6
The last case at present reported is that of G. Carson Kenyon, whose sworn leclaration is inclosed in Mr. Hawes' despatch No. 19 of the 4th April (Paper I).
Mr. Kenyon, who was employed on the staff of the “Bulletin " who holds letters of denization from the late King and from the Republic, of Hawaii, newspaper, and was arrested with others on the 12th January, but handcuffed and treated with rather exceptional severity; repeated endeavours were made to induce him to sign an admission of his complicity in the revolution and to accept his release on condition of leaving the country.
These offers he rejected, but on the 25th February was unconditionally releasel without any explanation.
Mr. Hawes states, however, that he has since been compelled to leave the country, Mr. Kenyon complains of his treatment while in prison, of his letters being tampered with, and of his house having been repeatedly searched in his absence, and of his aunt, with whom he lived, having been subjected to assault and personal ill-treatment.
Two further complaints of a similar nature have since been received through Mr. Hawes (see his- despatches Nos. 20 and 21 of the 11th and 12th April respectively, Papers Land M), both of which are supported by sworn statements,
The first is that of James B. Grant, who was arrestell on the 29th January, and released on the 28th February without any charge having been preferred against him. He complains of harsh treatment and of the loss of employment which he had expected to obtain. His arrest and detention are attributed to his intimacy with the Ashfords. He makes no specific claim for damages,
The second is that of Edward B. Thomas, an architect and contractor, who was arrested on the 7th January, and who, after fifty-four days detention in prison without trial, was, on the 1st March, released unconditionally and without explanation. He claims, on account of losses on open contracts, and detriment to his business from his imprisonment, 25,0007, compensation.
The following questions would therefore seem to arise:-
1. Whether Her Majesty's Government would in all, or any, and, if so, in which of the cases now submitted, be justified in protesting against the arrest and detention of these British subjects, and their practical, and in some instances, forcible expulsion from the country without charge or trial.
2. Whether, in the event of the answer to the previous question being in the affirmative, Her Majesty's Government would be justified in insisting upon the withdrawal of the restrictions placed upon the return of these British subjects to Hawaii, or, failing this, whether claims for compensation should be presented on account of the losses and injuries sustained by then.
And thirdly, if the latter alternative be adopted, what approximate sum might in each case be fairly demanded of the Hawaiian Government in view of the special circumstances and respective positions of the several sufferers?
I am to request that you will take the papers transmitted herewith into your consideration, and that you will favour Lord Kimberley with your opinien on the questions specially submitted in this letter, as well as with any general observations which you may have to offer upon the various cases and claims,
I
&c.
H. PERCY ANDERSON.
Report.
In our opinion, there is no ground for protest or claim in the case of Mr. J. B. Johnstone, whose confession to the Consul-General that he could not face a trial appears to be an admission of guilt.
In regard to the other persons, we consider that, upon the materials before us, there is a case for protest and for a claim for compensation. We desire, however, to observe that the information submitted to us is. far from full, in some cases 110 indication being given even of the status or occupation of the person injured. Nor are we acquaintel in general with the contention of the Hawaiian Government as to the cause of arrest, or their answer to the acensation of cruel treatment. What they say might, of course, put an entirely different complexion upon the affair.
We consider that, in face of an attempted insurrection, the Hawaiian Government were entitled to have recourse to martial law under their Constitution. But as between nations all law, whether martial law or ordinary law, must be administered towards foreigners with reasonable justice. The proclamation of martial law would justify summary proceedings by a Military instead of a Civil Court. But nothing can justify the imprisonment of foreigners without trial for periods ranging between a fortnight and six weeks, with a view to extorting evidence by punishment, or the threats of punishment. And this appears to have been done in the case of some of the persons in regard to whom we are requested to report.
But
Further, we consider that any country is, in international law, entitled to require. a foreigner to quit its territory, though to do so suddenly, and without real grounds, after allowing him to establish himself and acquire pecuniary interests which are sacrificed by his expulsion, is a high-handed act of an unfriendly character. nothing can justify the imprisonment of a foreigner without trial, where there easily might be a trial, for the purpose of compelling him to sign an agreement voluntarily to quit the island. And where this is done, and business loss follows, we think that the business loss, as well as the imprisonment, should be taken into account in measuring the claim for compensation in regard to what is one entire transaction.
We do not feel that, upon the materials before us, we can estimate in the case of ench person the amount of compensation which should be claimed. Broadly speaking, we should say that in the ease of a person of humble position, imprisoned for a month without cruelty or hardship, a sum of 1007, should be claimed; and in the case of cruelty or hardship, the claim might be doubled or trebled as the case should demand, and any loss of business during imprisonment should be included.
A higher sum should be claimed for persons of a better position, because they would suffer more, and where they have been compelled by imprisonment to agree to quit the country and have lost all their business, something like two years' profit- onbd be the measure of the claim. It appears to us that upon this point the Consul- General on the spot might be able to supply the necessary information.
We also consider that it might be advisable to be informed of the views of the Hawaiian Government as to the rights and wrongs of these proceedings before finally determining either the right to, or the amount of, compensation in each particular case.
R. T. REID. FRANK LOCKWOOD,
List of Papers,
(A) Tabular Statement.
B) Mr. Hawes ...
(B2) Mr. Johnstone
(C.) Mr. Hawes
(D.) To Mr. Hawes
(E.)
Dirro
(F.) Mr. Jawes
(G.)
Ditto
(II.)
Ditto
(1.)
Ditto
(K)
Ditto
(L.)
Ditto
(M.)
Ditto
(N.).
Ditto
Not Printed
(No. 8) February 7, 1835, April 7, 1895.
(No. 11) February 23, 1895,- (Telegraphic) March 21, 1895. (No. 12) February 23, 1895. (No. 14) March 7, 1895. (No. 16) March 7, 1895. (No. 17) March 7, 1895.
(No. 18) April 4. 1895.
(No. 13) April 4, 1895.
(No. 20) April 11, 1895.
(No. 21) April 12, 1895, (No. 22) April 12, 1825.
Royal Courts of Justice,
July 5, 1895.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO