« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Mr. Hawes to the Earl of Kimberley. (Telegraphic.) P.
Honolulu, Jarch 7, 1895. I AM sending by to-day's mail an important despatch respecting the prisoner Ashford. Queen Liliuokalani has been condemned to fine of 5,000 dollars and five vears' imprisonment. A number of imprisoned British subjects bave, under pressure, agreed, as a condition of their release, to leave the country.
MIr. Haues to the Earl of Kimberley. My Lord,
Honolulu, March 7, 1895. It is a matter for very serious consideration the arbitrary manner in which the Government have acted towards foreigners, especially the British section of this community, since the titablishment of martial law.
Persons have been arrested without any charge being made against them, simply because they were known to have Royalist sympathies, and have been held in custody for periods of from thirty to sixty days in the hope, it may safely be inferred, of sufficient evidence being found to make out cases against them. Various improper methods, as is proved by the sworn statements inclosed, have been resorted to in the endeavour to get evidence, and when apparently the authorities have failed to fairly establish a case, the prisoner has been offered his release on condition that he leave the country, or when the efforts to obtain evidence have presumably entirely failed the prisoners have been released upon the verbal understanding that they are liable to be arrested again if they are wanted.
Several British subjects who accepted the conditions above stated have made sworn statements before Mr. ViceConsul Walker by which it appears that thev signed
Referring to the latter part of my telegram to your Lordship No. 6 of the 23rd February last, I have the honour to state that the question of the legality of a Military Tribunal trying persons charged with misprision of treason, conspiracy, or complicity in the rebellion has given rise to much discussion here, and I have been urged by British subjects to protest against it. This step I could not take without authority from your Lordship, though, to my view, it does appear that the Military Commission sitting here is not a Tribunal having jurisdiction of such cases.
Although by Article 31 of the Constitution extraordinary powers are conferred on the President of suspending the writ of habeas corpus and declaring martial law, which is the only ground on which the President bases the power he has exercised of creating a Military Tribunal,
yet all precedent points to the sphere of such Military Tribunals being limited to the period of active warfare during which the Civil Courts are unable to sit in consequence of the disturbed state of the country, there being no instance of a Military Tribunal sitting side by side with the Courts of the country, as in the present case was provided for in the Proclamation of martial law.
As a fact, we have had in this place a Military Tribunal trying persons for conspiracy and misprision of treason, and at the same time a constituted Civil Court of the country conducting prosecution for offences against the same Statute.
By article 82 of the Constitution the judicial power of the Republic being “ vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Legislature may from time to time establish,”' it appears to be an excessive, if not wrong, exercise of authority for the President to remove, alter, or change the seat of the judicial power, as thus laid down, at his own will.
These arguments have presented themselves to my mind, and I venture to submit them for your Lordships consideration.
Of the nine documents enclosed. I would call you Lordship's special attention to the statement made by James Brown. (1) to the treatment be received in prison
Mr. Kinney. The oath he took as Judge Advocate on the trial required this, and suggesting the sentences when at the time he knew them can only be condemned in the strongest terms as unfitting him for the position he held. The death sentences were confidentially made known to my American colleague and myself by the Cabinet on the 26th January; it may therefore be presumed that they were know on the 23rd January to the Judge Advocate, and it is seen by this statement of Mr. Brown to what account he turned his information.
I have, &c.
A. G. S. HAWES,
Enclosure 1.-Declaration of James Brown: Omitted,
as Brown is not a claimant. Enclosure 2.-Sworn Statement by Levey, Annex L. 1,
Enclosure 3.—Sworn Statement by Levey, Annex L. 3,
Enclosure 4.–Sworn Statement by Bailey, Annex L. 2,
Enclosure 5.-Sworn Statement by Redward, Annex
RE. 1, p. 114. Enclosure 6.-Sworn Statement by Bailey, Annex B. 1,
Enclosure 7.-Sworn Statement by Rawlins, Annex
RA. 1, p. 192. Enclosure 8.-Refers to MacDowell's claim : Omitted,
as claim is abandoned. Enclosure 9.-Sworn Statement by Harrison, Annex
H. 1, p. 211.
Mr. Hawes to the Earl of Kimberley. (Telegraphic.) P.
Honolulu, Varch 20, 1895.
Mr. Hawes to the Earl of Kimberley. My Lord,
Honolulu, March 7, 1895. I HAVE the honour to inclose, for your Lordship's information, an extract from the “ Pacific Commercial Advertiser of the 5th instant, by which your Lordship will observe that the Government have introduced an Act granting themselves immunity from the consequences of martial law.
A perusal of this Act shows that its purpose and its effect, if passed, may possibly be to grant a retroactive immunity to all persons who acted under the general authority of the Government during the late and still pending reign of martial law, in respect of all their acts, whether otherwise illegal or not. This class of legislation would seem to be expressly forbidden by Article 71 of the Constitution of this Republic. It is the apparent purpose of this proposed Act to thus stifle, even forbid, any resort by those whose liberties or other rights have been, or even in future may be, invaded by the officers or partizans of the Government, to the Courts of the land, as a means of obtaining compensation for such invasions of their rights. It, in fact, deprives them of valuable rights, among which is the right to seek and obtain redress of wrongs, without due process of law. Such deprivation is apparently prohibited, not only by considerations of natural justice, but also by the express provisions of the Hawaiian Constitution, Article 8, Article 10, and Article 11, section 2. If such legislation can stand, may it not possibly mean that no man's liberty or property are safe from violation by any officer of Government acting with or without orders from his superior, and that no redress can be obtained for illegal acts committed in the name of Government in connection with martial law ? The proposed Act might possibly encourage some individuals who claim to act in behalf of Government to commit violence against persons and their property, and the possibly unfortunate position of
unreasonably be inferred that at the next meeting of the Councils, within a week from date, this Act will be passed into law with little or no discussion.
I have, &c.
A. G. S. HAWES,
Extract from the “ Pacific Commercial Adrertiser," of
Honolulu of Jarch 5, 1895.
Section 1. That all Acts, Proclamations, and Orders, verbal or written, of the President, or of any person acting under his authority, or with his previous or subsequent approval, done, promulgated, or made during the continuance of martial law since the 7th January, 1895, and which shall be done, promulgated, or made until the existing proclamation of martial law is revoked, in respect to martial law or Military Commissions, or the arrest, imprisonment, trial, conviction, or sentence of any person charged with treason, misprision of treason, or conspiracy, or with participation or complicity in insurrection, treason, or rebellion, or with conspiracy to incite or commit treason, insurrection or rebellion, or with any disloyal or seditious practice or act, are hereby ratified and confirmed, and given the same force and effect as if done after the promulgation of and in pursuance of this Act.
“ Sec. 2. No officer of this Republic, or other person acting or to act under or in pursuance of any order or direction of any such officer, or of any person in command of any armed body or squad of men in the service of the Republic, shall be held to answer in any Court, Civil or Criminal, for any act done or omitted to be done, or which shall hereafter be done or omitted to be done, in the suppression of insurrection, or in the search of any person or place, or in