HAWAIIAN CLAIMS. BRITISH MEMORIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS. THE first schedule to the Agreement signed at Washington on the 18th August, 1910, setting up the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal contained among the British claims to be submitted to arbitration the following ten Hawaiian claims: Ashford, Bailey, Harrison, Kenyon, Levey, McDowell, Rawlins, Redward, Reynolds, Thomas. The British Agent is informed that subsequent to the date of the occurrences which gave rise to the claims, Clarence W. Ashford, Arthur McDowall and William F. Reynolds, became citizens of the United States. The claims of these men are, therefore, withdrawn. The present Memorial is put forward in support of the claims of Frederick Henry Redward, The heir of Edward Bedford Thomas, Frederick Harrison, The representatives of Lewis J. Levey, Michael Cole Bailey. On the 6th January, 1895, the Royalist party in Hawaii rose against the Republican Government, which at that time had been recognised by the British Government as the Government of the Islands. Judging by a telegram which Mr. Willis, the United States Minister, sent to his Government on the 30th January, 1895, the rising cannot have been a very serious affair, for he says that the revolt was over on the 9th(') and reported the casualties as 1 killed. 2 killed. An earlier report of the 11th January puts the total number of Royalists casualties as three() and gives a full account of the rising. (1) Annex 2, 2125 [11488] (2) Annex 1, p. 15. R 3X4 4 4 Another account of the rising is contained in a despatch of the 11th January, 1895, from the British Commissioner and Consul-General at Honolulu, which forms Annex 3(3) to the Memorial, and though Mr. Hawes treats the rising as of somewhat greater importance than Mr. Willis did, the despatch shows that it was being disposed of by the Government of Hawaii without difficulty. Unfortunately the Hawaiian Government appear to have treated the rising as affording an opportunity of taking repressive measures against any persons whom they regarded as adherents of the old régime in Hawaii, particularly against British subjects. This is shown by the following extract from the despatch from Mr. Hawes referred to above: "Another more serious matter that I must bring to the notice of your Lordship is the condition of affairs in this town. "On the morning of the 7th instant martial law was proclaimed, and at once the town and its approaches were strictly guarded. The services of bands of adventurers and others were enlisted, and arms and ammunition were served out to all. Arrests were then freely made, and are still continued. I regret to say that the proportion of British subjects arrested is very large, and although I have expressed a hope that undue harshness will not be shown towards the British portion of the community, the Government have placed no check on the course that has been adopted. Added to this the detectives and police have shown an attitude of the most objectionable kind towards those who are British, respectable persons frequently being threatened with arrest for no cause whatever, and sworn at most offensively in I have brought this matter also to the open streets. the notice of the Government, and though expressions of regret have been made nothing has been done to alter the state of affairs. "In connection with these arrests there is the question of keeping the prisoners in confinement without inquiry being made into the charges against them. I have told the Government that whilst I admit the right under martial law to arrest on suspicion and without a warrant, I maintain that the (3) Annex 3, p. 17. prisoners are entitled to have their cases inquired into without unnecessary delay, and have requested that British subjects may have this consideration shown to them. A promise has been given that this shall be done, but as yet no inquiry has been made." Political feeling had run high at Honolulu ever since January 1893, when a "committee of public safety' had seized the reins of power and constituted a "Provisional Government after a defeat of the Cabinet in the Legislature and an attempt by the Queen of Hawaii to promulgate a new Constitution. In 1894 the Queen of Hawaii, Liliuokalani, was deposed by the Provisional Government, and on the 4th July in that year a Republic was proclaimed. This Republic was recognised by Great Britain on the 15th November, 1894. The abortive Royalist rising in January 1895 seems to have been regarded by the Provisional Government as justifying severe measures against all those whom they regarded as their opponents. Among those who were arrested and imprisoned were the ten British subjects who figured in the list of Hawaiian claimants mentioned in the schedule to the Claims Convention. All these men were arrested on dates between the 7th January and the 12th February, and were imprisoned, though it is not suggested that any one of them took up arms or participated in the rising. On the 7th January, immediately after the rising, martial law was proclaimed('), and in pursuance of the rights so conferred upon the Government, large numbers of arrests were made. On the 17th January, a military commission composed of seven members bearing military titles was appointed to deal with offences connected with the rising(), and before this tribunal a certain number of trials took place. None of the men on whose behalf claims are now put forward was ever brought before this Tribunal. They were merely kept in prison under conditions of considerable hardships for periods varying from twenty-eight to fifty-two days. At the end of that period three of them were released on signature of an undertaking to leave Hawaii and not return without permission(), and three were released unconditionally. An exceptional case is that of M. C. Bailey who was only imprisoned for three days, but his imprisonment (*) Annex 4, p. 19. (5) Annex 5, p. 20. (6) Annex 12. p. 34. appears to have been resorted to as an additional means of putting pressure on L. J. Levey, his employer, to sign the undertaking to leave the country, which up till then Levey had refused to do. The facts are dealt with in detail in connection with each separate claim, but there can be little doubt that the authorities of the Hawaiian Government were unable to discover sufficient case against any of the men to justify their being put on trial. They were kept in prison and treated as they were treated for the purpose of extorting an undertaking to leave the Islands, or as punishment. mere Martial law was not withdrawn until the 18th March, 1895(). On the 15th March, an Indemnity Act() was passed, protecting the Hawaiian Ministers from the consequences of martial law, and in April various Acts were passed by the Hawaiian Legislature which deprived men who had suffered in their person or their property during the martial law régime of all possibility of redress through the Hawaiian courts. Act 20(") provided that all acts done by any person in connection with any event leading to the arrest or imprisonment of any person during the rising were to be deemed to have been done with the constituted authority of the President, and such acts were confirmed. Act 24() prevented the bringing of actions against officers of the Government or others for acts done in suppressing rebellion. Section 2 of this Act provided that the written statement of the President that the act complained of was done by his authority constituted a bar to any action. Another Act, No. 26(") passed at the same time provided that the Supreme Court, sitting without a jury, should have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims which might be referred to it by either House of the Legislature, but the claims put forward by His Majesty's Government against the Government of Hawaii on behalf of the present claimants were never referred by either House of the Legislature to the Supreme Court. On the 26th August, 1895, Mr. Hawes, the British Minister and consul-general at Honolulu, made formal representations() on behalf of Her late Majesty's Government to the Hawaiian Government in respect of (7) Annex 9. p. 24. (8) Annex 10, p 25, and Annex 11, p. 27. (10) Annex 11, p. 31. (11) Annex 11, p. 32. (9) Annex 11, p. 29. |