan. 10, Aug. 7, 1852; R H A S Transactions, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 5, 8, 17, 22; Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 4-5, 52, 90-92; Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 6-7, 34, 69-71; Vol. I, No. 4, pp.u a 25-26, 123-124, 139-142; Vol. I I , No. 1, pp. 101-104. Lydecker, Roster Legislatures of Hawaii, 27. 1,8 Penal Code [and laws of] lijo, 154-155. The act was framed by Wyllie and was approved by the cabinet before being introduced in the legislature. Cabinet Council Record, June 24, 1850; Journal of the Legislature, July 2, 1850.

330

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

"An Act for the Government of Masters and Servants", passed June 21, 1850,184 was of special importance because it provided the legal basis for the contract labor system which existed in Hawaii throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. Considering the significant part played by this act in the economic and political history of Hawaii, one is surprised to discover how little attention was given to it at the time of its enactment. At the preliminary agricultural meeting in April, 1850, Judge Lee stated that he had prepared such an act, and he read the draft in order to elicit suggestions for its improvement. Apparently no changes were suggested, but the meeting voted its approval of the proposed law. 188 Subsequently it was presented to the legislature and was passed on the very day of its introduction.18® There is no evidence, either in the legislative record or in the newspapers, of any critical discussion of the various provisions of the act. It appears, rather, that the law was enacted in an almost casual manner. Probably no one at the time imagined what a giant the Hawaiian sugar industry was to become, and hence none could foresee to what an extent the master and servant law would minister to the growth of the industry. The first part of the act related to the apprenticing of minors and closely resembled the apprenticeship law of Massachusetts.187 The contract labor provisions of the act were contained in sections 22-30 inclusive and are said to have been an adaptation of the American shipping law. 188 The act made it lawful for any person over twenty years of age to bind himself "by written contract to serve another in any . . . employment, for any term not exceeding five years." It declared that contracts made in a foreign country for labor to be performed in Hawaii would be binding in the latter country, but not for a longer period than ten years. Penal sanctions were provided for the enforcement of labor contracts made in either of the ways mentioned. A person who wilfully absented himself from the service called for by his contract could be arrested and compelled to serve double the time of his absence unless he made satisfaction to the master for the loss and injury caused by the absence; and one who refused to serve according to the terms of his contract might be committed to prison, "there to remain at hard labor until he [would] consent to serve according to law." On the other hand, it was provided that any master found guilty of "any cruelty, misusage or violation of any of the terms of the contract, towards any person bound to service," should be fined not less than five nor more than one hundred dollars, "and in default of the payment thereof, be imprisoned at hard labor" until the same was paid; and the injured servant was 134 Penal Code [and laws of] 1850, 170-176. "» Polynesian, May 11, 1850; RHAS Transactions, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5. Journal of the Legislature, June 21, 1850. 137 Katharine Coman, The History of Contract Labor in the Hawaiian Islands (Publications of the American Economic Association, 3d series, Vol. IV, No. 3. New York, 1903), 8. 1,8 Ibid., 9; Damon, Koamalu, I, 416.

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

331

released from the contract. Discussion of the practical working of this law belongs appropriately to a later period of Hawaiian history. PROBLEM O F CAPITAL

For the full development of Hawaii's agricultural industries there were four requisites: land, labor, capital, and a market. All of these have been touched upon in preceding pages, but it may be well to say something further on the last two points. The importance of sound financing was emphasized by the disasters of 1851 and 1852. Planters who had ample resources survived the ordeal while others failed. Judge Lee, in his address as president of the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society in June, 1852, remarked that the great obstacle in the way of agricultural success in the islands was the want of capital.189 During the 1840's the government aided somewhat in this direction by loaning money to individuals and to business organizations,140 but in 1850 this practice had to be discontinued because current expenses and much needed public improvements absorbed all the public funds. 141 One means suggested for making capital more available was the establishment of a bank, 142 but no bank was established during the reign of Kamehameha III, although a bank charter bill was introduced in the legislature of 1854.148 The problem of capital still awaited solution. PROBLEM O F A MARKET

In his address before the agricultural society in 1852, Judge Lee touched upon the market problem, saying: A serious drawback to the progress of agriculture during-the past year has been the want of a ready market for our produce, especially for sugar and potatoes. California now raises her own vegetables, and the low price of sugar in San Francisco, produced by overstocking that market from Manila and China, united with the heavy duty on sugars, has nearly stopped our shipments until within the last few weeks.1"

The difficulty of selling their sugar in the neighboring territories of the United States over the high American tariff wall and in competition with low cost sugars from Manila and China was one which Hawaiian producers had to contend with for many years. An obvious source of relief would have been- a reciprocity treaty with the United States; such an arrangement was in fact proposed in 1848, immediately after the treaty of peace between the United States and Mexico had definitely given RHAS Transactions, Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 4-5. Cf. ibid., Vol. I, No. 4, p. 26 (address of John Montgomery). " " For examples of this, see Privy Council Record. I I . 42. 104, 317. 433: I I I , 165. 391. 512-525. 141 Polynesian, Sept. 7, 1850. 141 Ibid.; RHAS Transactions, Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 41-50. Cecil G. Tilton, The History of Bonking in Hawaii (University of Hawaii Research Publications, No. 3. Honolulu, 1927), 37-42. 1M RHAS Transactions, Vol. I, No. 3, p. 7. The American tariff on sugar at this time was 30 per cent ad valorem.

332

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M . 1778-1854

California to the United States. A spccial commissioner was sent from Hawaii to California instructed to make, if possible, an agreement with the governor of California whereby Hawaiian agricultural products might be admitted into that territory at the same rate (five per cent ad valorem) at which American goods were admitted into Hawaii. The effort met with no success, since the governor of California had no power to enter into agreements of the kind proposed. Minister Wyllie sought, without success, to gain the same end through treaty negotiations which he was carrying on at that time with the United States commissioner to Hawaii. 145 During the boom years 1849-1850 the need of a duty free market was not so evident, 14 " but the depression of 1851-1852 brought the subject once more to the front. The Polynesian published two editorials urging that an energetic effort be made to obtain a reciprocity arrangement with the United States. The editor remarked, "We can make sugar of the very best quality, but we want a market for it, unencumbered by a burdensome duty of 30 per cent." 147 The board of managers of the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society prepared a memorial to the king asking that negotiations be opened with the United States in order to secure the free admission of Hawaiian sugar, syrup, molasses, and coffee into the United States in return for the free admission of flour, fish, coal, lumber, staves and heading from the United States into the Hawaiian islands. 148 In quick response to this memorial, the king in council passed an act providing that the American products mentioned should be admitted free of duty into Hawaii provided the United States admitted free of duty into its ports the Hawaiian products enumerated. 149 The matter was brought to the attention of the United States government through the American commissioner in Honolulu, Luther Severance, 150 who, in writing to the secretary of state, gave the proposition his personal endorsement. 151 But the United States government was unresponsive and no reciprocity treaty or arrangement resulted from these overtures. W e may conclude this survey of agricultural development during the last half of the reign of Kamehameha I I I by indicating briefly how matters stood in the closing year of the reign. As we look back to that 148 Wyllie to Commodore Shubrick, Sept. 22, 1848, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Kamehameha to Theodore Shillaber, Sept. 28, 1848, and other documents of same date, ibid.; Shillaber to Wyllie, Dec. 18, 28, 1848, ibid.; E. A. Suwerkrop to Wyllie, Dec. 30, 1848, ibid. For the treaty negotiations, see chapter 18. At nearly the same time, J . J . Jarves unofficially suggested to Secretary of State Buchanan in Washington the possibility that the king of Hawaii might be willing to make some concession in land matters in return for the free admission of Hawaiian sugar and other products into the United States. See J a r v e s ' "Minutes of an interview with Mr. Buchanan, Oct. 26/48— A t Dept. of State. Washington—D. C.", A H , F.O. & Ex. See, however, letter of " T a c i t u s " in Polynesian, Dec. 22, 1849, urging that the government try to make a reciprocal arrangement with the United States whereby Hawaiian sugar would be admitted f r e e into the Pacific coast states, and United States products be admitted free into Hawaii. "»Polynesian, J a n . 17, 31, 1852. 148 Ibid., March 6, 18S2. 1M Ibid. The act was afterwards confirmed by the legislature. Laws, 1852, pp. 20-21. 110 Rep. of Min. of For. Ret., 1852, p. 15 and Appendix, pp. 52-53. Severance to Webster (Nos. 38, 39, 40), Jan. 27, Feb. 14, March 2, 1852, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I V .

COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE

333

period it is clear to us that the sugar and coffee industries were in a stronger position than they had been at any previous time. But there were great difficulties yet to be overcome, and it is no fanciful thought that if the planters of that day could have foreseen the struggles that lay ahead they might have been tempted to abandon the enterprise. As the situation was, however, sugar was looked upon as the most promising crop, with coffee coming along not very far behind; and it was believed that these two staples could, with proper attention, provide the export needed to place Hawaii's economic future on a sound basis. GOVERNMENT FINANCES

The development of commerce and agriculture described in the preceding pages and the elaboration of governmental organization outlined in an earlier chapter were reflected in the expansion of government finances. In the first year after the appointment of the Hawaiian Treasury Board (1842) the receipts of the government were about $41,000 ; 152 in the last year of the reign of Kamehameha III (1854), the receipts were $323,000.158 The expenditures were on a corresponding scale. When Dr. Judd entered the service of the king in 1842, it was primarily for the purpose of organizing and managing the financial department of the government. At that time the government had a debt which was, under the circumstances of the period, large and embarrassing. By strict adherence to an economical policy and by tapping such sources of revenue as were available, the debt was paid off in the course of a few years and the growing cost of government was provided for. One of the earliest measures adopted was the laying on of a duty of three per cent ad valorem upon all foreign goods imported into the kingdom on and after January 1, 1843.164 In June 1845, the rate of duty was raised to five per cent ad valorem, the maximum allowed by the treaties with France and Great Britain. 158 If there had been no treaty limitation, it is probable that a higher duty or a graduated tariff with considerably higher rates on certain classes of imports would have been levied. As it was, the government found it necessary to levy a greater variety of direct internal taxes than would otherwise have been the case.166 However, the tariff on imports was the most important source of revenue, furnishing something like two fifths of the total income of the government; business licenses, poll, school, and stamp taxes, rents and sales of land, and land commission receipts together produced about one third of the total. Taxation of land was rather complicated, with many exemptions, and produced com152

Rep. of Min. of Finance, 1851, p. 1J. ™*Ibid., 1855, p. 1. 1,4 Constitution and Laws, 1842, Chap. 49, sec. 7. ^ Polynesian, June 7, 1845. The five per cent duty on imports was incorporated in the act to organize the executive ministry passed in 1846. Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, I , 134, 156. Changes in the tariff on alcoholic liquors will be referred to in chapter 19. M See an editorial on revenue and taxation in Polynesian, Sept. 19, 1846.

334

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

paratively little revenue; in 1851 the land tax was officially condemned as being "unequal and unjust, bearing hard upon the poor natives," and for that reason was abolished. 107 From time to time the idea was advanced that it would be better policy to lay a proper general tax on real estate and do away entirely with the tariff on imports. The thought back of these suggestions was that if Honolulu were made a free port it would become a great emporium for the growing commerce of the Pacific. R . C. Wyllie, a shrewd business man, considered the idea wholly impractical. 158 Growth of commerce and agriculture required an improvement of the means of communication, roads, inter-island transportation, harbor works, and postal service; and we find these matters receiving considerable attention during the last ten years of the reign of Kamehameha III. A more detailed treatment of these topics will be given in another place. ™ Polynesian, J u l y 1=8 Polynesian, Oct. R H A S Transactions, Gossler, J u l y 5, 1853,

12, 1851; Laws, 1852, p. 27. 28, 1848; C. E . Hitchcock to Wyllie, Feb. 27, 1852, A H , F . O . & E x . ; Vol. I , No. 4, pp. 27-29 ( a d d r e s s of J o h n M o n t g o m e r y ) ; Wyllie to J . H . A H , F . O . & E x . ; Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1855, A p p e n d i x , pp. 134-143.

CHAPTER XVII

RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (1840-1854) In the development of Hawaii's religious and educational institutions, the years 1839 and 1840 were a dividing point. To that time the Protestant missionaries had a practical monopoly of the field and the active support of the government; in the two years mentioned, however, religious toleration was established as the official policy of the government; and in the succeeding period, two other sects, Catholic and Mormon, actively propagated their doctrines and gained many adherents in spite of the vigorous resistance of the Protestants; the religious situation became complicated and the teachings of rival religious leaders undoubtedly created some confusion in Hawaiian thinking. In the work of education, there was a distinct change, for in 1840 the government assumed the direction and support of the elementary schools. There continued to be, however, an intimate relationship between the religious organizations and the work of education, and the schools retained their sectarian character until the end of the reign of Kamehameha III. We cannot, therefore, in any realistic account of this period of Hawaiian history, keep the religious and educational phases entirely separated; nevertheless, it may be permissible to describe first one and then the other, indicating at appropriate places the relationship between the two. AMERICAN PROTESTANT MISSION

When the religious excitement known as the "great revival" came to a pause in 1840, the members in regular standing in the Protestant churches throughout the kingdom numbered 18,451. At that date, the fruits of the revival had not all been gathered in; many of the converts were kept on probation for one, two, or three years, and their admission to the church is recorded in the statistics for 1841, 1842, and 1843. There was a secondary revival in the latter year, and by June, 1843, the membership of the churches had arisen to 23,804. It stayed fairly close to that figure during the remainder of the reign of Kamehameha III and, indeed, for a much longer period.1 While from this statement it might appear that the Protestant churches barely held their own after 1843, the fact is that they were growing in size relatively to the total population, and this in spite of the competition offered by Catholic and Mormon missionaries. It is not possible to determine with any great degree of exactness the ratio which the number of church members bore to the entire population of the kingdom, for the reason that we have no very reliable census 1

Statistics and other data from reports of A B C F M and other missionary records.

335

336

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

figures, but we can make an estimate that will be somewhere near the facts. The population was steadily decreasing. The earliest credible estimate of population, based on adequate observation but without an actual count, was made by the missionaries in 1823, giving a total of 142,050.2 This indicates a falling off of perhaps fifty per cent during the forty-five years after Captain Cook's first visit to the islands. The official census of 1853 placed the native Hawaiian population at 71,019,3 fifty per cent below the missionary estimate for 1823. In the intervening thirty years there were two estimates by the missionaries, in 1832 and 1836, and two official counts, in 1849 and 1850. The official census of 1849 must be disregarded as wholly unreliable, but the other three reports may be used with some corrections. They give the following totals for the whole population: 1832: 130,312 (Adams estimates natives 124,449) 1836: 108,579 ( " " " 107,954) 1850: 84,165 ( " " " 86,593) 4 Taking Dr. Adams' figures and estimating the native population in 1840 at 103,790, and in 1844 at 99,626, we shall find that in 1840 the membership of the Protestant churches amounted to a little less than 18 per cent of the whole native population; in 1844, to slightly less than 23 per cent; in 1850, to about 25 per cent; and in 1853 to a little less than 30 per cent. The total Protestant population (including children of Protestant parents together with adults who were Protestant in their religious beliefs or leanings although not members of the church) was very much greater; the official census of 1853 placed the Protestant population at 56,840. The fifteen year period reviewed in this chapter witnessed several interesting and significant changes in the constitution and character of the Protestant missionary enterprise, part of which were deliberately initiated with the specific objects of making the Protestant Christian institutions of the islands independent and self-sustaining and of making the American missionaries and their sons and daughters the permanent nucleus of a civilized community of the Anglo-American type. The first step in the direction of independence was the development, among the Hawaiians, of the disposition and the ability to support their own religious and educational institutions. It is true that they had, from the first, done much along this line; they had contributed of their strength and time in the building of houses and churches and they had given of the fruits of the soil produced by their labor. In the earlier period, the monetary value of such contributions in any one year was not great; but as time passed, as the duty of the native Christians in this respect was impressed upon 2 Dr. Romanzo Adams, who has made a critical study of Hawaiian population statistics, thinks the missionary estimate of 1823 was too high. He estimates that the total Hawaiian population in 1823 was 134,950. Unpublished study by Dr. Adams. 3 There were also enumerated 2,118 foreigners, making a total population of 73,134 within the country. To the native Hawaiian population, Dr. Adams adds absentees, estimated at 4,000, to give a total of 75,019. There are some discrepancies in the official census figures. 1 Dr. Adams' estimates refer only to the native Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian population, but include those absent from the country; Dr. Adams estimates the absentees at 400 in 1832, 600 in 1836, and 4,000 in 1850. The missionary estimates of 1832 and 1836 refer to the native population within the country. The official census of 1850 includes 1,572 foreigners.

RELIGION AND EDUCATION

337

them, and as their economic status improved, the contributions increased in volume until they covered a substantial part of the total cost of the enterprise. In the year 1853-1854» the native Protestant church members contributed nearly $9,000 to the salaries of their haole pastors, and for all religious purposes more than $25,000.® For the support of schools they were regularly taxed by the government. As a means of "developing the religious enterprise of the native Christian community"6 and in order to round out the Hawaiian evangelical structure, a missionary society was organized and Hawaiian missionaries were sent to Micronesia and the Marquesas Islands, where their devoted labors furnished the materials for a thrilling chapter in the history of Christian missions.6» Of greater importance than the financial aspect of the matter was the problem of developing a native leadership and bringing into existence a multitude of Hawaiian churches with native pastors. The subject of a native pastorate was one which lay very near the heart of Dr. Rufus Anderson, who was for many years foreign secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions and as such carried on the correspondence with the Sandwich Islands Mission. In many letters after 1840 he stated his opinion that the great object of the mission should be to get the Hawaiian Christians organized into small churches with native pastors. Only in this way could the native Hawaiians be expected to develop self-reliance and be enabled to support their own churches. He felt that this had a vital bearing upon the question of the independence of Hawaii as a nation. Writing to the mission in 1846 he said: The great point is, to get a NATIVE MINISTRY. In this I understand you to have failed. . . . It certainly is incumbent on the Mission to find, if possible, an immediate remedy for the evil. The Hawaiian people are in danger of being excluded from all important offices and responsibilities, both in church and. state. . . . I feel bound to call your attention to the subject, because I believe that if the churches are officered by foreigners, the offices of the government will continue to have foreign occupants. Nothing will save the native government but a native ministry placed over the native churches. . . . It is better to have a very imperfect native ministry, than none at all; . . The Sandwich Islands people are marked for speedy extinction, unless the Mission takes the most'resolute hold on this subject. The most effectual rebuke to.ambitious foreigners in the civil government, will be the adoption of measures at all your stations for creating native pastors for all the native churches, rendered of course more numerous than at present. . . . When the natives see that you are putting them forward in the churches, they will feel an impulse ere long, a stirring up of desire to become qualified for the posts of usefulness and respectability that are attainable; . . . and an upward direction will be given to the native mind.' 5

Minutes of . . . Hawaiian Evangelical Association . . . 1854, p. 27. Anderson to S. I. Mission, May 8, 1850, in General Letters. For a brief sketch, see the article by H e n r y P. Judd, " T h e Hawaiian Mission to Marquesas and Micronesia," in The Centennial Book, One Hundred Years of Christian Civilisation in Hawaii, 1810-1920 . . . (Honolulu, 1920), 44-52. 7 R. Anderson to S. I. Mission, April 10, 1846, in General Letters. Another of the secretaries, Rev. David Greene, wrote to the mission in similar vein, remarking in the course of a long letter, "Whatever methods may be adopted, you must pursue this object of raising up from the people around you, coadjutors and successors in the gospel ministry. . . . Think as favorably as you can of those whom you have brought forward, confide in them as much as you can, put as much work upon them as you can, and in this manner aim to make them feel and act like men, and respect themselves." Greene to S. I. Mission, Nov. 11, 1844 [misdated 1845 in printed copy], ibid. 6 R. na

338

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

The missionaries recognized the importance of the subject, but they had to look at it from a different viewpoint, as a practical problem of administration and education. Among a people habituated by centuries of experience to depend upon their chiefs for guidance, it was not easy to find individuals who could bear the responsibility of leadership; the missionaries were reluctant to incur the risk of the blow to their cause which might result from the failure of some native Hawaiian prematurely entrusted with such responsibility. For this reason, it is probable that they did fail, as Dr. Anderson intimated, to move in this direction as fast as they should have done. Still, they moved, although with extreme caution. 8 The steps taken by them can be discovered in the records of their general meetings and in the publications of the American Board. As far back as 1830 they resolved to give special attention at each station to a few of the more promising natives "with the view of bringing some of them forward in due time to be preachers of the Gospel." 9 Somewhat similar resolutions were adopted in 1838, 1841, 1842, and 1843.10 The training of a body of native religious leaders was one of the objects in view in founding the high school at Lahainaluna, but it was not until 1843 that a formal course in theology was offered at the Mission Seminary, 1 1 as the school was then called. Thereafter, for many years, the teachers at Lahainaluna "devoted special labor to fit young men of piety and talents for the work of the gospel ministry," 12 and the seminary furnished many Christian workers for service both in Hawaii and in the mission fields of Micronesia and the Marquesas Islands. 13 The growth of the churches during and after the "great revival" and the problem of caring for a membership scattered over a wide area created a practical necessity for the employment of native assistants. The church at Hilo may be taken as an example. The membership at one time exceeded 7,000, but this was distributed over the two districts of Hilo and Puna. The missionary pastor, Rev. Titus Coan, organized the members in the outlying parts of his parish into about thirty small congregations for which there were appointed native assistants who performed many of the duties of local pastors. The large church at Waimea, Hawaii, and the first church at Honolulu (Kawaiahao) were organized in an analogous manner. Several other churches had "out-stations" with native assistants in charge. Besides doing the work of visitors and counsellors among the church members and supervising the activities of the small local congregations, many of these native assistants preached • R e v . D. B. Lyman, writing f r o m Hilo in 1847, spoke disapprovingly of the reluctance of the mission to place educated natives in positions of responsibility and contrasted this with the contrary policy pursued, with good results, by the government. Lyman to Anderson, Sept. 3. 1847 copy in H M C S Library. 9 Minutes of General Meeting, 1830, p. 28. 10 Ibid., 1838, p. 28; 1841, pp. 18-19; 1842, p. 29; 1843, p. 25. 11 Ibid., 1843, pp. 24-25; 1844, p. 16; M H , X L I (1845), 28-29. a w . P. Alexander, letter quoted in M. C. Alexander, William Patterson Alexander, 370. M M H , X L H (1846), 420; M. C. Alexander, op. at., 268-275, 369-371.

RELIGION AND EDUCATION

339

acceptably to their little flocks. By these means an incipient native ministry was brought into existence. 14 About 1841 the mission began the practice of licensing natives to preach, placing upon them the care of small congregations, but keeping each of them more or less under the supervision of one of the missionaries. The earliest to be so licensed was Puaaiki ("Blind Bartimeus"), who preached to a congregation at Honuaula, Maui. 15 The second was David Malo, who was licensed in 1843.10 U p to the middle of 1848, nine natives had been regularly licensed to preach. 17 But it was not until 1849 that a native Hawaiian was formally ordained to the ministry and installed as pastor of an independent church. James Kekela was so ordained on December 21, 1849, becoming the pastor of a small church at Kahuku, Oahu. 1 8 During the next year two others were ordained: Samuel Kauwealoha, installed as pastor at Kaanapali, Maui; and Stephen Waimalu, installed as pastor at Waianae, Oahu. 1 0 In September, 1852, David Malo was ordained and installed as pastor of the church at Keokea, Maui.- 0 In April, 1854, A. Kaukau was ordained and installed as the successor of Kauwealoha at Kaanapali, Maui ; 21 and in November of the same year Moses Kuaea was ordained and placed in charge of a church at Hauula, Oahu. 2 1 a It seems fitting to record the names of these men, the first Hawaiians who were accounted worthy to be ordained to the Christian ministry. Three of them, Kekela, Kauwealoha, and Kaukau, afterwards went as missionaries to the Marquesas Islands, and the noble courage of Kekela on one occasion gained him recognition from the president of the United States. 22 In the same period important changes were taking place in the position of the missionaries, in their relationship both to the American Board and to the island community. During the later 1840's a number of the missionaries who had been long in the field, felt themselves impelled, by the necessity of providing for the education of their children, to return with their families to the United States, and the probability was present that, if they did thus return, the greater part of them would remain permanently in the United States and hence be lost to the Sandwich Islands Mission and to the Hawaiian nation. The policy pursued up to that time had prevented the missionaries, so long as they remained under the American Board, from acquiring property and rooting themselves in the " M H , XXXVII (1841), 196; XXXIX (1843), 193-194, 380, 462-463; XL (1844), 9-10, 85; XLI (1845), 181-182; X I J I I (1847), 91, 102-103, 136, 159-160; XLIV (1848), 75; XLV (1849). 79-80, 218. . »Ibid., X X X V I I I (1842), 473; XL (1844), 145-147; H. Bingham, Bartimeus, of the Sandunek Islands (New York, no date). Tbere are many references to Bartimeus in the missionary literature. »Ibid., XL (1844), 9; XLI (1845), 312; Minutes of General Meeting, 1844, p. 27. The evidence seems to indicate that Malo was licensed in 1843 by one of the missionaries on Maui and that he received a more formal license in 1844 by action of the Hawaiian Association, an ecclesiastical organization of all the missionaries. " Minutes of General Meeting, 1848, p. 23. u MH, XLVI (1850), 406. "Ibid., X L V I I (1851), 99, 336; Friend, V I I I (1850), 77. "Minutes of General Meeting, 1853, p. 11; Polynesian, Sept. 18, 1852. " MH, L (1854), 341; Friend, XI (1854), 36. «" Friend, X I (1854), 83. • The incident is related in several place«, among others in M. C. Alexander, op. cit., 372-375.

340

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

soil of the islands. The board had also, except for a brief period in 1845-1846, been opposed to the missionaries becoming Hawaiian citizens. In 1848 the situation became a critical one and the permanence of Protestant Christian institutions in the islands seemed to be endangered by what Dr. Rufus Anderson referred to as a "homeward current" in the mission. The missionaries in their general meeting adopted a report recommending that "every obstacle be removed, which can be consistently, to the permanent residence of the present missionaries with their families, at the Islands."28 At nearly the same moment, the American Board in Boston was devising a plan intended to accomplish the very object sought by the missionaries. It is certain that a very weighty influence upon the whole consideration of the problem was the contemporary westward surge of population from the eastern portion of the United States to California and Oregon and the swing of world interests into the Pacific region.24 The working out of the plan proposed by the board extended over a period of years; in this place we can do no more than state the more important changes that were made. The missionaries were encouraged to become Hawaiian citizens and many of them did so.25 The American Board divided among and gave to the individual missionaries the greater part of the lands, dwelling houses, herds, etc., held by it in various parts of the islands, and the government gave them fee simple titles to the land. Some of the missionaries bought additional pieces of land from the government. Upon these transactions was based the charge so frequently heard that the missionaries defrauded the natives of their lands.26 To meet the problem of education for the children of the mis* Minutes of General Meeting, 1848, p. 23. *» In his letter explaining the plan proposed by the American Board, Dr. Anderson remarked: " I t is due to the native population, that your well trained families should not all be taken from the Islands, leaving behind the ungodly Anglo Saxon families, which must be increasing in numbers. There will be an Anglo Saxon community at the Islands, and it is doubtless a part of your duty, 3J it is also your privilege, to see that it is a religious community." Anderson to S. I. Mission, July 19, 1848, in General Letters. In the following year, Dr. Anderson wrote: "As for your children, the great field of enterprise, now, is certainly in the part of the world where you are. I do not refer to California, but to the Sandwich Islands. Are not those Islands most salubrious, and fertile; safe as residences; visited every year by twenty millions of commerce; situated on the grand route of commercial enterprise; destined to be a grand entrepot of trade; and more eligible for settlement than most of the missionary fields in the Great West." Same to same, Oct. 24, 1849, ibid. Similar ideas were expressed by Armstrong in several places, as for example: Armstrong to Chapman, Jan. IS, 1850, Armstrong Letters; Armstrong, Journal, July 18, 1849, MS in HMCS Library. m In 1849, fifteen of the missionaries became naturalized Hawaiian citizens, and in the next two years seven others took the same step. See a note on this subject in the Friend, CIV (1934), 350. " T h i s subject has been covered by other writers. See especially Jean F. Hobbs, Hawaii: a Pageant of the Soil (Stanford University, 1935), Chap. 4 and Appendix B; and Bishop H. B. Restarick, Hawaii . . . from the Viewpoint of a Bishop (Honolulu 1924), Chap. 12. The following remarks are from a private letter written by Richard Armstrong in January, 1850: "Many of the missionaries are securing tracts of land, with a view to their support, which will be a good thing for the Islands, in both a temporal & spiritual point of view. Several are about to withdraw from the Board & seek their support here, which is just what will please the Boatd & all others who look to the permanent welfare of this nation. The native churches will never support the missionaries; they can help, but the burden must rest somewhere else. The missionaries will of necessity in this way be more or less engaged in secular pursuits, & the tongue of malice will not fail to hurl the most envenomed darts at their reputation, for money getting, world loving &c, as they do now at all of us. But if the welfare of Zion requires them to work & make their children work for their living, & relieve the Am. churches of the burden of their support, they have nothing to fear. Their reputation will not eventually suffer." Armstrong to Chapman, Jan. 15, 1850, Armstrong Letters.

R E L I G I O N AND E D U C A T I O N

341

sionaries (and of other families), the school at Punahou was expanded into a collegiate institution with a charter from the government. The old organization of the mission was dissolved and a new ecclesiastical organization was formed in 1854 under the name of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association. From this time on, the American Board considered Hawaii to be a Christian nation, and the mission was changed from the status of a foreign mission to that of a home mission, that is to say a mission carried 011 in a country which was Christianized but not yet sufficiently advanced economically to be able to pay the whole expense of its religious institutions. The readjustments initiated in 1848 were not complete until 1863. One great and significant result of these readjustments was that the American missionaries and their families became an integral part of the Hawaiian body politic.-7 CATHOLIC MISSION

When religious toleration was definitely adopted as the policy of the Hawaiian government in the summer of 1839, there were two Catholic priests on the islands, Rev. Robert A. Walsh and Rev. Columba Murphy. The latter sailed November 3, 1839, for Valparaiso and Mangareva to inform Bishop Rouchouze of the results of Captain Laplace's intervention. On receiving the message brought by Murphy, the bishop at once resolved to go himself to Hawaii in order to superintend the establishment of the mission there. He arrived at Honolulu May 15, 1840, bringing with him three priests, Rev. Ernest Heurtel, Rev. Dositheus Desvault, and Rev. Louis D. Maigret, the latter of whom will be remembered as a participant in the dramatic happenings of 1837. In the meanwhile, Father Walsh had devoted himself to his appropriate work as a missionary and during the ten months intervening between the visit of Captain Laplace and the arrival of Bishop Rouchouze had baptized some 270 persons, about half of whom were children. The advent of the new missionaries and of six others who arrived in November gave impetus to the work and before the close of 1840 the number of baptisms on Oahu alone had risen to more than two thousand. Immediately after the coming of Bishop Rouchouze it was decided to begin at once the building of a stone church in the capitol of the kingdom; the cornerstone was laid August 6, 1840, but delays occurred and it was not until August, 1843, that the cathedral was completed; on the fifteenth of that month " Detailed references are too numerous to be listed here. T h e subject needs to be studied in the whole body of missionary literature from 1S40 to 1863. T h e situation as it appeared to the American Board in 1853 is set forth in a special report on the Sandwich Islands presented at the annual meeting of the board and printed in its Report for that year, pages 136-153, and in part in U H , X U X ( 1 8 5 3 ) , pp. 334-338. In this report it is stated that the Sandwich Islands Mission, from this year, " i s no longer an organized body, under the direction of the Board. . . . T h e relations of the ministry and churches of the Sandwich Islands towards the Board and its patrons, and towards other foreign missions and the Christian church, are those of an independent Christian community. . . . As it is, the mission is dissolved; the pastors and all the new institutions of the Islands are placed on the footing of a Christian land; the Board ceases to act any longer as a principal; it renders aid to the churches only as they shall request it, and show reason why they should receive such aid. . . . the business, which has been done heretofore by an organized mission, will hereafter be transacted in Missionary, Bible, Tract and Education societies." See also, for a brief summary, the "General Explanatory V i e w , " in Report of A B C F M , 1858, pp. 108-110.

342

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

it was solemnly blessed and dedicated to Our Lady of Peace. It may be noted incidentally that the Protestant "Stone Church" at Kawaiahao in Honolulu was completed during the same period and was dedicated on July 21, 1842; its construction had been in progress for more than five years. 28 From Oahu the Catholic missionaries extended their efforts to the other islands. In the early pioneering phase, Father Walsh was perhaps the most active and effective leader, as might have been expected from his Irish ancestry, his familiarity with Hawaiian conditions, and his acquaintance with the Hawaiian language as well as with English and French.29 In June, 1840, he was sent to the island of Hawaii with Fr. Heurtel, where they made a promising beginning in the propagation of their faith. Near the end of 1841 Walsh was transferred to Kauai, on which island and the neighboring Niihau he spent several busy years. It was not until 1846 that a priest was stationed on Maui, but prior to that time considerable work had been done there and on Molokai by native catechists and through the occasional visits of priests as they traveled between Oahu and Hawaii. Reinforcements from time to time permitted new stations to be occupied and before many years the Catholic doctrine had been proclaimed over the greater part of the kingdom. The historian of the Catholic mission does not give sufficient statistical data to enable us to measure its progress numerically from year to year, but the census of 1853 placed the Catholic population of the kingdom at 11,401. The extension of Catholicism was naturally viewed by the Protestant missionaries with the most serious apprehension and they opposed its progress with every weapon at their command; through the press, from the pulpit, and by means of personal instruction they sought to prevent the spread of Catholic doctrine, which they looked upon as a damning religious error. One or two of them even attempted to convert the Catholic priests, a proceeding which, though unsuccessful in its main purpose, revealed the opposing religious leaders to each other in a pleasing light and resulted in more friendly relations.30 For some years the Catholic priests had to contend not only with the polemical opposition of the Protestant missionaries, but with many petty annoyances and a few downright outrages perpetrated by Protestant church members and minor government officials. It took time for the idea of toleration to be understood and respected. Having gotten the work of the mission inaugurated, Bishop Rouchouze left Honolulu at the beginning of 1841 to visit France with the purpose of seeking to obtain additional priests and other spiritual laborers and financial support for the mission. He was successful in his quest and on December 15, 1842, sailed from St. Malo in the brig Marie=»M. D. Frear, Lowell and Abigail, 158-159. " In regard to Fr. Walsh, see the interesting article by Donald Billam-Walker in Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 1, 1935. 40 Fr. Reginald Yzendoorn, History of the Catholic Mission in the Hawaiian Islands, 147, 152.

RELIGION AND EDUCATION

343

Joseph with a party of six priests, one subdeacon, seven laybrothers, and ten sisters. Unfortunately, the Marie-Joseph was lost at sea and the company of missionaries perished with the vessel. After the death of Bishop Rouchouze and in view of the growth of the Catholic missionary enterprise in the Pacific, it was thought best to make separate vicariates out of the two prefectures into which the Vicariate Apostolic of Eastern Oceania had been divided and to appoint a bishop over each of them. The priest first selected to be Vicar Apostolic of the Sandwich Islands declined the office, but in 1846 Rev. Louis Désiré Maigret was elevated to the position with the title of Bishop of Arathia. Fr. Maigret journeyed to Santiago de Chile to receive his consecration and returned to Honolulu in the early part of 1848 to enter upon the duties of his episcopate. He remained at the head of the Catholic mission in the Hawaiian islands for more than thirty years. As had been the case with the Protestants, so now with the Catholics the establishment and maintenance of schools was a work of vital importance. Their efforts to create a system of Catholic schools gave rise to many controversies, but since that phase of the subject will come up in another place, it does not need to be developed at this point. At the outset the Catholics were handicapped by the lack of teachers and books and it was only gradually that the difficulty was overcome. In this work Father Maigret took a leading part. In the early months of 1841 he opened in Honolulu a school intended primarily for the training of teachers but evidently not confined to that course. Three years later the school was reported to have about three hundred pupils of both sexes. A little later, a piece of land at Ahuimanu in the Koolau district of Oahu was granted to the Catholic mission as a site for a school of similar character to the Protestant seminary at Lahainaluna; the school was started about the beginning of 1846 and served a useful purpose for many years.30® When the priests began to open schools the only suitable printed matter they had at hand was a little catechism which had been written by Fr. Bachelot during his first stay in the islands and printed in Macao, and an "alphabet" (possibly this was a little spelling book similar to the Protestant "Pi-a-pa") that was printed in Honolulu in May, 1840, for the use of the Catholic schools. Several of the priests, Fr. Maigret in particular, devoted part of their time to the preparation of a number of small textbooks and other works of a controversial and devotional nature. It is probable that the earliest of these were printed on the same press that had been used by the publishers of the Sandwich Island Gazette and the Sandwich Island Mirror from 1836 to 1840. A Catholic press was set up in November, 1841, a better one in 1845, and the missionaries were thus able to supply themselves with the necessary printed matter. The historian of the mission remarks: "The school and the press were 301

See below, note 131.

344

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

the means employed by Bishop Maigret to oppose the adversaries of the Faith." 31 MORMON MISSION

In 1850 a third religious sect, Mormonism, appeared upon the Hawaiian scene to give battle to both Protestants and Catholics. The first Mormon mission to Hawaii was composed of ten elders selected by the president of the California mission from the young Mormons working in the gold fields on the middle fork of the American River. The appointment was made on September 25, 1850, and the missionaries sailed from San Francisco on November 22, arriving at Honolulu on December 12. The elders were divided two and two and assigned to the different islands. They had expected that their work would be among the white people; but on arrival they found fewer whites than they had counted on, and soon became convinced that little would be accomplished if they confined their labors to them; some of the elders accordingly began to study the Hawaiian language with a view to working among the native population; some, feeling that they were not called to preach to the natives, abandoned the mission and returned to the mainland. But others were sent to supply their places and to augment the strength of the mission. It may be pointed out that Mormon missions, at least in the early years, were conducted on a plan rather different from that of the Protestant and Catholic missions. The missionaries, instead of being appointed for life, were appointed for short terms of a few years only, and the same person might serve at different times in several different fields; occasionally one would be sent to fulfill a second mission in a field where he had previously labored. The Mormons laid less stress upon education and training for missionary work; they felt, apparently, that experience was the best teacher; but they also believed that the gifts needed by the missionary would be given to him by his heavenly Master as they were needed. The Mormon missionaries were frequently very young; of those who came to Hawaii in the early period, several were still in their teens. This fact together with their enthusiasm and their poverty—for they had to find their own support—made them very adaptable. Another respect in which the Mormon mission differed from the Protestant and Catholic was that the Mormons almost at the outset began to appoint native converts to various offices in the church, thus placing upon them a measure of responsibility ; 32 for such a procedure the elaborate organization of the Mormon Church was well adapted. 1,1 Yzendoorn, op. cit., 193. The foregoing account of the Catholic mission is based mainly upon chapters 13-16 of Yzendoorn's history. 32 I t is well to remember, however, that in 18S0, when the Mormons established their mission in Hawaii, the Hawaiians were much better qualified for taking on responsibility than they had been when the Protestant missionaries began their work. I n 1850, the Hawaiians were nearly all literate, and the abolition of the feudal system and the change in government had vastly altered their political and economic status.

RELIGION AND EDUCATION

345

The Mormons encountered very active opposition from both Protestant and Catholic missionaries and from konohikis who adhered to the Protestant faith. But they met with some success and at the end of 1851 felt much encouraged. By that time they had organized several branches of the church on Maui and one on Oahu. The largest amount of work had been done and the greatest success achieved on those islands. Before the reign of Kamehameha III came to a close, Mormonism had penetrated to all parts of the kingdom. The official census, taken in December, 1853, placed the Mormon population at 2,778, but this was probably below the actual number. Statistics presented at the semi-annual conference of the mission in October, 1853, gave a total membership of 3,016, and the history of the mission indicates that there was a steady growth during 1853 and 1854. So far as the work of education was concerned, it appears that the only schools carried on directly by the haole Mormon missionaries were a few schools for the teaching of English to the natives. But toward the end of 1853, native Mormons began to demand the privilege of having separate common schools, supported by the government, for their children, as the Protestants and Catholics had. The demand raised an important question of school policy, which will be discussed farther along in this chapter. Of the Mormon missionaries who labored in the Hawaiian islands before the death of Kamehameha III, George Q. Cannon was by far the most effective. One of the first company, he was assigned to Maui and for four years worked principally upon that island. He quickly acquired a facile command of the native language—he himself said it was a gift from the Lord—won the confidence of the people and traveled constantly among them, preaching to them, baptizing converts, organizing branches of the church, and watching over them like a shepherd over his flock. Cannon commenced, on January 27, 1852,33 the translation of the Book of Mormon into Hawaiian; in the work of translation and revision, he was assisted by two educated Hawaiians, J. H. Napela and J. W. H. Kauwahi; the final revision was completed on January 31, 1854, at Waimea, Kauai. In the following year, after his return to Salt Lake City, Elder Cannon was sent on a mission to San Francisco, where he supervised the printing of the Hawaiian version of the Book of Mormon. In this period of Mormon history, just after the migration from Illinois to Great Salt Lake valley, the Mormon leaders in the United States were actively promoting the plan of gathering the saints from all parts of the world to Utah. There is evidence that the "gathering" became a subject of anxious consideration by the Mormon missionaries in Hawaii, who desired some means of sheltering their converts from the temptations and opposition to which they were daily subjected. The elders wrote on the subject to the heads of the church and in August, " I n his book, My First Mission (2 ed. Salt Lake City, 1882), p. 69, Cannon says the translation was begun in January, 1851, but this is evidently an error. The official history gives the date Jan. 27, 1852.

346

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

1853, received a letter from President Brigham Young, who counseled patience and added: In the meantime, I will suggest that if possible you obtain a fitting island or part of an island where the brethren can collect in peace and sustain themselves unmolested, it might be much pleasanter for them, and they be better able to prepare themselves for gathering to this continent when the way shall open.

Shortly after this, one of the missionaries visited the island oí Lanai and reported that he had "never seen a place better calculated for the colonization of the Saints than this." A large part of the land on that island was owned by the chief Haalelea, who agreed to let the Mormons use the land free of charge for four years, at the end of which time an agreement might be made for its lease or purchase. After some delay, during which possible alternatives were investigated and one of them attempted unsuccessfully, it was decided, July 26, 1854, "that the experiment of gathering the saints be made on Lanai." Several of the American elders were appointed to direct the project. A site in the interior of the island was selected for a town which was named the "City of Joseph", streets were laid out, and houses built for the first settlers. Agricultural operations were likewise begun and steps taken to keep the litttle colony on its feet during the critical first year. A constant communication was maintained between Maui and Lanai, new settlers arrived at the gathering place from time to time, and when the year 1854 closed, and with it the reign of Kamehameha III, the "City of Joseph" had the cheerful aspect of a hopeful experiment well started. 34 CHURCHES FOR F O R E I G N E R S

The organization of the Oahu Bethel Church (1837) was mentioned in the preceding chapter. The formal organization seems to have lapsed after the death of the first seamen's chaplain, Rev. John Diell; 35 but foreign residents continued to attend the religious services in the Bethel chapel, and on April 3, 1850, a permanent Bethel Church of the Congregational order was formed among the foreign population, the Rev. S. C. Damon being installed as its first pastor. 36 As both the foreign population of Honolulu and the number of seamen visiting the port increased after 1840, there appeared to be a need for a foreign church independent of the Seamen's Bethel. From time to time the subject was discussed in the newspapers. The denominational question was raised and it was found that several of the foreign residents favored the establishment of an Episcopal church. On one or two occasions before 1850 money was subscribed for that purpose and letters were written to EpisThe foregoing account of the early years of the Mormon mission is based upon the official documentary history of the mission in the office of the historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, which the writer was permitted to examine, and G. Q. Cannon, op. cit., together with scattering references f r o m other sources. For a fuller account of the settlement on Lanai, see an article by the present writer in Honolulu Star-Bulletin J u n e 24 1926. » J . W . Smith to Rev. J . O. Knapp, J u n e 14, 1848, in H M C S Library. 36 Charter, Constitution and Rules of the Bethel Union Church of Honolulu. Organised Jan. 31, •

No. of Protestant Schools

(Compiled from statistics in reports of minister of public instruction)

19,644 $21,706 $1.10 19,028 21,098 1.11 15,620 21,990 1.41 15,308 25,892 1.69 15,482 25,271 1.63 13,948 23,049 1.65 12,205 21,256 1.74 10,241 20,705 2.02

ú

o«-1 I* ?Ü»8

< $30.71 26.70 33.42 37.99 41.33 37.67 39.32 40.97

nona and Ka Elele, which he published f o r several years, in the Hae Hqwaii, official organ of the department of public instruction, and in his lectures and talks as he traveled over the kingdom, these subjects occupied a prominent place. F r o m about the beginning of 1848 new difficulties arose out of the sectarian character of the public schools. Catholic complaints, of which little was heard during the years 1844-1847, again became numerous. T h e historian of the Catholic mission is very critical of Armstrong and seems to imply that he exercised his authority unfairly against the Catholics. 8 1 I t is, indeed, true that Armstrong had a strong anti-Catholic and anti-French bias, and there is, in his journals and correspondence, much evidence of strained relations between him and the Catholic priests, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to find in his official course a s minister of public instruction any evidence of improper conduct; on the contrary, he insisted over and over again, in his instructions, that the most rigid impartiality must be shown to both Catholics and Protestants. T h e true explanation of the difficulties which arose during this period seems to lie rather in the character of the French consul, Dillon, who made the school question one ground of a diplomatic controversy between France and Hawaii. Dillon arrived at Honolulu February 1, 1848, on the French warship La Sarcelle and almost immediately entered upon a most vexatious course of conduct, which will be referred to more at length in a later chapter. 8 2 A few months after his arrival he intimated, in a per"Yzendoorn, op. cit., 152. M The Catholic historian, who might be expected to speak well of Dillon if it were possible to do so, refers to him as "the impossible Mr. Dillon." lb\d., 173. It may be noted, however, that Richards was absent from the department of public instruction during most of the latter half of 1847, due to his illness anil death, and that Fr. Maigret, acting head of the Catholic mission, was away from the islands during the same period (he left Honolulu, July 11, 1847, to receive his consecration as bishop and did not return until Feb. 1, 1848)) those two men had exercised a restraining influence and cooperated to prevent sectarian strife; their absence may have opened the way for new difficulties.

358

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

sonal letter to Wyllie, that the relations between France and Hawaii could never be such as the Hawaiian government wished them to be until the Catholics obtained "the distinct and unfettered control of that portion of the public funds" which was devoted to their schools and until they were "released from the vassalage which the interference of Protestant inspectors" implied.88 Some months later, in the course of an official letter to Wyllie, he made a vicious attack upon Armstrong and his administration of the school system.84 As a means of putting an end to the sectarian school controversy, Armstrong in the fall of 1848 proposed a change in the law which would authorize the appointment of two school boards in each district, one Catholic and one Protestant, each to have general supervision of the schools of its own denomination ; the school inspector of the district to be elected by the tax payers of the district and to be ex-officio president of both school boards. The proposal was approved by the privy council but no further action was taken upon it owing to the alarm felt by the Hawaiian government because of Dillon's seeking to make the religion and the education of the native Hawaiians a matter of diplomatic interference. 88 In 1849 Dillon raised the issue again with the backing of a French naval officer and two warships ; the third of the notorious ten demands presented by Admiral de Tromelin in August of that year asked the Hawaiian government to place the Catholic schools under the direction of the head of the French mission (i.e., the Catholic bishop) and of special inspectors who must not be Protestants. 86 The demands were rejected by the Hawaiian government and reprisals followed. The same ten demands were brought forward once more, in somewhat modified form, in February, 1851, by Dillon's successor, M. Emile Perrin, and were again rejected. 87 The sectarian character of the government common schools was a natural consequence of their historical origin. 88 But with the lapse of time, altered conditions pointed to the desirability of organizing them on some other than a sectarian basis. As the population decreased, there came to be many small schools ; in some places there were small Protes" Dillon to Wyllie (Particulière), May 12, 1848, printed in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1858, Appendix, pp. 127-128. 84 Dillon to Wyllie, Oct. 7, 1848, printed in Official Correspondence with Le Chevalier Dillon, 17-20. Armstrong's reply, dated Nov. 16, 1848, is in ibid., 57-61 (letter to Wyllie). ® Document by Armstrong, Nov. 14, 1848, headed "Change in the school law suggested by observation on my late tour," AH, F.O. & Ex.; Privy Council Record, I I I , 145-148; Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, Appendix, p. 105; Armstrong (Limoikaika), Journal of tours, 18S1-1855, in AH, under date Feb. 15, 1851. "Published by Authority. Official Correspondence [with Admiral de Tromelin], 8-9; printed also in various other places. " Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, Appendix, p. 187. As presented by Perrin, the third demand read: "3. A treatment rigorously equal, granted to the two worships, Catholic and Protestant. The direction of instruction confided to two Superior Committees formed in each of the two religions. The submission of the Catholic Schools to Catholic Inspectors. The proportional division between the two religions of the Tax raised by the Hawaiian Government for the support of Schools." This was much more reasonable than the demand made by Admiral de Tromelin. See also account of interview between Perrin and Armstrong on Feb. 15, 1851, in Armstrong, Journal, in HMCS library. 88 Rep. of Min. of Pub. Instruction, 1851, p. 22.

RELIGION AND EDUCATION

359

tant and small Catholic schools near together; economy dictated a consolidation of such schools. After 1850 the coming of the Mormon missionaries introduced a new religious sect; and by 1853 the native Mormons were demanding separate schools for their children, supported by government. 89 In his report to the legislature in 1854, therefore, Armstrong discussed the subject and expressed the opinion that the time had come to organize the schools on a strictly territorial and not on a sectarian basis, combining small schools without regard to the religious beliefs of the pupils; this would make it necessary to do away with all religious exercises and instruction (in mixed schools) which could offend the conscience of any of the pupils.90 The suggestion caused widespread discussion throughout the kingdom and considerable opposition arose, mainly among the Catholics; petitions were presented to the legislature asking that body to disapprove the course proposed by Armstrong—some even requested his dismissal from office because he had made such a suggestion. The legislature, however, in both houses, strongly supported the plan. 91 Shortly after the adjournment of the legislature, the minister prepared a circular letter of instruction and advice to the school inspectors, which was approved by the king and privy council on August 21, 1854.92 The inspectors were directed to combine schools that were too small, where it was possible to make one large school at some convenient place, without regard to the religious beliefs of the pupils. But in schools where there are pupils of different sects, have no prayers while they are together, lest some be dissatisfied from not liking the prayers, and disturbance arise. . . . It is not proper for any school teacher to teach things contrary to the belief of any sect in his school, in mixed schools . . . It is proper, however, to teach the pupils to fear God, keep his word, and love the Lord Jesus Christ; to be virtuous, and love one another; to avoid all theft, and lies, and licentiousness, and anger, and bad language, and all other vice.

The new policy was put into effect very gradually; as long as a school contained twenty-five or thirty pupils it was allowed to go on as before; after 1853, the official reports of the department no longer classified the schools on a sectarian basis, but as late as 1860 Armstrong reported that perhaps four fifths of the common schools were composed of children of one Christian denomination only, and the matter of religious instruction in the schools was not at that time a serious problem.93 "Notes of Conference between M r . Armstrong and certain Mormon ministers," Aug. 30, 1853, A H , F.O. & E x . ; Armstrong (Limaikaika), Journal of tours, 1851-1855, in A H , under date J a n . 30, 1854; Petition of J. W . H . Kauwahi et al., dated Feb. 3, 1854, A H , Privy Council Petitions; " A Report to the King's cabinet on the petition of J. W . H . Kauwahi, & others . . .", Feb. 20, 1854, A H , Privy Council Reports; History of Hawaiian Mission of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (official history cited above, note 34), Vol. I , under date Oct. 6, 1853. K Rep. of Min. of Public Instruction, 1854, pp. 7-8. 91 Report of Committee on Education [of House of Representatives] upon Catholic Petitions against abolition of sectarian schools, J u n e 4, 1854, A H , Legislative file, and printed in Polynesian, J u n e 17, 1854; .Report of Committee [of House of Nobles, on same subject], J u n e 26, 1854, A H , Legislative file; Journal of the Legislature, House of Representatives, J u n e 6, 21, 1854, House of Nobles, J u n e 23, 26, 1854; Polynesian, J u n e 10, 24, July 1. 1854. " Copy of the circular in A H , Public Instruction file, 1854 ( O a h u ) . w Biennial Report of the President of the Board of Education to the Legislature of i860, pp. 10-11.

360

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

The schools of which we have been speaking up to this point were the government common free schools taught by native teachers and using the Hawaiian language exclusively; teaching the native children to read and write the Hawaiian language was the most important service performed by these schools. In addition to the common schools, there was a considerable number of select schools, several of which have been referred to in earlier pages of this history, giving instruction of elementary and higher grades, part in Hawaiian and part in English, to Hawaiian, part-Hawaiian, and haole children. Before the close of the reign of Kamehameha III, the government embarked upon the policy of providing greater opportunities for native children to learn the English language. Hence there came into existence a group of government English schools for Hawaiian children. ENGLISH LANGUAGE SCHOOLS FOR HAWAIIAN CHILDREN

By 1850 a strong desire existed among many of the Hawaiians to have their children taught English in order to open to them wider avenues for advancement. English had long since become the principal medium of business, government, and diplomacy. During the 1840's there was considerable discussion of the desireableness and the feasibility of discarding Hawaiian and adopting English as the language of the nation. James J. Jarves in 1845 published a series of editorials on this subject in the Polynesian;94 he believed the change was inevitable and desirable, and as a beginning he advocated the teaching of English in all the mission schools. Three years later, another editor expressed similar views as to the desirability of a change and urged the teaching of English in select schools until enough teachers had been trained to introduce English into the common schools.95 Up to 1850, the general view of the American missionaries seems to have been against the idea of substituting English for the native language. Mrs. Judd remarks that "it was a maxim with the Mission that in order to preserve the nation, they must preserve its speech." 96 Dr. Rufus Anderson, who had great influence in the shaping of missionary policy, was strongly opposed to the introduction of English to take the place of the Hawaiian language. 97 In 1846, R. C. Wyllie addressed to the missionaries a series of questions, among which was the following, "Would it be practicable and beneficial to introduce the English language entirely, as opening to the natives a wide field of science?" The reply was in the negative. At the same time, the missionaries believed it to be very desirable for those natives who were to occupy important posts in church or state or who were to engage in business to be able to read and write and speak English with facility, and they intro« Polynesian, July 5, 19, Aug. 2, 1845. » Ibid., May 20, 1848 (C. E. Hitchcock). "h. F. Judd, Honolulu (1928 ed.), 62. "Anderson to S. I. Mission, April 10, 1846, in General Letters. of July 19, 1845, and Nor. 6 (P. S. Nov. 9), 1846, in ibid.

Cf. also Anderson's letters

RELIGION AND EDUCATION

361

duced the study of English into the seminary at Lahainaluna. 98 After the profoundly stirring developments which followed the acquisition of California and Oregon by the United States," the opinion of the missionaries seems to have undergone a change, for in their general meeting in 1854 they voted "That in the opinion of this meeting it is expedient that the Hawaiian Government and the friends of education make immediate and strenuous efforts to impart a knowledge of the English language to the natives of these islands." 100 Armstrong discussed the subject of English schools for native Hawaiians in his reports to the legislature in 1850, 1851, 1852, 1853, and 1854. He held it to be a certainty that English "must, eventually, become the language of the natives." 101 In 1853 he wrote: On my tours around the Islands, I have found parents everywhere, even on the remote island of Niihau, most anxious to have their children taught the English language; and the reason they generally gave was a most sound and intelligent one, that without it—they will, by-and-by be nothing, and the white man everything

H e said that the people were willing to do what they could to aid in supporting such schools, but they were poor and the cost of English schools would be very great. "The burden of English schools is too heavy to be sustained by natives generally, without aid from government." 1 0 3 He therefore recommended an appropriation by the legislature to aid in the support of such schools. The legislature of 1853 appropriated $1,500 for the support of English schools for Hawaiians and this was used in promoting the study of English in select schools already established. 104 In 1854 a law was enacted "for the encouragement and support of English schools for Hawaiian youth;" 1 0 5 it provided for the appointment of a board of directors for English schools in each district of the kingdom and authorized the establishment of such schools, to be supported in part by government funds and in part by contributions from the people of the several districts. At the same session of the legislature, an appropriation of $5,000 was made for the support of English schools for Hawaiians. 106 By the end of the year, ten schools were in operation under the provisions of the act of 1854. 107 This was the beginning of a movement M Answers

to Questions Proposed by His Excellency, R. C. Wyllie . . . and addressed to all e Hawanan "i Islands, May, 1S46, p. 73 ( t h e replies were w r i t t e n in 1847 a n d 1848); Minutes of General Meeting, 1837, p. 15; 1843, p. 7 ; 1844, p. 7; 1846, p. 7; Hawaiian r ' 3T4r4 (Oct. 1 8 3 8 ) ; Rep. of Min. of Pub. Instruction, 1853, pp. 58-59; M H , X L (1844), 15; X U (1845), 28-29; E . W . Clark to W . R i c h a r d s , M a y 23, 1845, original in H M C S L i b r a r y ; [ L . A n d r e w s ] to R. A r m s t r o n g , M a y 7, 1860, ibid. T h e s t u d y of English was introduced twice at L a h a i n a l u n a , but each time abandoned a f t e r a trial of a year or t w o Wyllie's view was the H a w a i i a n language should be replaced by E n g l i s h . Official Correspondence with Le Chevalier Dillon, 202. " See chapter 16. O n this point m o r e will be said in a later chapter. Minutes . . Hawaiian Evangelical Association, 1854, p. 6. C f . M H , L I ( 1 8 5 5 ) . 323 101 Rep. of Mm. of Pub. Instruction, 1852, p. 45. >. • 102 Ibid., 1853, p. 66. 108 Ibid., p. 67. 104 Ibid., 1854, p. 13. ra Laws, 1854, pp. 18-20. , A " G \ A Odgers, Educational Legislation in Hawaii 1S45-1891 ( m a s t e r ' s thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of H a w a i i , 1932, m a n u s c r i p t ) , 142. 1OT Polynesian, J a n . 6, 1855.

362

HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, 1778-1854

which ended many years later with the complete abandonment of the Hawaiian language as a medium of instruction in the public schools of Hawaii. GOVERNMENT SELECT SCHOOLS

At the beginning of the period of which we are now speaking (18401854), there was only one select school maintained by the government, namely, the school for the young chiefs carried on as a family boarding school by Mr. and Mrs. Amos Starr Cooke.108 Before the close of the period, the character of this school was greatly changed, and two other select schools, the seminary at Lahainaluna and the Oahu Charity School in Honolulu, became government schools. By the organic act of 1846 the school for the young chiefs was designated the "Royal School" and was placed under the direct control of the minister of public instruction. 109 Mr. and Mrs. Cooke retired from the school about 1850, after having had charge of it for eleven years, during which time they directed with much skill and patience the early educational efforts of a dozen or more Hawaiian children of the highest chiefly rank, including five who afterwards became sovereigns of the kingdom. From the beginning, English had always been the medium of instruction; in 1849 the plan was adopted of admitting to the Royal School as day pupils the children of white residents of Honolulu and vicinity; the institution was thereby transformed into a select English school of the usual type. 110 The enlarged school was housed in a new and commodious building erected for it in the rear of the town of Honolulu. 111 Armstrong's plans for the future contemplated the development of the Royal School into a high grade academy; 112 he was therefore very careful in the selection of its teachers. In 1851, Edward G. Beckwith became principal of the school, the first of a succession of Beckwiths who rendered fine service to Hawaii in the field of education and in other lines of endeavor. 118 In 1853 the Royal School had a total of 121 pupils, of whom 95 were white, 8 were Hawaiian, and 18 were part-Hawaiian. 114 The Oahu Charity School, an English language school primarily for the education of part-Hawaiian children, was one of the important institutions of the town of Honolulu. Opened in 1833, as noted in an earlier chapter, it was successfully carried on by its first teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Johnstone, until the beginning of 1844, when they left it, because of some disagreement with the trustees, and established a 108 A portion of the cost of the school, including the board of the pupils, was paid by the parents or guardians. lm Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha I I I , I , 213-216. 110 Rep. of Min. of Pub. Instruction, 1850, p. 25. 111 Ibid., X851, p. 17. The site was on the lower slope of Punchbowl. 112 Ibid., pp. 17-18. u3 Edward G. Beckwith: principal of Royal School, 1851-1854; president of Oahu College (Punahou School), 1854-1859; later was pastor of Central Union Church, Honolulu. George E . Beckwith: teacher in Royal School, 1853-1854; teacher in Oahu College, 1855-1858; later was manager of Haiku Sugar Plantation for several years. Maurice B. Beckwith: principal of Royal School, 1855-1865; teacher of Fort Street School, Honolulu, for many years. The three were brothers. 11 *Rep. of Min. of Pub. Instruction, 1854, p. 9.

RKI.IGION A N D K D U C A T I O N

363

private school of their own along similar lines. During the next eight years the Charity School fell into a languishing condition; it had financial difficulties, the number of pupils diminished, and much trouble was experienced in finding and keeping a suitable teacher. Up to this time the school had been supported by voluntary contributions, but in the long run this method had proved to be unsatisfactory. Without specifically mentioning the Oahu Charity School. Armstrong referred to the subject in his report to the legislature of 1851: What seems to be most needed now, is provision for the instruction of the interesting and increasing numbers of white and half-caste children in the several white settlements on the Islands: but more especially in Honolulu. and for natives who wish to acquire the English language. The most, in fact, nearly all. white settlers speak the English language, and require to have their children taught in that language. But there being no provision made for such instruction, by law, it is irregular and uncertain, and, in some places, not attended to at all; as neither white nor half-caste children any where attend the public schools taught by natives.

He suggested that a special tax might be levied upon the white population for this purpose, to be controlled, however, by a board or boards or trustees elected by the persons subject to the tax. 1 1 5 The idea was approved by a meeting of the foreign residents of Honolulu, 1,B and the legislature passed a law "to provide for the education of the children of foreigners, and those of foreign extraction in the city of Honolulu, and other places in the kingdom." 117 The act required male foreign residents and those of foreign parentage residing in or doing business in Honolulu to pay a special school tax of three dollars if they had no children of school age, or five dollars if they had such children; the avails of this tax to be used in providing schools for the children of such foreigners; the schools to be managed and controlled by a school committee consisting of five members, the minister of public instruction, ex officio, and four others elected from their own number by the persons subject to the tax. The law was applicable, likewise, to other districts in which there were twenty-five or more school children of foreign extraction. Under the provisions of this law, the foreign residents of Honolulu elected Stephen Reynolds, William L. Lee, Samuel C. Damon, and Robert G. Davis, who, together with Minister Armstrong, composed the school committee of Honolulu 118 and took over the management of the Oahu Charity School, which was thereafter called the Honolulu Town School or the Honolulu Free School. 119 On this more solid footing the school continued to be an important element in the cultural life of Honolulu. In 1853 an excellent teacher, G. B. C. Ingraham, was obtained for the school and he remained in charge of it for twelve years, until his 115

Ibtd., 1851, p. 16. Polynesian, J u n e 7, 1851. Laws, 1851, pp. 84-86. 1M Polynesian, Dec. 27, 1851, Jan 3, 1852. The election w i- held on Dec 29, 1851. Some objection to the law was expressed by f o r e i g n e r who h.ul r o childicn u * Although it was c.illcd a " f r e e school,'* parents who weic alile to do so were expected to pay a small tuition fee for their children. 110

m

364

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

death in 1865. 120 It does not appear that any other school was established under the provisions of the act of 1851 prior to the close of the reign of Kamehameha III. The seminary at I.ahainaluna was transferred to the government in 1849-1850. This institution had never, probably, quite measured up to the hopes of its founders; by some observers it was severely criticized ; l a l nevertheless, it was without doubt the most important school in the Hawaiian islands during the reign of Kamehameha III. A survey of its alumni made at the beginning of 1850 was summarized as follows : It has sent out over 400 educated Hawaiians, to exert a most important influence for good or evil, on the population of the Islands. They are now the leading men of the native population all over the Islands. One of them is a Governor; two are ordained ministers of the gospel; about one hundred and twelve are school teachers; between forty and fifty hold offices of various grades under Government; several are petty lawyers; two or three are land surveyors; over fifty have died; and some of them that live . . . reflect no honor upon themselves or upon the institution that nurtured them.123

During the later 1840's the school activities were greatly interfered with by sickness, the California excitement, and other causes. Curtailment of the funds of the American missionary board and the alteration in the status of the mission during this period made it appear certain that the seminary could not much longer be sustained by missionary funds. The missionaries, therefore, in their general meeting in the spring of 1849, voted to offer to transfer the school to the government under conditions that would insure its continuance "as an institution for the cultivation of sound literature and solid science" and which would not permit the teaching of "any religious tenet or doctrine" contrary to those held by the Protestant mission. The missionary board in the United States approved the transfer and the offer was accepted by the Hawaiian government. 123 At the time of the transfer of ownership, the teachers were Rev. W. P. Alexander, Rev. C. B. Andrews, and a native tutor, L. S. Ua. Andrews left at the end of 1849, his place being taken in 1851 by Rev. J. F. Pogue. Alexander and Pogue remained in charge of the school until after the close of the reign of Kamehameha III. 1 2 4 About 1853 two important changes were made: the study of English was resumed after having been abandoned for several years; and the students were required to furnish their own food by working on land belonging to the school. An idea of the scope of the curriculum can be gained from the following list of studies pursued during the school year 1851-1852: Algebra, geometry, trigonometry, surveying, navigation, natural and revealed theology, natural and moral philosophy, anatomy, Hawaiian laws, chronology, " " For the history of the Oahu Charity School, see the article by W . D. Alexander in 16 H H S Report, 20-38. m Wilkes, Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition, I V , 245-249; A H a o l i [G. W . Bates?], Sandwich Island Notes (New York, 1854), 303-306. Rep. of Aim. of Pub. Instruction, 1850, pp. 25-26. m Documents relating to the t r a n s f e r are printed in Ka Lama Hawaii: The Centennial yearbook of the Lahainaluna Technical Hioh School (Lahaina. 1931), 99-107. **Rep. of Min. of Pub. Instruction, 1850-1855. The biography of W . P. Alexander by hi« granddaughter, Mary C. Alexander, contains many references to Lahainaluna.

RELIGION AND EDUCATION

365

sacred geography, sacred history, geography, composition, punctuation, and music.125 Such was the public school system of Hawaii at the end of the reign of Kamehameha III, embracing a large number of common free schools taught in the Hawaiian language, a small group of English language schools for native children, and the three select schools just referred to. But these did not comprise all of the educational facilities of the kingdom ; there were in addition several private schools, most of them rather short-lived, in the larger towns, and the select schools carried on by the Protestant and Catholic missionaries. During the later 1840's and early 1850's, the craze among the Hawaiians for learning English led to the establishment of a number of small schools of rather temporary character, whose sole or principal object was to teach the English language to natives. SCHOOLS M A I N T A I N E D BY M I S S I O N A R I E S

The "station schools" started by the American missionaries during the 1830's remained in existence after 1840 but were then gradually discontinued. Several of the boarding schools founded by the missionaries became well established and were numbered among the "select schools" of the period after 1845. In a few places, notably in Kohala, Hawaii, station schools were started after 1840. In Kohala, likewise, two select boarding schools, one for boys and one for girls, were begun in 1842 by Rev. and Mrs. Elias Bond. 1 - 0 Other select schools begun under missionary auspices during the period now under review were the manual labor school at Waioli, Kauai, started in 1841 by Edward Johnson, but conducted for many years by Mr. and Mrs. Abner Wilcox, 127 and a school at Kaluaaha, Molokai, begun in 1852 by Rev. Samuel G. Dwight. 128 Noteworthy among the missionary ljoarding schools was'the one at Hilo carried on under the able leadership of Rev. David B. Lyman. 129 In November, 1853, the buildings of this institution were destroyed by fire and the legislature of 1854 appropriated $4,000 to aid in the construction of new buildings. The minister of public instruction, in his report for the year 1854, said of the Hilo Boarding School: "This, I regard, is one of our most important schools. It is the very life and soul of our common schools on that large Island." In the same report, he said that Mr. Wilcox's school at Waioli, AV/> of Mm of I'rb Instruction 18S2, p 40 A s this volume goes to press, Mr. George T. I,cckcr has just completed a thorough study of I,.ii],ini.ih:n.i's first forty-seven y e a r s : J .aliainaluna, jSii-jA;7 A „Stltdy of Hawaii's I'loimr I.dmatwnal Institution and Its Socioeconomic Influcmc at Home and Abroad ( m i s t e r ' s thesis, U r m e r s i t y of H a w a i i , 1938, manuscript) 1Jfl Many references to these schools will he found in Htlicl M Damon, Father Bond of Kohala (Honolulu, 1927). 1JT Some references to this school will be found in Ethel M. Damon, Koamalu (indexed under Waioli Mission Station), and in an article by the same author, "The Story of the Waioli Mission," in the Friend, X C ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 254-264. ^ There is an interesting sketch of this school in A Haole [G. W . B a t e s ? ] , op. cit., 260-263. 1= * O n the Hilo Boarding School, see Odgers, Education in Hawaii, 125-126; Ethel M. Damon, " H i l o Boarding School," in the Friend, X C I I I , 152-155, 168-170 ( J u l y , 1 9 2 3 ) ; and a pamphlet entitled Hilo Boarding School, Located at Htlo, Hawaii. 1816—Seventy Five Years of Progress— i p n (Honolulu, 1 9 1 2 ) , which contains articles by Dr. C. H . Wetmore, Rev. W . B . Oleson, Mrs. W . S. Terry, I will occupy our places. . . . As things are, if they should come here, I fear they would feel it to be their interest to upset the government, just as the Americans did in Texas. 6

2. The rush of population to California after the discovery of gold, while it was simply a special manifestation of expansionism, was nevertheless so important as to call for particular mention. Its effect upon Hawaiian commerce and agriculture and its influence in some other ways have been noted in earlier chapters. A majority of those who migrated to California from the eastern parts of the United States were decent and respectable persons, and Wyllie, in the remarks just quoted, had reference to a peaceful penetration by Americans of that type. But unfortunately 2 Polynesian, Nov. 17, 1849, Jan. 5, 1850; Friend, V I I I (1850), 3. The New York State Library, Albany, N. Y., supplied me with a photostatic copy of the Northern Journal editorial mentioned in the text. 3 Miller to Addington, Sept. 2. 1847, B P R O , F.O. 58/56. 4 Wyllie to Capt. Steen A. Bille, April 20, 1849, A H , F.O. & Ex. »Wyllie to Judd ( P r i v a t e ) , Nov. 3, 1849, A H , F.O. & Ex. See also, in respect to this and the following point, statements in Ten Eyck to Sec. of State (No. 62), Dec. 3, 1849, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I I ; and instructions to Jarves, Aoril 28, 1849 (Instructions A, art. 5, and B, art. 6), A H , F.O. Letter Book No. 14, pp. 489-499, 505-511.

SHADOW O F DESTINY

385

the stream of migration was muddied by the presence of a lot of reckless adventurers without God and without conscience, who brought with them disorder and crime and tragedy. They brought also the spirit of filibusterism, which sought outlets in various directions. From 1849 to 1854, with the influx of people who came annually from California to spend the winter season in Hawaii, came also rumors and occasionally circumstantial reports of filibustering expeditions about to descend upon the islands for the purpose of overthrowing the government and setting up a new regime. Probably the reports were much exaggerated, but they induced a feeling of great uneasiness and uncertainty as to the future. 6 3. International developments on the Asiatic side of the Pacific, in particular the opening of China and Japan, 7 may be considered a factor in the history of Hawaii, the significance of which arises, however, from the relationship of those events to American territorial and commercial expansion mentioned above and in the paragraph which follows. 4. The expansion of American commerce, actual and prospective, in the Pacific area. The reciprocal importance of Hawaii and the American whaling industry to each other has perhaps been sufficiently emphasized. International trade along the Pacific sea-ways was a subject in which business and political leaders were greatly interested in the middle of the nineteenth century. Forward-looking men of that day had a large vision of the results in growth of American commerce likely to flow from the nearly simultaneous advance of the United States to the Pacific and the opening of China and Japan. And this had an important bearing upon the future of Hawaii. Immediately after the extension of our laws over Oregon and the acquisition of California [wrote Secretary of State Marcy in September, 18S3] not only those Islands [Hawaii], but also the whole of Polynesia, assumed an increased importance to the United States. More recently this importance has been vastly augmented by the wonderful events in China . . . and by the probable abandonment at a day not distant, of the non-intercourse system of Japan. The intercourse between our Pacific ports and the ports of the distant East is destined perhaps to be upon as large a scale as that which we now enjoy with all the world, and the vessels engaged in that trade must ever resort to the ports of the Sandwich Islands for fuel, and other supplies as has ever been the case with our whale ships in their outward and inward voyages. It is consequently indispensable to our welfare that the policy which governs them should be liberal and that it should continue free from the control of any third country.8 6 Wyllic to A. Osio, Dec. 21, 1849, AH, P.O. & Ex.; Wyllie to Miller, Jan. 8, 1850, ibid.; Wyllie to Armstrong, Aug. 7, 1851, ibid.; Wyllie to t e e , Nov. 5, 7, 1851, ibid.; Hitchcock to Wyllie, Dec. 12, 1851, ibid.; Wyllie to Adm. Sir G. F. Seymour, April 12, 1852, ibid.; Allen to Webster, Oct. 4, 7, 1851, USDS, Consular Letters, Honolulu, Vol. V; Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1852, Appendix, pp. 71-72; Polynesian, Nov. 16, 1850, March 27, 1852, Jan. 29, 1853. There is other evidence as well; filibuster reports in 1853 and 1854 will be noted in connection with the events of those years. 7 See Tyler Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia (New York, 1922), 178, for a very suggestive chronological summary of happenings in the Pacific area from 1843 to 1867. »Marcy to Gregg (No. 2), Sept. 22, 1853, USDS, Instructions, Hawaii, Vol. I I ; also in Gregg Collection. The latter collection contains diaries, letter books, and a few other papers of David I,. Gregg, U.S. Commissioner to Hawaii, 1853-1858, and Hawaiian minister of finance, 1858-1862; the collection was loaned to the Hawaiian Historical Commission and the University of Hawaii by the owner, Mr. David I,. Gregg (son of Commissioner Gregg). The University of Hawaii has a typewritten copy of the greater part of the collection, and the University of Michigan Library has a similar copy.

386

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

It was no doubt a perception of the importance of Hawaii to the whaling industry and in trans-Pacific trade, coupled with a recognition of the strategic value of Pearl Harbor, that elicited the earliest suggestion (about 1845) of the acquisition of that harbor by the United States to serve as a naval rendezvous and commercial port. 9 Commander ( a f t e r wards Admiral) S. F. Du Pont of the United States navy, in a report written in 1851, made the following observation: It is impossible to estimate too highly the value and importance of the Sandwich Islands, whether in a commercial or military point of view. Should circumstances ever place them in our hands, they would prove the most important acquisition we could make in the whole Pacific ocean, an acquisition intimately connected with our commercial and naval supremacy in those seas; be this as it may, these islands should never be permitted to pass into the possession of any European power.10

5. Of domestic factors, one of the most important was comprised in the population changes constantly going on. The subject has been frequently mentioned in earlier pages, but it will not be amiss to say something further about it. There were two aspects, the decrease of the native population and the increase of the foreign and part-Hawaiian population; both had been in progress ever since the haoles first came to the islands, but it was the decrease of the native race that made the deepest impression. During the years 1848-1853 the future of the race looked especially dark, for in those years epidemic diseases, like a gigantic scythe, cut great swaths through the native population 11 and its ultimate extinction came to be quite generally thought of as inevitable. The editor of the Polynesian in 1850 published a tabulation showing "the probable future decrease of the Hawaiian Race," from which it appeared that there would be less than one hundred Hawaiians surviving in the year 1930. 12 There was some speculation as to the character of the future population of the islands. W e may gather that some people thought the Hawaiians would be simply replaced by another people, probably one of EuroAmerican origin; others noticed the increasing number of part-Hawaiians and predicted that the coming population would be of that type; while still others pictured a population made up of two or more rather distinct groups, one of which would be part-Hawaiian and one Euro-American. The oriental had not yet entered the picture to any significant extent, though the Chinese were seen as contributing to the part-Hawaiian group. 1 3 Some typical statements may be quoted. A traveler who visited the islands in 1834 and 1835 observed the character of the local population and said: •Polynesian, A p r i l 25, 1846. S. F. D u P o n t , Report on the National Defences ( W a s h i n g t o n , 1 8 5 2 ) , 15-16. Haw'n Annual, 1897, pp. 97-99. 12 Polynesian, J a n . 26, 1850. B y w a y of c o m p a r i s o n , it m a y be noted t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s c e n s u s of 1930 e n u m e r a t e d 22.636 full-blood H a w a i i a n s a n d 28,224 p a r t - H a w a i i a n s in t h e population of the T e r r i t o r y of H a w a i i . 13 Polynesian, M a r c h 25, 1848; S. S. H i l l , Travels in the Sandzvich and Society Islands, 303-317. 10 11

SHADOW OF DESTINY

387

Frequent intermarriages of the white residents with native females have given to this Archipelago a numerous class of half-caste inhabitants, which may be expected to take hereafter a prominent position amongst the natives. They are a fine race of people, possessing more than their share of European features and disposition.'"

In 1837, Henry A. Peirce predicted the early extinction of the Hawaiian people and remarked, "The foreigners and half breeds will take their place." 14 A visitor in 1845 thought the epitaph of the nation would soon be written and that Anglo-Saxons would "convert the islands into another West Indies." 1 5 Richard Armstrong noted in 1846, "A good many foreigners are intermingling with [the Hawaiians] and the prospect is that a mixed race will eventually prevail here." 1 6 In 1847, Rev. Artemas Bishop made the following comment: There is now growing up among us an increasing class of the children of f o r eigners by Hawaiian mothers. They are more enterprising than the pure natives, . . . and most of them are highly respectable young men and women. . . . They are probably destined to succeed, or rather supersede, the aboriginal Hawaiians, though not for a generation or two to come."

Intermarriages between natives and foreigners of good character were looked upon with favor by those in authority. The king in his speech to the legislature in 1850 gave utterance to the view of the government when he said, "It is clearly the interest of the Islands to encourage intermarriages between the natives and respectable foreigners." 1 8 According to the official census of 1853, the total population was 73,134, of whom 2,119 were foreigners and 983 were part-Hawaiians. 1 9 There is reason to believe that the number of part-Hawaiians was somewhat larger than the number returned in the census. Discussion of the trend of population naturally influenced the attitude of foreigners towards the native government. 6. Another domestic factor which requires to be noted was the economic development taking place in the islands. The development itself has been described at length in an earlier chapter. Here it is only necessary to point out ( a ) that the development bound the islands more closely to the western coast of America, and ( b ) that the need of Hawaii's staple products for a duty-free market led to a sentiment shared by a strong and_influential party in Hawaii in favor of annexation to the United States. "But this," wrote Commissioner David L. Gregg in 1855, "is chiefly a party of foreigners,—to a large extent American foreigners,— orderly and peaceable it will be admitted,—but still impelled to favor a new political order by the numerous advantages they may reasonably hope 13,1 F . D. B e n n e t t , Narrative of a Whaling Voyage Round the Globe from the year 1833 to 1836 . . . ( L o n d o n , 1 8 4 0 ) , I, 240. » P e i r c e to H u n n e w e l l , A u g . 13, 1837, H u n n e w e l l M S S . 15 G u s t a v u s H i n e s , A Voyage Round the World . . . ( B u f f a l o , 1 8 5 0 ) , 232. 10 A r m s t r o n g to C h a p m a n , Nov. 5, 1846, A r m s t r o n g L e t t e r s . 17 M H , X L I V ( 1 8 4 8 ) , 185. 18 L y d e c k e r , Roster Legislatures of Hawaii, 27-28. 10 T a b l e included in Rep. of Min. of Pub. Instruction to l e g i s l a t u r e of 1854. T h e r e a r e some d i s c r e p a n c i e s in the d e t a i l e d figures.

388

H A W A I I A N KINGDOM, 1778-1854

to derive from it." 20 There were other causes which contributed to the growth of such a sentiment, but we are probably justified in considering the economic cause to be the more fundamental and important one. 7. A factor of far reaching importance was the aggressive policy of France as exemplified in the proceedings of French consular and naval officers in Hawaii. French pressure was a reagent which, applied time after time, precipitated crisis after crisis. How it influenced the course of events will be made clear in the narrative which follows. RELATIONS WITH FRANCE

By way of introduction it will only be necessary to remind the reader of the beginning of French interest in Hawaii arising from the activities of Catholic missionaries; the visits of French warships during the years 1836-183?; the action of Captain Laplace in compelling the Hawaiian government to accept the unhappy convention of July 17, 1839; the subsequent difficulties over schools and other matters; the visit of Captain Mallet; the French recognition of Hawaii's independence; and lastly, the position of the French government as revealed in the negotiations leading to the signing and ratification of the treaties of March 26, 1846. When Emile Perrin came to Hawaii in the early part of 1846 with the French draft of the treaty formulated jointly by his government and that of Great Britain, his instructions required him to include in the report of his mission his opinion "on the present and future state of the Sandwich Islands, on the position which M. Dudoit, French consular agent, occupies there, and on the usefulness or otherwise of establishing a consulate in that place."21 Perrin's report recommended the establishment of a consulate at Honolulu with a consul possessing suitable educational qualifications, 22 and the consulate was accordingly created. The Hawaiian government would have been well pleased if Dudoit had been promoted and thus retained in office with the higher rank. It is true that for several years following his first provisional appointment as consular agent by Captain Du Petit-Thouars, Dudoit had been a thorn in the flesh of the Hawaiian government, but latterly he had pursued a different course and had become distinctly persona grata; during 1845, 1846, and 1847, no molehills of difficulty in Franco-Hawaiian relations had been allowed to magnify themselves by angry debate into mountains of discord. 23 In recognition of his years of service, the French government bestowed on » G r e g g to Marcy (No. 76), March 12, 1855, USDS, Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. V I ; also in Gregg Collection, and printed in Report of the Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawaii . . . December 31, 1924 (Honolulu, 1925), 25-27. 21 Guizot to Perrin, April 26, 1845, AMAE (Paris), lies Sandwich, Vol. IV, f. 30. » Perrin to Guizot, Oct. 10, 1846, ibid., i. 320. 23 Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, Appendix, pp. 145, 313; Wyllie to Dudoit (No. 18), Sept. 3, 1845, AH, F.O. & Ex.; Wyllie to Barclay (No. 43), Nov. 2, 1846, ibid.-, Same to same (No. 38), Dec. 25, 1847, ibid.; Wyllie to Dudoit (No. 30), Oct. 23, 1846, in Official Correspondence with Le Chevalier Dillon . . . [Honolulu, 1849], 162-163. The last mentioned publication will be cited hereafter as Dillon Correspondence.

SHADOW OF DESTINY

389

Dudoit the decoration of the Legion of Honor, but the appointment as consul (of the first class) was given to Guillaume Patrice Dillon, who was transferred from a similar position at Newcastle, England. 24 Dillon arrived at Honolulu on the French corvette La Sarcelle, February 1, 1848. Bishop Maigret of the Catholic mission returned on the same vessel from the coast of South America, whither he had gone to receive his consecration as bishop. 25 Along with the new consul came also a large framed portrait of King Louis Phillippe of France to be presented to King Kamehameha III as a gift from the French government; the presentation was made by Dillon with an elaborate ceremonial on February 15.20 The consul was received by the Hawaiian minister of foreign relations in the effusive and flattering manner which Wyllie customarily employed when welcoming the official representatives of other nations. 27 Dillon had been directed by his own government to insist that the treaty of 1846 be ratified by King Kamehameha III without reservation (as the British treaty had been), to require that the third article of the treaty be given the interpretation intended by the French government, and to rely on the treaty for the protection of French interests; but the general tone of his instructions was conciliatory. He was reminded that "moderation makes secure what boldness has obtained." He was told to cultivate friendly relations with the Hawaiian government and with his English and American colleagues and to cooperate with the latter in those cases where rights common to all foreigners were involved. He was to guard the interests of French commerce in the Pacific and to seek to discover opportunities for its increase. "One of the principal interests confided to your care is the protection of the Catholic mission . . . In performing to their full extent the duties which this protection imposes on you, you will be careful to put out of the way every cause of conflict between the Catholic missionaries and the Protestant missionaries." 28 It cannot be said that Dillon observed very faithfully the spirit of his instructions. After attending to the ratification of the treaty and making clear the French interpretation of its third article, he gave a suggestion as to the course he would pursue by making a diplomatic issue of a not very serious complaint by one of the Catholic priests and by the demand with reference to the duty on wines, mentioned in the preceding chapter. Thereafter he brought forward a succession of complaints and demands against the island government and seemed to welcome every opportunity to elevate small difficulties into diplomatic issues. One could fill many pages with details of the disputes between him and the Hawaiian authori" Polynesian, Feb. 5, 12, 1848. 23 Ibid.; Yzendoorn, History of the Catholic Mission in the Hawaiian Islands, 186-187. Polynesian, Feb. 19, 1848. There is a sarcastic reference to this incident in Ten Eyck to Buchanan (No. 30), Feb. 15, 1848, U S D S , Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. II. " A s an example of this, see Wyllie to Dillon (Private and Confidential), Feb. 16, 1848, A H , F.O. & Ex. 28 Instructions to Dillon (No. 1), J u n e 10, 1847, A M A i ( P a r i s ) , lies Sandwich, Vol. V.

390

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

ties, but all that is really necessary is to note the points of difference that led to the intervention of Admiral de Tromelin in August, 1849.29 Dillon's fundamental demands were four in number. One of them, relating to the schools, has been taken account of in chapter seventeen. One was concerned with the duty on brandy and other spirituous liquors. It will be remembered that after the signing of the treaties of March 26, 1846, the Hawaiian government levied an import duty of five dollars per gallon on spirituous liquors of ordinary strength. Dudoit entered a protest against this duty as being tantamount to a prohibition and therefore contrary to the treaty, but he did nothing further about it. In November, 1848, Dillon reminded Wyllie of Dudoit's protest and demanded that the Hawaiian government refund to importers of such liquors all the duties paid by them in excess of an "equitable" figure to be agreed upon by arbitrators. 30 T o this it was replied that experience had shown the duty in question to be not prohibitive and hence not in violation of the treaty. 31 A third demand related to the privilege granted to whaleships whereby they might import free of duty goods to the value of $200 to be used by them in trade or barter for supplies. The tariff resolution of April 3, 1846, provided that spirituous liquors could not be imported under the privilege just mentioned. 32 Dillon demanded the repeal of this exception on the ground that it was a discrimination against French whaleships since the latter usually had nothing that they could import except spirituous liquors. 33 In reply, it was pointed out that the law in question was not discriminatory, since it applied to the whaleships of all nations, and yielding to the demand would be equivalent to giving up a right guaranteed to Hawaii by the treaty of March 26, 1846.34 The fourth demand arose out of a law which required that all documents presented at the Hawaiian custom house should be in either the Hawaiian or the English language. 35 Dillon demanded the repeal of this law on the ground that it was a special favor to the English and a discrimination against the French and was a 28 T h e g r e a t e r p a r t of the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e is p r i n t e d in Dillon Correspondence ( a 400 p a g e v o l u m e ) , in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1848, A p p e n d i x , pp. 18-35, a n d in ibid., 1850, A p p e n d i x , pp. 1-40. M u c h of it w a s also p r i n t e d in v a r i o u s n u m b e r s of t h e Polynesian. All of this a n d some additional m a t e r i a l is filed in A H , F . O . & E x . , f o r y e a r s 1848 a n d 1849. Dillon's account of his r e l a t i o n s w i t h the H a w a i i a n a u t h o r i t i e s is contained in his r e p o r t s to his own g o v e r n m e n t , in A M A E ( P a r i s ) , l i e s S a n d w i c h , Vols. V I a n d V I I . I t w a s c h a r g e d a g a i n s t Dillon t h a t h e a t t e m p t e d to c a r r y on i n t r i g u e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t H a w a i i a n officials in o r d e r to c r e a t e dissension w i t h i n the H a w a i i a n g o v e r n m e n t , f o r c e t h e r e t i r e m e n t of one or other of the m i n i s t e r s , a n d t h u s m a k e a place f o r h i m s e l f . T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s consul at H o n o l u l u mentioned these i n t r i g u e s in one of his l e t t e r s to t h e s e c r e t a r y of s t a t e in W a s h i n g t o n . T u r r i l l to Clayton ( N o . 3 0 ) , Sept. 4, 1849, Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess., No. 77, pp. 69-70. O n e of the s t r o n g e s t evidences of D i l l o n ' s i n t r i g u e s is f o u n d in a letter which h e w r o t e to D r . J u d d , A u g . 11, 1848, p r i n t e d in Polynesian, M a r c h 23, 1850, a n d in Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, A p p e n d i x , pp. 141-144. Dillon w a s said to be a p r o t e g e of Guizot a n d it w a s thought t h a t the o v e r t h r o w of Guizot a n d his royal m a s t e r . K i n g L o u i s Phillippe, by the revolution of F e b r u a r y , 1848, in F r a n c e m a d e D i l l o n ' s f u t u r e u n c e r t a i n ; this w a s said to be a reason f o r his alleged i n t r i g u e s . O n this point, see a n editorial in t h e Boston ^ Daily Evening Traveller, N o v . 19, 1849 (clipping in A H , F . O . & E x . , 1849, with D e T r o m e l i n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e ) , based on well i n f o r m e d H a w a i i a n sources. 30 Dillon Correspondence, 34-35. T h e word " e q u i t a b l e " a p p e a r s in the F r e n c h text of article 6 of t h e t r e a t y . 31 32 33 34 K

Ibid., Statute Dillon Ibid., Laws,

133-135. Laws of His Majesty Correspondence, 7-8. 16, 125-128. 1848, p. 14.

Kamehamcha

I I I , I, 275.

SHADOW OF DESTINY

391

rule "calculated to mortify profoundly the good understanding" between France and Hawaii. 3 6 In answer to the demand, it was explained that English was the only language generally understood by business men and officials in Hawaii and that the law in question was intended to facilitate the transaction of business; that the presentation of documents in the French language would cause intolerable delays because of the necessity of having translations made. 37 These demands and a number of minor complaints and grievances of French citizens were the subject matter of an acrid and voluminous correspondence between Dillon and Wyllie, which at times descended to rather unseemly personalities. Dillon made a harsh attack on the Hawaiian minister of public instruction, 38 published in the Sandwich Islands News a letter severely criticizing Wyllie and his colleagues, 39 and advised Kamehameha I I I to dismiss his ministers of finance and foreign relations. 40 These and other objectionable doings of Dillon finally wore out the patience of the king and his advisers. In April, 1849, the whole subject was gone over in the privy council, and the king approved a series of resolutions requiring that all the questions at issue be referred directly to the French government and ordering Wyllie, as minister of foreign relations, to represent to that government the "unjustifiable conduct" of the French consul and to request his recall. 41 O n the same day, James J. Jarves was appointed "Special Commissioner" to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, and France, as noted in the preceding chapter ; he was instructed to proceed to Paris and lay the whole matter before the French government. On the other side, Dillon appealed to the French naval command in the Pacific for assistance in enforcing his demands. W h e n Dillon's reports of his proceedings were received in France, the course which he was following met with a severe reproof from the minister of foreign affairs. The minister fully approved the consul's action in securing a reduction in the tariff on French wines, but on nearly every other point his proceedings were condemned. H e was told that his views were wrong on the language question and on the questions relating to whaleships and the duty on spirituous liquors ; and he was reprimanded f o r having "lost from view the spirit and the letter of his instructions." H e was advised to free his relations with the Hawaiian officials from the spirit of acrimony and to confine himself to defending French and Catholic interests without involving himself in local intrigues. The minister remarked: "The Sandwich Islands seem inevitably destined to come under the direct influence, if not a complete annexation, on the part of the United States. France cannot and ought not to expect to rule there otherwise than as a moderator between American influence and English pre30

Dillon Correspondence, 17-20. Ibid., 98-107. Ibid., 19. 30 Ibid., 235-243; Sandwich Islands News, Jan. 11, 1849. 40 Dillon Correspondence, 65. 41 Privy Council Record, I I I , 244-248 (April 23, 1849); Rep. of Min. Appendix, pp. 115-121. 37

38

of For. Rel.,

1858,

392

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

tensions." 418 Before any of these communications could have been received by the consul at Honolulu, two French warships arrived there under command of Admiral de Tromelin and with this support Dillon pushed his demands to the point of reprisal. In the meantime, we may notice the fact that while relations with France, or at least with the French consul, were thus marching steadily towards a crisis, the dangers once thought likely to arise from the unfriendly attitude of the British consul general and the American commissioner had ceased to exist even as imaginary perils. Commissioner Ten Eyck did not relax the stiff attitude he had assumed towards the Hawaiian authorities, but during the spring of 1849 the latter learned, through Jarves and other sources, that the government in Washington had repudiated Ten Eyck's policy, disapproved his course, and appointed another man to take his place. It was, in addition, one of the ironies of Ten Eyck's position that the American consul, Joel Turrill, whose term nearly synchronized with his own, always maintained the friendliest relations with the Hawaiian government. This was a source of great irritation to the commissioner.42 The Hawaiian government felt, therefore, that it had nothing to fear from the government of the United States. With Consul General Miller, harmonious relations had been reestablished. In an earlier chapter, reference was made to the controversies between General Miller and the Hawaiian authorities, made more bitter by a personal quarrel between Miller and Wyllie. These difficulties were at their worst in 1847. From each side was poured into the British foreign office a deluge of documents. One of the subjects of dispute was the lease of the Beretania premises in Honolulu where Miller resided; in this matter he was clearly at fault and he was so informed by Lord Palmerston in a letter in which the consul general was severely censured by the British foreign minister for "the offensive Character, the iriitating Tone, and the disputatious Style" of his communications to the Hawaiian officials.43 Not long after this, Palmerston had before him a request from the Hawaiian government for the recall of General Miller. 44 This time, his lordship seized the occasion to administer a rebuke to the other side. He reminded Kamehameha of the "generous and upright conduct of Great Britain towards the Sandwich Islands" and stated that the queen saw no reason whatever for recalling General Miller; and he added, Her Majesty desires me to express Her just expectation that a proper feeling of Respect for Great Britain, and a due sense of the important Interest which Your Majesty has in maintaining unimpaired the friendly Relations which so happily subsist between Great Britain and the Sandwich Islands, will lead Your Majesty Instructions to Dillon (Nos. 4 and 5 ) , July 13, 14, 1849, A M A E ( P a r i s ) , lies Sandwich, Vol. V I I ; " O r d r e du M i n i s t r e " [ f o r instruction to Dillon], Oct. 24, 1849, ibid. 4 2 Ten Eyck to Buchanan (Nos. 42, 47, 5 1 ) , Oct. 1, 1848, March 5, April 2, 1849, USDS, Dispatches, Hawaii, Vol. I I . « Addington to Miller ( S e p a r a t e ) , Oct. 16, 1847, B P R O , F . O . 58/55. " P r i v y Council Record, I V , 1-17 ( M a y 17, 1 8 4 7 ) ; Kamehameha I I I to Queen Victoria, May 17, 1847, A H , F . O . & E x . ; Miller to Palmerston (No. 2 0 ) , J u n e 10, 1847, B P R O , F . O . 58/56; and on this general subject, numerous documents in ibid., F . O . 58/59 and F . O . 58/60.

SHADOW O F DESTINY

393

to order Your Ministers so to shape their conduct towards the Representative of the British Government as not to place in jeopardy the continuance of friendly Intercourse between the two States."

These two reprimands, one for each side, when joined to other influences, 48 bad a very soothing effect. The difficulties lost their intractable quality, the asperities ceased, and before many months had elapsed Wyllie and Miller were again on the old friendly and comfortable basis of pleasant familiarity, so that Wyllie could, in an emergency, ask "My dear General" to lend him his copk.47 The French armada arrived in the middle of August, 1849—two frigates, La Poursuivante and Le Gassendi, the former carrying the flag of Rear Admiral Legoarant de Tromelin, commander-in-chief of the French .naval forces in the Pacific. 48 After a preliminary exchange of notes, one of which was understood by De Tromelin to be in effect a refusal of a demand by himself and Dillon for an audience with the king to discuss pending difficulties,49 the admiral and the consul, on August 22, presented an ultimatum containing ten demands based upon Dillon's four fundamental demands and several cases of alleged grievances of French citizens; three days were allowed for a decision, and in default of a satisfactory answer, the ultimatum stated that the treaty of March 26, 1846, would be declared null and void and relations between the two countries would thenceforth be placed again upon the basis of the Laplace treaty and convention of 1839; furthermore, the French officers would "employ the means at their disposal to obtain a complete reparation" for the grievances complained of. 50 After the most serious consideration, the Hawaiian government declined to yield to the demands, each of them except the first being rejected for one or both of two reasons: (1) that the questions at issue had been referred to the French government; (2) that the demands were unjust and untenable. 51 Immediately on receipt of the reply of the government, August 25, Admiral de Tromelin sent on shore an armed force which took military possession of the fort, the government offices, and the custom house; the king's yacht, the schooner Kamehameha, was seized, and all vessels flying the Hawaiian flag were detained under the guns of the French warships. The Hawaiian flag, however, was not taken down nor was the French flag 45 Palmerston to the King of the Sandwich Islands, Dec. 31, 1847, A H , F.O. & Ex. This letter was delivered to the king by Miller on May 6, 1848, with some conciliatory remarks; a copy ot the remarks, in Miller's handwriting, is in ibid., under date May 6, 1848. M Some of these influences have been suggested in the earlier part of this chapter. " Wyllie to Miller, Feb. 12, 1849, A H , F.O. & Ex. The generalization in the text is amply Dorne out by numerous documents in ibid., from May, 1848, onward. « Polynesian, Aug. 18, 1849. " Much was made of this point in the subsequent negotiations. Actually, th* audience was neither refused nor granted, but a dilatory reply was made by the Hawaiian government. Published by Authority. Official Correspondence [with Admiral de Tromelin], 6-7. This publication will be cited hereafter as De Tromelin Correspondence. 60 De Tromelin Correspondence, 8-9. The ultimatum indicated that the annulment of the treaty of 1846 would be in pursuance of "the formal instructions of the French Government"; but the subsequent negotiations make it appear very unlikely that either De Tromelin or Dillon had instructions that would justify apy such action. 51 Ibid., 9-13; Privy Council Record, I I I , 315-317 (Aug. 24, 1849).

394

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

raised on shore. "Previous orders had been given by the government that no resistance be made to these forces, and none was made. But so far from fleeing before the enemy, the people of the town went to the wharves to see the enemy land and as many as could followed the soldiers even into the fort." 5 2 On making known to the government his determination to resort to coercive measures, Admiral de Tromelin stated that King Kamehameha I I I might, if he thought it worth while, appoint commissioners to confer with him in regard to the existing difficulties. 53 The king seized this slight chance for an accord and appointed Dr. Judd and Judge Lee as his commissioners. 54 On the twenty-eighth, two long sessions were held on board the Gassendi, without result. Much time was spent in discussing the duty on brandy and other spirituous liquors; the admiral stated that he would not take up any other question until that one was settled to his satisfaction; he would agree to a duty of 80 or possibly even 100 per cent ad valorem, but no more—the existing duty of $5 per gallon was equivalent to about 500 per cent ad valorem. Proposals and counter proposals were made, but no agreement could be reached. 55 While this conference was in progress, French soldiers were engaged in dismantling the fort, spiking and throwing down the guns, pouring the powder into the sea, and doing much damage to the buildings within the fort. 5 6 On the twenty-ninth, Wyllie submitted to De Tromelin a proposed approved by the king in privy council, That all pending difficulties be referred to the decision of the Government of France in concert with the King's special plenipotentiary; and, in case of a nonagreement upon any point, to the final award of any friendly Power, to be named by France herself; the Hawaiian Government pledging the King's faith and the national revenues, and, if required, the further guarantee of some friendly power to abide by and carry out all the provisions of such decision and award.67

This mode of settlement was unacceptable to the admiral, and on the thirtieth he announced his final decision. He declared the treaty of 1846 to be null and void and replaced by the Laplace treaty and convention of 1839; by way of reprisal, he confiscated definitively the schooner Kamehameha.58 It may be remarked here that the French government subsequently disavowed De Tromelin's declaration in regard to the treaty and stated that the treaty of 1846 would stand ; 59 but the king's yacht was never returned. On the fifth of September, the French squadron de52

Armstrong to Chapman, Sept. 4, 1849, Armstrong betters. De Tromelin Correspondence, 14. Ibid., 15, 21; Privy Council Record, I I I , 318-323 (Aug. 25, 27, 28, 1849). Their commission, dated Aug. 27, and instructions, dated Aug. 28, are filed in A H with other documents of 1849 relating to the De Tromelin intervention. 53 De Tromelin Correspondence, 24-25; Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1858, Appendix, pp. 78-100 (minutes of the conference together with notes by Wyllie). 66 De Tromelin Correspondence, 25; L. F. Judd, Honolulu (1928 ed.), 149; Friend, V I I (1849), 44. 07 De Tromelin Correspondence, 29-30; Privy Council Record, I I I , 326-328 (Aug. 29, 1849). 58 De Tromelin Correspondence, 30-32. The privately owned vessels which had been detained were released. 69 Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, Appendix, pp. 259, 262. 53 54

SHADOW O F D E S T I N Y

395

parted; at the same time, Consul Dillon and family sailed on the Poursuivante en route to San Francisco and France. 60 Against the proceedings of Dillon and De Tromelin, the Hawaiian government entered a solemn protest, 61 and appealed to the governments of the United States and Great Britain to interpose their good offices with France. 02 Consul General Miller and Consul Turrill informed their governments of what had been going on, and they and other consuls in Honolulu remonstrated against the doings of the admiral and the French consul. Before the French troops landed, Miller made some efforts at conciliation and offered to guarantee the fulfilment by the Hawaiian government of the decision that might be arrived at in Paris. 03 In the conference on board the Gassendi, Dillon stated his opinion that Jarves would not be received in Paris as the king's agent because of things he had written about France in his history of the Hawaiian islands.64 For this and other reasons, King Kamehameha decided to send another commissioner and Dr. Judd was selected for this important and delicate mission. He was given the rank and title of "Special Commissioner and Plenipotentiary Extraordinary" to the three great powers. At the same time, Jarves was re-accredited as His Majesty's "Special Commissioner and Plenipotentiary," and the two men were empowered to act either jointly or separately as circumstances might dictate. The instructions previously given to Jarves were now repeated to both commissioners with additions made necessary by the recent happenings; and they were instructed to claim from the French government an indemnity of $100,060 on account of the taking of the schooner Kamehameha and the damage done by the forces under command of Admiral de Tromelin. 05 Besides the regular instructions signed by the minister of foreign relations, Dr. Judd carried a letter of secret instructions signed by the king and kuhina-nui, to be used by him in case of extreme emergency; by these secret instructions, he was authorized to negotiate for the purpose of placing the Hawaiian islands under foreign protection and rule and for the sale of the sovereignty of the islands, reserving to the king " D e Tromelin Correspondence, in Paris a few months later. 111 De

Tromelin

Correspondence,

5 5 ; Polynesian,

Sept. 8, 1849.

Dillon was seen by Dr

Judd

43-46.

»-'Wyllie to Jarves (No. 2 0 ) , Aug. 23, 1849, A H , F . O . & E x . , Wyllie to Barclay ( S e p a r a t e ) , Aug. 23, 1849, ibid. 0 3 Miller to Palmerston (Nos. 10 and 13), Autr. 23 and Sept. 10, 1849, B P R O , F O Turrill to Clayton (No. 3 0 ) , Sept. 4, 1849, and enclosures, Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong No. 77, pp. 69-74; De Tromelin Correspondence, 40-42, 73, 80-82.

58/642 sess '

Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1858, Appendix, pp. 91, 94. « Privy Council Record, I I I , 347-353 (Sept. 5, 10, 1 8 4 9 ) ; copies of Dr. Judd's commissions and powers, dated Sept. 10, 1850, and other documents relating to the mission, in A H , F.O. & E x . I n connection with the mission, before Dr. Judd sailed and while he was away, Wyllie addressed to him more than eighty official letters of instruction, information, and advice, and thirty private ones. Many of these were short, but they were accompanied by great quantities of enclosures. Copies of the official letters are in A H , F . O . Letter Book No. 14. Dr. Judd copied his own correspondence into a letter book which is in A H ( F . O . Letter Book No. 16). His original letters to Wyllie are in A H , F . O . & E x . ; those of 1850 are in a separate folder with other documents relating to the mission. Another important source is Dr. Judd's private journal, mentioned above, chapter 18, note 52. 04

396

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

the ratification of any treaty or convention signed on the king's behalf; he was also empowered to sell all the private lands of the king and the chiefs, subject to the ratification of the king and the free concurrence of the chiefs. 66 Dr. Judd, however, made no use of the power granted him by the secret instructions. Dr. Judd sailed from Honolulu on September 11, 1849, accompanied by two young princes, Alexander Liholiho, heir apparent to the throne, and his elder brother Lot Kamehameha, 67 going by way of San Francisco, Panama, and Jamaica to New York. The negotiations with Commissioner Eames in San Francisco and the meeting and arrangement between Judd and Jarves in New York were spoken of in the last chapter and require no further mention. Dr. Judd and the princes arrived in London on Christmas day. 68 After conferring with Archibald Barclay, London representative of the Hawaiian government, Dr. Judd, on January 23, 1850, had an interview with Lord Palmerston to enlist his aid, if possible, and to ascertain the views of the British government on Hawaiian affairs. Palmerston was very guarded in his statements. He thought the duty on brandy was not a violation of the treaty; on the other hand he did not think the operations of Admiral de Tromelin were a violation of the Franco-British joint agreement of November 28, 1843; he advised Dr. Judd to proceed at once to Paris, and promised to put him in touch with Lord Normanby, the British ambassador to France; he said the British government would do what it could to aid in a settlement of the difficulty. Writing privately to Wyllie after this interview, Dr. Judd said he was "much hurt by the indifference manifested by Lord Palmerston" in Hawaiian a f fairs. 6 9 The fact was, however, that Lord Palmerston was in no position to intervene strongly in the difficulty between France and Hawaii, for at this very moment a British naval force was engaged in an operation at Athens which bore a remarkable resemblance to the French action at Honolulu, and France's relation to Greece was much the same as England's relation to Hawaii. 70 Nevertheless, Palmerston wrote to Normanby, instructing him to give Dr. Judd such assistance and support as the merits of the case might seem to warrant, being careful, however, not to involve the British government "in a Dispute with which Gt. Britain has no direct Concern, and you will limit your Interference to the 60 Secret instructions dated Sept. 7, 1849, printed in both Hawaiian and English in 10 H H S Report, 10-12, and in L. F. Judd, Honolulu (1928 ed.), 178-179 (omitted from first edition of Mrs. Judd's book). A copy, in Wyllie's handwriting and differing slightly from the printed version, is in A H , F.O. & Ex. 67 Polynesian, Sept. 15, 1849. Prince Alexander was fifteen years of age, Prince I,ot, eighteen. Their mother was Kinau, daughter of Kamehameha I and half sister of Kamehameha I I I ; their father was Kekuanaoa, governor of Oahu. Both spoke excellent English. 88 h. F. Judd, op. cit., 154. 80 Ibid., 154-155; Judd to Wyllie (No. 11), Jan. 24, 1850, and private letter of same date, A H , F.O. & Ex., Mission of Dr. Judd. *> Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, IT, 330-331. 596-599. Both Judd and Barclay believed that Palmerston's hands were tied by this Greek affair. Judd to Barclay, Feb. 20, 1850, A H , F.O. Letter Book No. 16; Barclay to Judd, Feb. 23, 1850, ibid.; Judd to Wyllie, Feb. 21, 1850, A H , F.O. & Ex., Mission of Dr. Judd.

SHADOW OF

DESTINY

397

Employment of your good Offices with a view to bring about an amicable adjustment." 7 1 In Paris, Lord Normanby, besides extending many courtesies to Dr. Judd and the princes, smoothed the way for the Hawaiian plenipotentiary to get his case before the French government. Dr. Judd was received in a friendly manner and attentively listened to by the minister of foreign affairs, General de la Hitte. The latter appointed successively three different agents to discuss with Dr. Judd the various points of the difficulty between the two countries; the third and highest of these agents was Emile Perrin, who had signed the treaty at Honolulu in 1846. All phases of the controversy were threshed over in a series of conferences between him and Judd. Perrin's instructions from the minister of foreign affairs required him to uphold all the demands made by Dillon except in a few details. 72 In a subsequent instruction, it was explained that, although Dillon's proceedings and demands at first had been condemned by the French foreign office, the report of Admiral de Tromelin and the explanations given by Dillon himself after his return to Paris had presented the affair in a different light and caused a reversal of the official attitude. 7 2 3 Incidentally, it may be noted that there had been a change of ministers. T h e instructions made it clear that France would not make a new treaty but would insist upon the treaty of 1846 being observed in accordance with her interpretation of it, and that she would not accept the mediation of any third power but intended to settle the dispute by direct negotiations with the Hawaiian government. It was also clear that no indemnity would be paid, but Perrin was authorized to say that the king's yacht would be returned when the various difficulties had been satisfactorily settled. T h e views of the two parties being what they were, no settlement was possible. 72b After two and a half months in the French capital, Dr. Judd returned to London, where he had several interviews with Lord Palmerston and at the latter's request conferred with the French ambassador to England. Such efforts as Palmerston and Normanby made had for their object to bring about a compromise, but they were unsuccessful since neither side was as yet in a mood for compromise. The most important result that flowed from Dr. Judd's conferences with the British foreign minister was the new treaty between Hawaii and Great Britain which was signed at Honolulu in the following year (July 10, 1851). Before finally quitting England, Dr. Judd addressed to Palmerston a formal request for the mediation of the British government in the quarrel between France and Hawaii. Palmerston replied that the British government would "with Palmerston to Normanby, Jan. 24, 1850, B P R O , F.O. 27/861. Instructions to Perrin, March 14, 21, 1850, A M A E (Paris), lies Sandwich, Vol. V I I I . Instructions to Perrin (No. 1), June 4, 18S0, ibid. These are instructions to Perrin after his appointment as consul-commissioner to Hawaii. ,21> Details of the negotiations in Paris may be found in the materials mentioned in note 65 A fairly adequate documentary account is given in Rep. of Min. of For. Re!., 1851, Appendix, pp. 251-271. 71

72

398

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

great Pleasure employ their good Offices with a view to effecting an amicable and satisfactory Settlement of the matters at issue." 73 In Washington, the Hawaiian plenipotentiaries (Judd and Jarves) had a pleasant interview with the secretary of state. Regarding it, Dr. Judd wrote in his private journal: Mr. Clayton said that he should notify France and England that his Govt, will not look with indifference upon any act of oppression committed or any attempt to take the Islands. . . . The U. S. do not want the Islands but will not permit any other nation to have them. I asked if the U. S. would go to war on our account. H e replied yes—that is they would send a force and retake the Islands for the King and if that made a war they would carry it out."

In a formal exchange of notes, Secretary Clayton stated that the United States would do what it could to promote a satisfactory adjustment of the misunderstanding between France and Hawaii. 75 Afterwards he wrote to William C. Rives, American minister to France, informing him as to the views of the United States government regarding Hawaii and instructing him to make zealous, yet prudent, endeavors to bring about an accommodation of the existing dispute. In the same letter, he informed Rives that the United States government, while determined to uphold the independence of Hawaii, was not prepared to enter into any treaty arrangement with France and Great Britain respecting the island kingdom. 76 At nearly the same time, a new commissioner from the United States to Hawaii, Luther Severance of Maine, was appointed and he was furnished with a copy of the letter to Rives and was told that he might show it to the Hawaiian minister of foreign affairs. 77 After a few weeks spent in visiting and travel, going as far west as Detroit, Michigan, Dr. Judd and the two princes sailed from New York in the middle of July, 1850, homeward bound. At Panama they met Emile Perrin, who had been appointed commissioner of the French Republic with full powers to negotiate a definitive arrangement of the pending difficulties. 78 Earlier still, while Dr. Judd was yet in Paris, Perrin had been appointed consul of France for Honolulu, taking the place of Dillon, who was transferred to San Francisco. 79 Perrin was waiting at Panama for a French warship to convey him to Honolulu. From statements which he made in conversation with Dr. Judd, the latter was led to fear that force might be used to compel Hawaii to yield to the 73 J u d d to P a l m e r s t o n ( N o s . 2 a n d 3 ) , A p r i l 9, M a y 1, 1850, A H , F . O . L e t t e r Book No. 16; P a l m e r s t o n to J u d d , M a y 2, 1850, ibid.; these l e t t e r s a r e also in B P R O , F . O . 5 8 / 6 9 . Copies of t h e two last mentioned letters w e r e sent to L o r d N o r m a n b y f o r his i n f o r m a t i o n P a l m e r s t o n t o N o r m a n b y (N"o. 2 8 0 ) , M a y 10, 1850, B P R O , F . O . 2 7 / 8 6 3 . 74 J u d d , P r i v a t e J o u r n a l , J u n e 4, 1850. T h e i n t e r v i e w with S e c r e t a r y Clayton w a s a f e w d a y s b e f o r e this date. J u d d a n d J a r v e s to Clayton, M a y 30, 1850, Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 Cong., 2 sess., No. 77, p. 82; C l a y t o n to J u d d a n d J a r v e s , J u n e 3, 1850, ibid., pp. 82-83. 70 Clayton to R i v e s ( N o . 1 5 ) , J u l y 5, 1850, ibid., pp. 83-84. 77 Clayton to S e v e r a n c e ( N o . 2 ) , J u l y 20, 1850, U S D S , I n s t r u c t i o n s , H a w a i i , Vol. I I . 78 Commission d a t e d J u n e 3, 1850, p r i n t e d in Rep. of Mitt, of For. Rel., 1851, A p p e n d i x , p. 2. 78 J u d d to W y l l i e ( N o . 1 4 ) , Feb. 20, 1850, A H , F . O . & E x . , 1850, Mission of D r . J u d d .

SHADOW OF DESTINY

399

French demands. In an effort to prevent such a calamity, Dr. Judd wrote letters to Lord Palmerston, 8 0 to Secretary Clayton, 81 to Jarves, 8 2 and to Dr. R u f u s Anderson, 8 3 secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, urging that the influence of Great Britain and the United States be brought to bear on France and that British and American warships be ordered to Honolulu to protect the island government. Lord Palmerston sent a copy of Judd's letter to Lord Normanby and instructed him to express to the French government the hope of the British government that "no further acts of violence against the Sandwich Islands" were intended by the French government. 84 Normanby broached the subject to General de la Hitte and the latter assured the British ambassador that Judd's fears were groundless, Perrin's instructions being "positive, that in no case was anything to be done [at Honolulu] in the event of the failure of negotiations without first referring home." This information was given to Normanby in confidence and La Hitte added that "it was not necessary Mr. Judd should know this positively, as it might make him more difficult as to accepting a reasonable accommodation." 85 At about the same period, La Hitte gave the American minister (Rives) to understand "that there was no design on the part of the French Government to menace or endanger" the independence of Hawaii. 8 6 Dr. Judd and the Princes Alexander Liholiho and Lot Kamehameha arrived back in Honolulu on September 9, 1850. To the young princes, the year of foreign travel was of great interest and value. They had had opportunities for seeing some of the best features of the culture of the great countries which they visited; and they had been received by the rulers of those nations with every mark of respect and consideration. Especially was this the case in England, and the two princes brought back to their native land a deep feeling of aloha for that country and a great admiration for the established institutions of Great Britain. This was to be a factor of definite significance in the succeeding history of Hawaii. Perrin arrived at Honolulu December 13, 1850, on the French warship La Serieuse,87 and soon the diplomatic debate was reopened in the Hawaiian capital. Wyllie attempted to delay matters until the results of the mediation of Great Britain and the United States could be known, 88 80 J u d d to P a l m e r s t o n ( N o . 7 ) , A u g . 1, 1850, A H , F . O . L e t t e r Book No. 16, a n d B P R O , F O 58/69. 81 J u d d to Clayton, A u g . 1, 1850, A H , F . O . L e t t e r Book No. 16, a n d U S D S , N o t e s [ f r o m H a w a i i a n L e g a t i o n ] , Vol. I I . 83 J u d d to J a r v e s , A u g . 1, 1850, A H , F . O . L e t t e r Book No. 16. 83 J u d d to A n d e r s o n , A u g . 1, 1850, U S D S , N o t e s [ f r o m H a w a i i a n L e g a t i o n ] , Vol. I I p r i n t e d in Letters of Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, 1827-1872 ( F r a g m e n t s I I ) , 184-186. 84 P a l m e r s t o n to N o r m a n b y ( N o . 4 7 9 ) , Oct. 4, 1850, B P R O , F . O . 2 7 / 8 6 6 . 85 N o r m a n b y to P a l m e r s t o n ( N o s . 326 a n d 3 3 8 ) , Oct. 7, 17, 1850, B P R O , F . O . 2 7 / 8 7 5 . P a l m erston promised to keep the secret. P a l m e r s t o n to N o r m a n b y ( N o . 5 1 3 ) , Oct. 23 1850 ibid F.O. 27/866. ' 88 R i v e s to W e b s t e r ( N o s . 95 a n d 9 7 ) , J u l v 8, 22, 1851, Sen. Ex. Docs., 52 C o n g , 2 sess No. 77, pp. 94-95, 100. m Polynesian, Dec. 14, 1850. 88 Rep. of Min. of For. Rel., 1851, A p p e n d i x , pp. 2-7.

400

H A W A I I A N K I N G D O M , 1778-1854

but Perrin asserted that no mediation had been offered, or, if offered, had been declined by France, and he told Wyllie that if obstacles continued to be thrown in the way of direct negotiations, he (Perrin) would be "obliged to resort to the extraordinary powers" which he sincerely desired not to employ. 89 Negotiations were therefore begun and were energetically carried on for a period of three months, all the old arguments being gone over again at great length. The discussions in Paris had produced a slight modification of the French position, 90 but the two governments were still so f a r apart in their views that no agreement seemed possible. 903 On the first of February, 1851, Perrin brought forward ten demands which were either identical with or substantially similar to those of Dillon and De Tromelin, and presented them as "demands to which the Government of the French Republic thinks that satisfaction ought to be made, before the re-establishment of Diplomatic relations can take place with that of the Hawaiian Islands." 91 During the ensuing weeks he pressed so hard for the acceptance of these demands that the Hawaiian authorities saw little prospect of a just settlement. Save the French commissioner himself, no one concerned with the negotiations in Honolulu knew the exact nature of Perrin's instructions. For that reason, the resolute tone of his communications and the fact that a French warship lay menacingly in the harbor caused the king and his advisers to feel genuine alarm and to fear that the end of Hawaiian independence was not far off. "I see no hope of an amicable adjustment," wrote Armstrong on February 28, "& shall look forward to more violence." 92 The new commissioner of the United States, Luther Severance, arrived on January 12, 93 but neither he nor Miller had received any instructions authorizing them to intervene. 94 The U.S.S. Vandalia, arriving on February 16, was detained beyond its intended sailing date at the request of the Hawaiian government, to protect American interests in the event of hostile action by the French. 9 5 On March 10, great alarm was created within the government by "rumors of another contemplated outrage," 96 and a special meeting of the privy council was held. A general feeling of despondency evidently rested on the minds of the chiefs, & but one sentiment was expressed viz. that the King should prepare the way at once,