In 1839, King Kamehameha III proclaimed, by Declaration, the protection for both person and property in the kingdom by stating, “Protection is hereby secured to the persons of all the people; together with their lands, their building lots, and all their property, while they conform to the laws of the kingdom, and nothing whatever shall be taken from any individual except by express provision of the laws.” The Hawaiian Legislature, by resolution passed on October 26, 1846, acknowledged that the 1839 Declaration of Rights recognized “three classes of persons having vested rights in the lands,—1st, the government, 2nd, the landlord [Chiefs and Konohikis], and 3d, the tenant [natives] (Principles adopted by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles, in their Adjudication of Claims Presented to Them, Resolution of the Legislative Council, Oct. 26, 1846).” Furthermore, the Legislature also recognized that the Declaration of 1839 “particularly recognizes [these] three classes of persons as having rights in the sale,” or revenue derived from the land as well.

These three classes of vested rights, being mixed or undivided in the land, is also reflected in the kingdom’s first constitution in 1840, which states, “Kamehameha I was the founder of the kingdom, and to him belonged all the land from one end of the Islands to the other, though it was not his own private property. It belonged to the chiefs and people in common, of whom Kamehameha was the head, and had the management of the landed property.” The Chiefs and Konohikis carried out the management of the land under the direction of the King for the benefit of the Native Tenants. There is no other country in the world that can boast what a King did for his people in securing their rights in the lands of the kingdom.

By definition, a vested right is “a right belonging so absolutely, completely, and unconditionally to a person that it cannot be defeated by the act of any private person and that is entitled to governmental protection usually under a constitutional guarantee.” In 1846, the Hawaiian Legislature recognized that government lands acquired by conveyance remained “subject to the previous vested rights of tenants and others, which shall not have been divested by their own acts, or by operation of law (Statute Laws of Kamehameha III (1846), vol. 1, p. 99).” The Hawaiian Supreme Court in 1851 best articulated the mastery of these vested rights under Hawaiian law in Kekiekie v. Edward Dennis, 1 Haw. 42 (1851). Chief Justice William L. Lee stated, “the people’s lands were secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the Kingdom, and no power can convey them away, not even that of royalty itself.”

On November 7, 1846, the Hawaiian Legislature enacted Joint resolutions on the subject of rights in lands and the leasing, purchasing and dividing of the same that sought to begin the process of dividing out the undivided rights of these three classes in the lands, but it was unsuccessful. The following year in December 1847, executive action was taken by the King in Privy Council to carry into effect a division of the vested rights that has come to be known as the Great Mahele [division]. A common misunderstanding is that the Great Mahele endeavored to divide all the rights of the three classes in the lands. The Great Mahele only divided the vested rights of the Chiefly class from the Government class in the lands. These divided rights over specific lands called ahupua‘a and ili‘aina remained subject to the rights of Native Tenants, who by application to the Minister of the Interior, who managed government lands, or to a particular Chief or Konohiki who managed lands that were separated from the government, could acquire a fee-simple title to their house lot and cultivating lands.

On December 18, 1847, the Privy Council unanimously passed a resolution accepting 7 rules prepared by Chief Justice William Lee that would guide the division of lands between the Government class, the Chiefly class and the Native Tenant class. According to Rule 2, “One third of the remaining lands of the Kingdom shall be set aside as the property of the Hawaiian Government, subject to the direction and control of His Majesty, as pointed out by the Constitution and laws. One third to the Chiefs and Konohikis in proportion to their possessions, to have and to hold to them, their heirs and Successors forever—and the remaining third to the Tenants, the actual possessors and cultivators of the soil, to have and to hold to them their heirs and successors forever (Privy Council Minutes, vol. 10, p. 129).” Rule 3 would apply to the Native Tenants and their division, which states, “The division between the Chiefs or the Konohikis and their Tenants, prescribed by rule second, shall take place, whenever any Chief, Konohiki or Tenant shall desire such a division, subject only to confirmation by the King in Privy Council.” The Rules of the Great Mahele is a living document and a condition of the management of the lands for the Government class and the Chief and Konohiki class. As a living document it remains a condition of land titles throughout the Hawaiian Islands.

After accepting the division of lands between Kamehameha III, in his private capacity as the highest of the Chiefly class, and the Government, the Legislature under An Act Relating to the Lands of His Majesty The King and the of the Government on June 7, 1848, recognized Kamehameha III’s private lands, which came to be known as Crown lands, as “subject only to the rights of tenants (Supplement to the Statute Laws of His Majesty, Kamehameha III (1848), p. 25),” and the Government lands “as subject always to the rights of tenants (p. 41).” The Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles (Land Commission) was tasked with the additional duty to issue Land Commission Awards (LCAs) to Chiefs and Konohikis that received lands in the Great Mahele as well as to native tenants who submitted their claims with the Land Commission. The Land Commission, however, could only grant LCAs to those that filed their claims before February 14, 1848.

Chief Justice William Lee, who also served as President of the Land Commission, wrote an illuminating letter to Reverend Emerson from Wailua, O‘ahu, on the subject of native tenant rights and the lands of Chiefs and Konohikis. Emerson was concerned that not all of the native tenants have filed their claims with the Land Commission before the deadline of February 14, 1848, and was asking if they had therefore lost their rights in the land. Lee responded, “Should the tenants neglect to send in their claims, they will not lose their rights if their Konohiki present claims; for no title will be granted to the Konohiki without a clause reserving the rights of tenants (Letter to Reverend Emerson dated Jan. 12, 1848, Supreme Court Letter Book of Chief Justice Lee, June 3, 1847-April 18, 1854, Judiciary Dept., series 240, box 1, Hawai’i Archives).”

Lee was speaking to the vested rights of the Native Tenant class that was already secured under the constitution and laws of the Kingdom. In LCAs issued to the Chiefs and Konohikis who were assigned lands in the Great Mahele, there is the clause, “Aka, koe nae na kuleana on na Kanaka ma loko (Land Commission Award 8559-B, parcel 31, to W.C. Lunalilo for the iliaina of Kaluakou, Waikiki),” which is translated as “However, reserving the rights of Native Tenants within.” In Royal Patents that were in the English language, the clause “Reserving the rights of Native Tenants (Royal Patent Grant 950 to Robert Robinson)” was expressly written as a condition of the title.

Under Hawaiian law, all revenues derived from the lands of the Hawaiian Islands; whether by the Government through taxation, rent or sale, or from the Chiefs or Konohikis, through rent or sale, continue to have the vested rights of native tenants. This is what formed the basis as to why the Queen’s Hospital provided health care without charge to native Hawaiians in the nineteenth century because Queen’s Hospital acquired monies from the Government and from Queen Emma as a Chiefess who acquired lands from Mahele grantees, and after her death through the Queen Emma Trust. This is not to be confused with socialism, but rather management of the vested rights of Native Tenants that have and continue to remain in all the lands of the Hawaiian Islands.

As reported by the Pacific Commercial Advertiser in 1901, “The Queen’s Hospital was founded in 1859 by their Majesties Kamehameha IV and his consort Emma Kaleleonalani. The hospital is organized as a corporation and by the terms of its charter the board of trustees is composed of ten members elected by the society and ten members nominated by the Government… The charter also provides for the ‘establishment and putting into operation a permanent hospital at Honolulu, with a dispensary and all necessary furniture and appurtenances for the reception, accommodation and treatment of indigent sick and disabled Hawaiians, as well as such foreigners and others who may choose to avail themselves of the same.’ Under this construction all native Hawaiians have been cared for without charge, while for others a charge has been made of from $1 to $3 per day (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, July 31, 1901, p. 14).”

When the United States seized and occupied the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War, American laws were illegally imposed in the Hawaiian Kingdom that did not allow health care, at no cost, for Natives. The Hawaiian Kingdom Government annually appropriated $10,000.00 to Queen’s Hospital. Since the occupation began, the American authorities were considering the termination of this annual funding.

In 1901, Queen’s Hospital’s Chairman of the Board of Trustees, George W. Smith, explained, “There is a possibility that the legislative appropriation will be cut off after the first of the year, but even so we shall have funds enough to get along, although the hospital will be somewhat crippled. You see there is a provision in the United States Constitution that public property shall not be taken for private use, or that the people shall not be taxed to support private institutions. The Queen’s Hospital is, from the nature of its charter, a quasi-private institution. When it was chartered it was provided that all Hawaiians, of native birth, should be treated free of charge. Foreigners were to be treated by payment of fees (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, July 30, 1900, p. 2).”

In other words, American law would view Queen’s Hospital’s providing health care at no charge to Natives as race based. The following year, Smith argued, “Under our charter we are compelled to treat native Hawaiians free of charge and I do not see how it can be changed (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, July 31, 1901, p. 14).”

Although there is no express provision in the Charter or By-laws of Queen’s Hospital to provide health care at no cost to Natives, it was universally understood and recognized by the Kingdom’s Constitution and laws that Natives benefit from the revenues derived from the Government and the lands of Queen Emma because of their vested rights. Queen’s Hospital would eventually only receive landed revenues from the Queen Emma Trust, and in 1950, these lands were transferred from the trust to the Hospital. As the occupation progressed, Natives would eventually be denied healthcare at Queen’s Hospital without payment, and if they were unable to pay some could see relief if they were “indigent.”

All the actions taken with regard to Queen’s Hospital and the Queen Emma Trust can be summed up as not only a violation of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but also a violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. According to Vincent Bernard, Editorial: Occupation, 94 (885) International Review of the Red Cross 5 (Spring 2012):

“The notion that the occupier’s conduct towards the population of an occupied territory must be regulated underpins the current rules of humanitarian law governing occupation. Another pillar of this body of law is the duty to preserve the institutions of the occupied state. Occupation is not annexation; it is viewed as a temporary situation, and the Occupying Power does not acquire sovereignty over the territory concerned. Not only does the law endeavour to prevent the occupier from wrongfully exploiting the resources of the conquered territory; it also requires the occupier to provide for the basic needs of the population and to ‘restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country [Article 43, 1907 Hague Convention, IV]’. The measures taken by the occupier must therefore preserve the status quo ante (this is known as the conservationist principle).”

The definition of international law centers on the word “inter,” which means “between,” as opposed to “intra,” which means “within.” So, literally, “international law” is defined as “law between nations (States),” which stem from agreements, embodied in a treaty, or customs that is recognized by all nations. According to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, sources of international law, in order of precedence, are: (a) international conventions (treaties); (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and (d) judicial decision and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations.

National law, which is often referred to as domestic law, are those laws that exist “within” a particular nation (State). National laws are also recognized as the expression of the State itself, since it emanates from the local authority, which could be the law making institution, such as the United States Congress or the French Parliament. In some States, called States with a common law tradition, laws could also come from decisions made by judges, which is also called case law. Other States, called States with a civil law tradition, do not recognize judge made law, but only laws enacted by the legislature.

In 1936, the United States Supreme Court explained the difference between the two laws. In particular, the case centered on a joint resolution passed by the Congress on May 28, 1934, that prohibited the sale of arms and munitions of war in the United States to Bolivia, and a proclamation by the President on the same day that established an embargo in order to carry out the joint resolution. The defendant, Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, was indicted for violating the joint resolution.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, the defendant was alleged to have sold fifteen machine guns headed to Bolivia in violation of the joint resolution. Federal legislation includes bills and joint resolutions that are signed by the United States President and made into law. As part of its decision, the Supreme Court needed to distinguish between the joint resolution, being a Congressional law, and the power of the President under international law. The Supreme Court stated, “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.”

In The Appollon, the Supreme Court also concluded, “The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories except so far as regards is own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.” In other words, Congressional legislation has no effect beyond the territorial borders of the United States, but when the United States operates in a foreign State it is bound by international laws.

Legislation of every independent State, to include the United States Congress, is not a source of international law, but rather a source of national law of the State whose legislature enacted it. In The Lotus case, the international court stated, “Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State [Lotus, PCIJ, ser. A no. 10, 18 (1927)].”

After two failed attempts to acquire Hawai‘i by a treaty, which is international law, from an insurgency established by the United States diplomat on January 17, 1893, and admitted by President Grover Cleveland to be unlawful, the United States Congress enacted a joint resolution “purporting” to annex the Hawaiian Islands on July 6, 1898, and President William McKinley signed it into United States law the following day. The President and Congress stated it was a military necessity to annex the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War in order to protect the west coast of the United States from foreign invasion.

The joint resolution was introduced as House Resolution no. 259 on May 4, 1898, after the Senate could not garner enough votes to ratify a so-called treaty of annexation. During the debate in the Senate, a list of Senators rebuked the theory that a joint resolution has the effect of annexing a foreign territory.

Senator Augustus Bacon, stated, “The proposition which I propose to discuss is that a measure which provides for the annexation of foreign territory is necessarily, essentially, the subject matter of a treaty, and that the assumption of the House of Representatives in the passage of the bill and the proposition on the part of the Foreign Relations Committee that the Senate shall pass the bill, is utterly without warrant in the Constitution [31 Cong. Rec. 6145 (June 20, 1898)].”

Senator William Allen stated, “A Joint Resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as if it would be if it were entitled ‘an act’ instead of ‘A Joint Resolution.’ That is its legal classification. It is therefore impossible for the Government of the United States to reach across its boundary into the dominion of another government and annex that government or persons or property therein. But the United States may do so under the treaty making power [31 Cong. Rec. 6636 (July 4, 1898)].”

Senator Thomas Turley stated, “The Joint Resolution itself, it is admitted, amounts to nothing so far as carrying any effective force is concerned. It does not bring that country within our boundaries. It does not consummate itself [31 Cong. Rec. 6339 (June 25, 1898)].”

In a speech in the Senate where the Senators knew that the 1897 treaty was not ratified, Senator Stephen White stated, “Will anyone speak to me of a ‘treaty’ when we are confronted with a mere proposition negotiated between the plenipotentiaries of two
countries and ungratified by a tribunal—this Senate—whose concurrence is necessary? There is no treaty; no one can reasonably aver that there is a treaty. No treaty can exist unless it has attached to it not merely acquiescence of those from whom it emanates as a proposal. It must be accepted—joined in by the other party. This has not been done. There is therefore, no treaty [31 Cong. Rec. Appendix, 591 (June 21, 1898)].”

Senator Allen also rebuked that the joint resolution was a contract or agreement with the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i. He stated, “Whenever it becomes necessary to enter into any sort of compact or agreement with a foreign power, we cannot proceed by legislation to make that contract [31 Cong. Rec. 6636 (July 4, 1898)].”

According to Westel Willoughby, a United States constitutional scholar, “The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act…Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.”

Ninety years later, in 1988, the United States Attorney General reviewed these Congressional records and in a legal opinion stated, “Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable.” The Attorney General then concluded, “It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.”

Hawai‘i was never a part of the United States, and has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation since the Spanish-American War.

The following article was written by Allen Kale‘iolani Hoe, attorney-at-law, and was first published in the Polynesian newspaper in December 2000. Hoe was an invited “observer” to oral hearings in Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, on December 7, 8 and 11, 2000.

The words, “In the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Case No. 99001,” spoken by the Clerk of the Court in the opening moments of the case, Lance Paul Larsen vs. The Hawaiian Kingdom, literally took my breath away. It was a moment to be cherished and remembered by every Hawaiian, whether kanaka maoli or a descendant of Hawaiian subjects.

Personally, this moment had evolved quickly after receiving the joint invitation by the Parties to attend the proceedings as an Observer. Within a couple of weeks of receiving the invitation I found myself half way around the world entering what has been appropriately described as “the grand edifice of Civilization.”

In 20 plus years as a united states educated attorney, including service as a district court judge, I have participated in numerous legal proceedings. However, being at the Peace Palace that day reawakened my belief that there is a path which Hawaiians may follow. This path is not encumbered by a century of lies and apologetic rhetoric by united states politicians who have denied us our rights to sit as equals within the international community of Nation States.

Crossing 10 time zones on a 15 hour flight provided me with an opportunity to review the voluminous legal briefs which the parties had submitted to the Court. Like most observers I had taken an interest in the development of this case from the bits and pieces of information provided through my following of Lance Larsen’s case within the Hawaii courts as well as KCCN 1420 a.m.’s informative program “Perspective.”

The depth of the historical and legal principles applicable in international law was never fully appreciated by me until I had this opportunity to carefully review and consider the issues framed by this case. I was awe struck by the manner in which the Parties had crafted this case for presentation to the Court. The memorials filed by the Hawaiian Kingdom demonstrate clearly its entitlement to participate in this process under international law.

Perhaps for too long now we have just accepted the propaganda that our american destiny is fait complie. We have been smothered by the dreams and desires of non Hawaiians to become americans that we have allowed ourselves to accept the united states government’s official policy to deny that the Hawaiian Kingdom government existed or continues to this date under the well established principles of International Law.

The fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom was transformed from an “autocracy” to a constitutional monarchical form of government by Kamehameha III, which was acknowledged by Britain and France in the Anglo-Franco Proclamation of 1843 is another of the binding historical and legal principles which has been pushed on the side in favor of the american dream; to the great disadvantage of all Hawaiians.

This case represents the first clear opportunity to expose to the International Community this dirty little secret which the united states has tried to keep hidden within in its dark closet of “judge me by my words not my deeds.” For more than a century we have been forced to acknowledge the criminal acts of Dole, Thurston and Stevens along with the unlawful conduct of american presidents and politicians against Hawaiians as american heroics.

The enormity of this case really struck me towards the end of the first day of the proceedings. All those privileged to attend clearly recognized that fact. For me, this moment should not be allowed to pass without some recognition in honor of our kupuna who as members of the Men and Women’s Hawaiian Patriotic League began this struggle a century ago in their written declarations objecting to the illegal acts of the united states of america.

Hae Hawai‘i (the national flag) is for me, and perhaps for many others the most important symbol of who we are as a Nation. Although the united states and the state of hawaii has attempted to subvert its position, it is our flag that once proudly flew over Hawaiian Kingdom Consulates through out the world. We could not leave Den Haag (“The Hague” in Dutch) without sharing this moment with our kupuna through the raising of Hae Hawai‘i over this city which represents the hopes and dreams of all true Hawaiians.

What to do, perhaps the silver lining in the cloud of being a day away from Hawai‘i was that as the day was ending at the Peace Palace it was just beginning in Honolulu. Thus, I immediately placed a call to my secretary with the task of acquiring a large Hawaiian flag and finding the fastest and safest way to get it to Den Haag. The precious package left Honolulu via Fedex on the afternoon of December 7, and after stops in Oakland, California and clearing US Customs in Memphis, Tennessee it arrived in Paris, France at Midnight, December 10th and was delivered to me on the morning of the 11th, which ironically was to be the last day of the proceedings which had originally scheduled to conclude on December 12.

The role of the Hawaiian Patriotic League in pursuit of justice over all these years I felt needed to be recognized and honored. The Hui Kalai‘aina (a Hawaiian Political Party) is another Hawaiian Organization which played an important role in the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. In 1996 numerous other Hawaiians along with myself revived and reconstituted the Hui Kalai‘aina as a Hawaiian political party to promote greater awareness and education on historic and contemporary Hawaiian political issues. As a Director of Hui Kalai‘aina this ho‘okupu of Hae Hawai‘i to the Hawaiian Patriotic League in honor of the Hawaiian Kingdom was a small gesture of all our aloha for their dedication and sacrifice in our behalf for Justice for all Hawaiians.

With that purpose in mind I asked all those in attendance from Hawaii to please sign their names along the border of Hae Hawai‘i. With signatures secured I presented it to the Acting Council of Regency, His Excellency, Agent David Keanu Sai, Acting Minister of Interior along with the best wishes of all those privileged to attend and to sign. One request was made that the Council secure the appropriate place to raise it over the host city of Den Haag as a symbol of its right to reclaim its place within the international community of Nation States.

Thus, with great pride I was a witness to the lowering of the united states flag and the raising of Hae Hawai‘i to its rightful place next to the flags of Britain, France and the Netherlands. This took place across from the Peace Palace along the Scheveningseweg in Den Haag. My dream now is to witness this again in my country in my lifetime. Pau.

An interview of Dr. Keanu Sai by Kale Gumapac, host of the show The Kanaka Express. The interview focuses on Na‘i Aupuni or the Native Hawaiian Convention from a political science, historical and academic standpoint.