For decades, Hawaiian sugar companies had been economically constrained by U.S. taxes on imports of their product and had therefore attempted to negotiate a free trade agreement. Two previous attempts to reach an agreement with the United States have failed for many reasons. The planters wanted a treaty, but the Hawaiians feared that it would lead to annexation by the United States. San Francisco sugar refineries have argued for a clause protecting their interests. The last efforts before Kalkaua`s reign died in the U.S. Senate. [1] In response to Hon`s member for Wailuku (Hon. W.F. Daniels), I have the honour of declaring that the paragraph of Her Majesty`s address to the legislature was based on information and on the advice given by ministers to Her Majesty Her Majesty Her Majesty. This paragraph states: “After a mature discussion and exchange between my Government and that of the United States on an interpretation of that clause, which states that it does not deny or infringe any territory or part of a right to sovereignty or jurisdiction on the part of the Hawaiian Kingdom and that this privilege is coercive with the treaty” and that “the reciprocity treaty with the United States has been definitively extended seven years.” under the same conditions as in the original contract.

As an important supply point for American whaling ships, fertile ground for American Protestant missionaries and a new source of sugar cane production, Hawaii`s economy has been increasingly integrated into the United States. An 1875 trade reciprocity treaty continued to bind the two countries and U.S. sugar plantation owners dominated the island economy and politics. When Queen Liliuokalani set up to establish a stronger monarchy, the Americans, under the leadership of Samuel Dole, deed it in 1893. The planters` belief that a coup and annexation by the United States would eliminate the risk of a devastating tariff on their sugar also led them to act. The government of President Benjamin Harrison encouraged the acquisition and sent sailors from the USS Boston to the islands to encircle the royal palace. The U.S. Secretary of Hawaii, John L. Stevens, worked closely with the new government. It is not possible to maintain an article or part of a treaty as a persistent power, with the exception of the rest of the treaty, unless it has been concretely foreseen. The complementary arrangements and the initial arrangements they make are necessary to bring them together in an instrument that must be dealt with as a whole.

Intermediaries Carter and Bayard on the construction and interpretation of the U.S. Senate amendment are considered sufficient to justify Her Majesty`s government, relying on the good faith of the United States in passing the amendment. These indications are referred below. In the Senate, Hawaii should not be expected to accept the indefinite granting of the privilege sought in exchange for a seven-year extension of the 1875 treaty, particularly in light of the risk of material eviction of benefits to Hawaii through amendments to U.S. customs legislation, and it must be shown that if another term had been foreseen, , it cannot be accepted for: that the Senate had a different intention than that clearly explained. The only excuse for the inclusion of such an article in such a treaty would be its relevance to the privileges provided in the original 1875 convention, which are complementary and limited and defined by this Convention.

Comments are closed.