Historical Collections of The Hawaiian Islands -  Part 20 - The Ancients

************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.org/hi/hifiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
by Darlen6 E. Kelley
November 28, 2006
http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00026.html#0006374

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Historical Collections of Hawaii
Keepers of the Culture
Influence of Foreigners on Hawaii
Part 20 - The Thirties 
Catholic Missionaries
Foreiegn demands
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Part 20 -

As previously stated the Comete arrived at Honolulu July 7, 1827, and
the Catholic
priests 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 problems
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, where a house was
built and in 1828 the priests opened a little chapel to the public.

During the first few months after their arrival 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 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.

To 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
their opinion, fundimental 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. To the Hawaiian
chiefs, who by 1827 had made Protestant Christianity practically a state
religion, the action of any of their subjects in embracing the Catholic
faith was nothing less than insubordination ; and they also professed to
see the rites of the Catholic church a rvival 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 seemed 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 the
foreigners, thought to deal with it by forbidding their subjects to
attend 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. 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 to the chiefs, tried to convince
the priests that they should go away voluntarily. The latter listened to
his arguements but declined to follow his advice. In the end the
Hawaiian authorities used both the methods suggested above. During the
greater part of 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 religious beliefs
and practices. 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 dipleasure 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 partners were more or less disposed to favor the Catholics, 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.  Chamberlain states that on the same day she
instructed Boki to tell the priests to stop holding meetings and
baptizing the people and warn them if they did not desist they would be
sent away from the islands. As the Catholic writers make no mention of
such 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 Boki went away on his
ill-fated sandalwood expedition. 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 ask for it."

Though the persecution of Native Catholics continued througout 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
proposing the expulsion of the Catholic priests. 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 was required of 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 imprisionment if they lingered until the fourth
month. 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 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
native Catholics but in their writings they sometimes explained that
measures of that kind were taken by the chiefs for political reasons.

The expulson of the two priests , one who was a French subject, the
other British, leads 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 ( " arcles of
arrangement" ) negotiated by the American Captain Jones in 1826. An
American and an English trader contended that the treaty gave American
citizens the right, without any special permission from 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.
The 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.

In the latter year opened the second act in the Catholic drama. For its
better understanding we must note certain features of the ecclesastical
organization of the Catholic missions in the Pacific. In 1833 a decree
of the Holy Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, created the
Vicariate Apostolic of Eastern Oceania and committed it to the care of
the Order of the Sacred Hearts; 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. The earliest mission in the southern prefecture was at
Mangareva, and from there, in 1835, the Bishop sent brother Columba
Murphy to investigate the situation in Hawaii and the possibility of
success for a new attempt to establish the mission. Murphey visited
Honolulu in the fall of 1835, gong 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. Murphey 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
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.

A the moment when Father Welsh 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 the La Bonite sailing on October 24, the British ship-of-war, Acteon
( Lord Edward Russel) put in her appearance. The Acteon remained until
November 19. During these two months and a half there was a round of
entertaining, but the 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 thee fundamental issues.

In Commodore Kennedy's conference  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 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
sale or transfer houses, &c., provided he should deem the person to whom
the transfer was 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. He 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
expressively understood, that in recognizing the principle of lease, he
did not feel bound to grant lands to all who might apply. He was
unwilling to give this in wrting, because he said, it was a new thing,
and required more consideration than he had yet been able to give it.

Part of the discussion turned upon the interpretation of the Jones
treaty of 1826, to which the non-missionary American residents attempted
to give wider meeting than the Hawaiian rulers would allow. To clarify
the matter it was proposed to add several supplimentary articles to that
treaty, embodying the points mentioned by Dr. Ruschenberger in the
passage listed here. The first of the proposed articles reads as follows
:
" The property of American Citizens residing in or trading with the
Sandwich Islands shall be held inviolable: and said citizens may freely
sell, bequeath or otherwise dispose of their property, whether in the
form of goods, animals, buildings, tenements or improvements to any
person or persons whoever: but in all case of transfer of real estate or
lease privilege, the government shall be previously informed thereof;
and the government will in no case inhibit such transfer unless it be
manifest in opposition to the interest of the government.

Article two reads; 

" American citizens may have the privilege of leasing or renting land
for agricultural or other purposes for terms and periods which may be
agreed upon in each case. But, in recognizing this principle of lease
privilege, the government is not bound to grant leases to all or every
one who may apply. At the expiration of the period of lease, it may be
renewed on terms to be agreed upon between government and the leaser,
but if the parties do not agree, the improvements as buildings,
tenements, etc., that may be upon the land shall be sold as it is, or
their true value as to be ascertained by reference to competent judges,
but shall not be destroyed wihout the owners thereof being paid their
value."

There were two other articles of minor importance. At one conference the
king seemed ready to approve the supplimentary 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 in 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 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 negotiatins, left on record, in a
form of  letter addressed to the king, his views on the various subjects
discussed.

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 Capt. Vaillant and besought his assistance in making their
situations more secure. The only authority that the Captan had,
applicable to the present case, was the general instruction given to him
to afford protection to French subjects and French interests whatever he
found them. He could thus properly intervene in behalf of the lay
brothers, they being French subjects, but could do nothing more for
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 good will of the king. Having
accomplished this object, as he believed, he next brought forward the
two subjects which had 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 futhermore 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 the condition that he should not give religious instruction to
any native Hawaiians. [ It may be remarked here in passing that Father
Walsh never felt himself bound by the law on teaching natives, and that
he not only taught, but baptized a number of them.] The visit of La
Bonite is thus of some significance for what it accomplished directly,
but it is of more important because the reports of Captain Vaillant and
of Adolphe Barrot, French consul to Manilla, 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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Continued in part 21.