The Morgan Report Online
The Morgan Report has been scanned and is now online. Wherein lies the truth?
The Blount Report, used to justify the Apology Resolution and the Akaka bill? Or the Morgan Report?
14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
T.A. said,
January 17, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
This is WONDERFUL! A great resource for the common person to understand what this whole thing is about. What it really shows is the hypocracy of politicians and the danger of trying to appease one group. Why isn’t this taught in our schools as part of Hawaiian history? Why do they accuse the US of an illegal “overthrow” and teach it as fact? Thank you for bringing this issue to light.
jere krischel said,
January 17, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
Mahalo t.a.!
The conversation has gone on for too long with only one side of the story. I do not mean to denigrate any of the justifiably held feelings against racial oppression that may have occured in the past, but we cannot have an open dialog without examining all the evidence.
The Morgan Report examined the all of the evidence from the Blount Report, and collected new evidence, before coming to a conclusion. We should do the same.
Paul Arrighi said,
January 19, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Good that Jere notes that we need to examine all the evidence. Ironically, this is something that the Morgan Report did not do. It only collected new evidence from 1 side of the argument, therefore invalidating its conclusion.
Anonymous said,
January 19, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
Congress already reviewed all the facts. Today to say that they missed something or they just didn’t get it is absurd. PL 103/150 was submitted by hawaii to the congressional body and passed, then signed by the president into law. Deal with it!!!!
Anonymous said,
January 19, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
>>Good that Jere notes that we need to examine all the evidence. Ironically, this is something that the Morgan Report did not do. It only collected new evidence from 1 side of the argument, therefore invalidating its conclusion.>Congress already reviewed all the facts. Today to say that they missed something or they just didn’t get it is absurd. PL 103/150 was submitted by hawaii to the congressional body and passed, then signed by the president into law. Deal with it!!!!
jere krischel said,
January 22, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
Congress already reviewed all the facts. Today to say that they missed something or they just didn’t get it is absurd. PL 103/150 was submitted by hawaii to the congressional body and passed, then signed by the president into law. Deal with it!!!!
In testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, April 17, 2002, Professor of Law Mr. Michael Glennon makes clear the fact that whereas clauses can have “no binding legal effect”:
Under traditional principles of statutory construction, these provisions have no binding legal effect. Only material that comes after the so-called “resolving clause”—“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled”—can have any operative effect. Material set out in a whereas clause is purely precatory. It may be relevant for the purpose of clarifying ambiguities in a statute’s legally operative terms, but in and of itself such a provision can confer no legal right or obligation.
In an response to the State of Hawai’i Appeal of the Arakaki Decision, the plaintiffs offered this information regarding the usage of the Apology Resolution whereas clauses:
Legislative statements in a preamble may help a court interpret the operative clauses of a particular statute by clarifying the legislative intent, but they do not legislate facts or confer rights. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction, §20.03 (5th ed. 1993). The Apology Resolution has no legally operative provisions. Indeed, it expressly settles no claims. 107 Stat. 1510 §3. The committee report says that the Resolution has no regulatory impact and does not change any law. S. Rep. 123-126. Its sponsor assured the Senate that it is only “a simple resolution of apology” and that it “has nothing to do” with “the status of Native Hawaiians.” 139 Congressional Record S14477, S14482 (October 27, 1993), SER 14. The Supreme Court in Rice demonstrated how to deal with the Apology Resolution: the Court cited it but decided the case based on the facts in the record.
jere krischel said,
January 22, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
Good that Jere notes that we need to examine all the evidence. Ironically, this is something that the Morgan Report did not do. It only collected new evidence from 1 side of the argument, therefore invalidating its conclusion.
Assuming that Blount collected the evidence pro-royalists wanted to exhibit, and Morgan accepted both Blount’s report and his direct testimony as evidence, the question is, was there any new evidence from the royalist side of the argument? Hadn’t they already made their 1 sided case with Blount?
Go ahead and read the entries in the Blount Report post 2/26/1894 Paul, and see what you learn from the source:
http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/blount.html
Paul Arrighi said,
February 1, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
To Jere and anonymous (Ken Conklin, I presume), yes Morgan did include Blount but what you fail to point out was that Morgan only included new evidence from the PG, which I stated in my first post. The result of the Morgan Report had already been predicted by William Springer in Dec 1893 and reasons for the result were given why such a decision was needed. The Morgan Report was a political cover up so the US could restore its integrity by distancing itself from the overthrow.
jere krischel said,
February 6, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Paul, you are incorrect on Springer’s words. Please see this page explaining how you’ve taken his words completely out of context.
http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Wasn%27t_the_Morgan_Report_an_orchestrated_white-wash%3F
Springer asserted that if we disarmed the Provisonal Government, and rearmed the queen, and the queen was unable to hold power, our integrity would have been preserved. He was a Clevelandite, and believed the Blount report. He in no way alluded to having a predetermined result from the Morgan Report.
jere krischel said,
February 6, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
what you fail to point out was that Morgan only included new evidence from the PG
You are also incorrect here Paul. Members of the U.S. military, citizens in Hawaii not related to the Provisional Government, Blount himself, and other parties testified during the Morgan hearings. Not every witness was a supporter of the Provisional Government.
If you have any evidence which you would have entered into the record, I suggest that if you offered it up, you can add to our knowledge about the issue. Otherwise, hypothetical ideas about possibly excluded evidence is really a red herring.
Paul Arrighi said,
February 7, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
You are incorrect and are the one quoting out of context Jere, I include the link for the full comment by Springer here http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABQ7578-0157-91
What you only state is part of the prelude that leads to Springers summary which offers 2 possible scenarios, restoration of the queen (which would implicate the USA in the over throw) or if the queen was not restored (which would effectively clear the USA from involvement).
Springer was not a Clevelandite or a staunch Blountist as you state on the Hawaiian Independence Blog, in fact Springer did personally interview PG representatives in Washington and also hoped that the Hawaiians would suppress the monarchy if it was restored.
Nothing taken out of context there, I suggest you go read Springer’s full article before you open your mouth to change feet.
jere krischel said,
February 16, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
I did read the entire Springer article Paul, which is how I caught your attempt at deception.
Springer did not say that if we didn’t reinstate the queen, our honor would be preserved.
Springer said that if we rearmed the queen, and disarmed the Provisional Government, and the queen was unable to maintain her throne, THEN our honor would be preserved.
Your exclusion of the preconditions Springer had for his 2 possible conclusions is dishonest and deceptive.
If I were to say that you could date my daughter if she were 18 years old, and consented, then I would have no problem with it, and you were to exclude the preconditions that she had to be 18 and consent, you would be guilty of twisting my words if you were to say “I can date his daughter, and he’ll have no problem with it”.
You have done that with Springer, and it is despicable.
Paul Arrighi said,
February 20, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
Poor attempt at deception Jere, ignore the desired end result and focus on the means, doesn’t work. For more on the motivation of the Morgan Report see here: http://paul-arrighi.livejournal.com/
Anonymous said,
February 20, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
>For more on the motivation of the Morgan Report see here