Andy Anderson, Candidate for Governor of Hawai’i in the Democrat Party Primary Election of 2002 -- Position Paper on Hawaiian Sovereignty


D.G. "Andy" Anderson

Candidate for Governor of Hawaii - 2002

I can recall, as a part Hawaiian youngster growing up in Honolulu, hearing Kupuna speaking among themselves in hushed tones. I could not understand what they were saying as they spoke in the native tongue. It seemed that we, the kamalii -- the children - were never addressed in 'olelo Hawaii, the Hawaiian language. I wondered how, without that interaction, we could learn it. All instruction in school was conducted in English. We were taught world and American history. We learned about Hawaii's annexation and its status as a territory, its agricultural and rural like character, but very little else. We knew that Hawaii was once a monarchy, presided over by its own King and Queen, a fact that could hardly be disguised, with Iolani Palace prominent on King Street in downtown Honolulu and the statue of King Kamehameha I directly across from it. But the details of how Hawaii transitioned from a Kingdom to a territory of the United States were never clearly known to us other than the fact that it happened and that supposedly it was a circumstance of good fortune.

As I grew to adulthood, I became more and more interested in Hawaii and its history and began to examine the past. Some believe that those who ignore history will likely repeat it. That is, perhaps, as good a reason as any for examining it, and this position paper is the result of that examination. I found Hawaii's history gripping and tragic. But it has provided me with a focus on Hawaiian issues and my thoughts on how, as Governor, I would deal with them. It is my hope that you find this interesting reading.


When a language is lost, a nation is lost. We need look no further for examples of the wisdom of this phrase than in our own backyard. It is the one thing that all too many fail to understand. People tend to think only in terms of the benefits derived from being a part of the United States of America. And there are, and have been, benefits to be sure. But the native Hawaiian paid a price for it. Those Hawaiian by blood and those Hawaiian at heart sense the loss. I know the feeling, for I am Hawaiian. The 'eha -- the hurt, the pain -- is never far away. I think often of what the world might look like today from a Hawaiian perspective if things had been different in 1893. Some, maybe even many, might say that things happened for the best. I say, "Perhaps so, but we will never know, will we?" And it is the unknowing that fans the fire inside and creates a longing for justice.

When Hawaiians lost their language through a policy of suppression, they lost their ability to think as Hawaiians; they lost Hawaiian thought and philosophy; and as more and more of their culture and traditions were submerged by a language, a way of life and a value system that came from distant continents, they came perilously close to losing their homeland. There is no other Hawaii but Hawaii itself. Except for the Native American Indian, no other group of people in this "immigrant" nation of ours has had to face this danger. The Hawaiian renaissance has forced the status of Hawaiians to the forefront; and what was unspeakable just five decades ago -- the issue of sovereignty -- is now a rallying call for many. I believe it is a call that deserves an answer; it is a call that needs an answer. And in light of Public Law 103-150, the Apology Bill, I am convinced that the United States must either act or face the prospect of a finding by a World Court, pursuant to international law, that may not be to its liking. All who aspire to the governorship must be prepared to deal with the issue. They must enable Hawaiians to exercise the right of self-determination, but they must be helpful without being intrusive.


All free men who firmly believe that liberty and justice are cornerstones of a civilized society would be appalled, as I was, at the circumstances that surrounded the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I can well imagine the agony that Queen Lili'uokalani was forced to endure on January 17, 1893. But I can also applaud the magnificent manner in which she dealt with it.

Besieged by a conspiracy that can only be described as treasonous, aided and abetted by the ardent annexationist John Stevens as U.S. Minister in residence, and facing the prospect of armed insurrection through the support of military forces of the United States, Queen Lili'uokalani, the last reigning monarch of the Kingdom, declared that day:

"I, Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Kingdom, Queen, do herby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a provisional government of and for this Kingdom."

"That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said provisional government."

"Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands."

It was to be the Hawaiian people's "Day of Infamy".

I need to remember, and to remind all, that our Queen protested the abrogation of her authority and her government. She protested not to the provisional government but to the United States government, and asked for redress. History records the Queen's action as a well calculated one. I could not agree more. Any protest to the provisional government would have been entirely futile. After all, those in the provisional government were the schemers and perpetrators. When Sanford Dole accepted the Queen's communiqu* he did not challenge her surrender to "the superior force of the United States of America", and by failing to do so he acknowledged the protest and the reasonable expectation by any fair minded person that a process of investigation by the United States into the causes and circumstances of the change in governance would ensue. It was more than the Queen had hoped for.

History now recalls that the Queen's cry of protest did not fall upon deaf ears. In response to it, President Grover Cleveland sent former Congressman James Blount to investigate. In his subsequent report to the President, Mr. Blount concluded that United States diplomatic representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government. Whereupon the United States Minister, Mr. John Stevens, was recalled from his diplomatic post and the commander of United States forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission. On March 9, 1893, President Cleveland withdrew the annexation treaty from the Senate "for the purpose of reexamination". Further, on December 18, 1893, the President sent a message to the Congress. I found the message quite revealing and commend its reading to all, especially its following provisions:

"I suppose that right and justice should determine the path to be followed in treating this subject. If national honesty is to be disregarded and a desire for territorial extension, or dissatisfaction with a form of government not our own, ought to regulate our conduct, I have entirely misapprehended the mission and character of our Government and the behavior which the conscience of our people demands of our public servants."

"When the present Administration entered upon its duties, the Senate had under consideration a treaty providing for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the territory of the United States. Surely under our Constitution and laws the enlargement of our limits is a manifestation of the highest attribute of sovereignty, and if entered upon as an Executive act, all things relating to the transaction should be clear and free from suspicion."

"These considerations might not of themselves call for interference with the completion of a treaty entered upon by a previous Administration. But it appeared from the documents accompanying the treaty when submitted to the Senate, that the ownership of Hawaii was tendered to us by a provisional government set up to succeed the constitutional ruler of the islands, who had been dethroned, and it did not appear that such provisional government had the sanction of either popular revolution or suffrage. Two other remarkable features of the transaction attracted attention. One was the extraordinary haste characterizing all the transactions connected with the treaty. . . . between the initiation of the scheme for a provisional government in Hawaii on the `14th day of January and the submission to the Senate of the treaty of annexation concluded with such government, the entire interval was thirty-two days, fifteen of which were spent by the Hawaiian Commissioners in their journey to Washington."

"In the next place, upon the face of the papers submitted with the treaty, it clearly appeared that there was open and undetermined an issue of fact of the most vital information. The message of the President accompanying the treaty that declared that 'the overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this Government,' and in a letter to the President from the Secretary of State, also submitted to the Senate with the treaty, the following passage occurs: 'At the time the provisional government took possession of the Government buildings no troops or officers of the United States were present or took part whatever in the proceedings. No public recognition was accorded to the provisional government by the United States Minister until after the Queen's abdication and when they were in effective possession of the Government buildings, the archives, the treasury, the barracks, the police station, and all the potential machinery of the Government.' But a protest also accompanied said treaty, signed by the Queen and her ministers at the time she made way for the provisional government, which explicitly stated that she yielded to the superior force of the United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support such provisional government."

"The truth or falsity of this protest was surely of the first importance. If true, nothing but the concealment of its truth could induce our Government to negotiate with the semblance of a government thus created, nor could a treaty resulting from the acts stated in the protest have been knowingly deemed worthy of consideration by the Senate. Yet the truth or falsity of the protest had not been investigated."

"These conclusions (of Mr. Blount's) do not rest for their acceptance entirely upon Mr. Blount's honesty and ability as a man, nor upon his acumen and impartiality as an investigator. They are accompanied by the evidence upon which they are based, which evidence is also herewith transmitted, and from which it seems to me no other deductions could possibly be reached than those arrived at by the Commissioner."

"The report with its accompanying proofs, and such evidence as is now before the Congress or is herewith submitted, justifies in my opinion the statement that when the President was led to submit the treaty to the Senate with the declaration that 'the overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this Government', and when the Senate was induced to receive and discuss it on that basis, both President and Senate were misled."

Recalling the Queen's written protest and her intent in yielding to the superior force of the United States, the President said: "This protest was delivered to the chief of the provisional government, who endorsed thereon his acknowledgment of its receipt. The terms of the protest were read without dissent by those assuming to constitute the provisional government, who were certainly charged with the knowledge that the Queen instead of finally abandoning her power had appealed to the justice of the United States for reinstatement in her authority; and yet the provisional government with this unanswered protest in its hand hastened to negotiate with the United States for the permanent banishment of the Queen from power and a sale of her kingdom."

"Our country was in danger of occupying the position of having to actually set up a temporary government on foreign soil for the purpose of acquiring through that agency territory which we had wrongfully put in its possession.

The control of both sides of a bargain acquired in such a manner is called by a familiar and unpleasant name when found in private transactions . . . I believe that a candid and thorough examination of the facts will force the conviction that the provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States . . . Fair minded people with the evidence before them will hardly claim that the Hawaiian Government was overthrown by the people of the islands or that the provisional government had ever existed with their consent. I do not understand that any member of this government claims that the people would uphold it by their suffrages if they were allowed to vote on the question."

". . . Believing, therefore, that the United States could not, under the circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly incurring the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of annexation to the Senate for its consideration . . .".

"In commending this subject to the extended powers and wide discretion of the Congress, I desire to add the assurance that I shall be much gratified to cooperate in any legislative plan which may be devised for the solution of the problem before us which is consistent with American honor, integrity, and morality."

President Cleveland's refusal to support annexation spawned the creation of the Republic of Hawaii, the provisional government's answer to the failed attempt at annexation in 1893. Unfortunately, his defeat by William McKinley in the presidential election of 1896 removed Grover Cleveland from the final resolution, but he remained sympathetic to the Queen and opposed to annexation, calling it outrageously disgraceful. Members of the provisional government found a more receptive climate in the McKinley Administration, and, to its dubious credit, successfully lobbied for a new investigation into the circumstances of the overthrow. Annexation took place despite the fact: (1) that 38,000 people, predominantly Kanaka Maoli, signed petitions opposing annexation [the Native Hawaiian population at the time numbered less than 40,000]; (2) that a treaty of annexation failed to gain the 60 votes needed for ratification in the US Senate [annexation took place, instead, by a Joint Resolution of Congress - the Newlands Resolution - passed by a simple majority of each house amidst the fever of war with Spain and the claimed need of Hawaii as a refueling port for ships with troops bound for the Philippines to engage the Spanish]; and (3) that annexation by joint resolution is unconstitutional under U.S. law and not possible under international law. I find it incomprehensible.

It would take 100 years before the facts surrounding the overthrow of the Kingdom would be given full and fair consideration in the halls of Congress, but on October 27, 1993, the United States Senate considered and passed the Apology Bill -Senate Joint Resolution 19; the U.S. House did likewise on November 15, 1993; and President William J. Clinton signed the measure on November 23, 1993 as Public Law 103-150. The Public Law declares that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 was illegal; that it occurred with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States; and that it resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.


In the debate of the apology resolution on the Senate floor, the Honorable Slade Gorton, Senator from the State of Washington opposed the bill because he believed ". . . the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence. That is the only way that the clock can ever truly be turned back." There are scholars who tend to agree.

Among them is a Francis Anthony Boyle, Esq., professor in international law at the University of Illinois. On examining P.L. 103-150, he opined that the US has admitted that they overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is an "admission against interest" and clearly an illegal act under standards of international law existing at the time. He goes further to say that the implications of the law are for the Hawaiian people to decide; not Congress, not the State of Hawaii. It is their call, the Hawaiian people, pursuant to their right of self-determination. The Hawaiian people should determine the remedy appropriate for the loss of their entire sovereign nation state.


We are a nation governed by law. We take pride in that fact; pride in the fact that those laws protect the rights of all citizens -- the strong, the weak, the vulnerable, the poor, the rich -- regardless of their station in life. That must be a fundamental premise; it must be the pinnacle of whatever process and resolution is fashioned.

Public Law 103-150 is the law of the land. The findings of fact as regards the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States' wrongful participation in that act have been stated clearly without ambiguity, debated and passed by the Congress and approved by the President. As a nation governed by law, we must accept what has now been cast in statute. President Cleveland put it well when, in 1893, he wrote:

"The law of nations is founded upon reason and justice, and the rules of conduct governing individual relations between citizens or subjects of a civilized state are equally applicable as between enlightened nations. The considerations that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace. A man of true honor protects the unwritten word which binds his conscience more scrupulously, if possible, than he does the bond a breach of which subjects him to legal liabilities; and the United States in aiming to maintain itself as one of the most enlightened of nations would do its citizens gross injustice if it applied to its international relations any other than a high standard of honor and morality. On that ground the United States can not properly be put in the position of countenancing a wrong after its commission any more than in that of consenting to it in advance. On that ground it can not allow itself to refuse to redress an injury inflicted through an abuse of power by officers clothed with its authority and wearing its uniform; and on the same ground, if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States can not fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation."

In Public Law 103-150 the United States apologizes to the Hawaiian people for its part in destroying their sovereign nation state and depriving them of the right to self determination and promises to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people. As Governor, I will affirm that support, but will also acknowledge the Hawaiians' right to seek, in any lawful endeavor, a remedy that may go beyond mere apology and reconciliation. It is my firm belief, after having examined the evidence presented to me, that Native Hawaiians have a strong case for independence and could prevail in an international court pursuant to international law. Support of Hawaiians' right to self-determination could avoid the acrimonious and divisive debate that would otherwise surely follow; it would help reason prevail over emotion.

I concur with Senator Slade Gorton of the State of Washington when he says that independence is a logical implication of P.L. 103-150, but differ with him in that I believe independence is but one of several logical implications. There are those who believe in independence as the only resolution. There are also those who would rather contemplate some other form of sovereignty. Many believe that history, once played out, cannot be rewritten; that one can't "turn back the clock" and begin anew; nor are Hawaiians predisposed to "run from the United States".

Sons and daughters from Hawaii, and in this context I refer to Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians alike, sacrificed their lives in the interest of freedom and justice on the battlefields and in the skies of Europe, the islands of the Pacific, Korea, Vietnam, the Mid East, Central Asia, and our own Pearl Harbor. Each year on the occasion of Memorial and Veterans' Days and the 4th of July, Hawaii resounds with voices raised in honor of those who served with distinction in the 100th Infantry Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team in the hills, valleys and forests of Italy and France; of those who served in Korea with "Hawaii's Own" the 5th Regimental Combat Team, the 4th Cav, the 24th Division, and the Tropic Lightning Division; of those who served in Da Nang, Pleiku, the Mekong Delta, and other areas of South Vietnam; of those who served in the Gulf War and, more recently, in the bleakness of Afghanistan. I do not believe for a moment that the people of Hawaii, and especially Hawaiians who have proven themselves as able, stalwart, and reliable soldiers, are about to turn their backs on the sacrifices that have been made. Alienating these islands from the United States would symbolize precisely that.

Moreover, Hawaiians are, by nature, a forgiving people. After all, forgiveness is an essence of Aloha. I cannot think of any finer example of Hawaiian Aloha than Lili'uokalani who, on her seventy-seventh birthday, sat at the head of the receiving line when Lorrin A. Thurston, the firebrand of the overthrow, entered. He wrote: "She extended her hand to me and said: "I am very glad to see you here this evening Mr. Thurston.' Those were the first words she had spoken to me since her deposition, they were the last words she spoke to me. The incident pleased me, for it indicated that she had finally accepted annexation and no longer harbored resentment against me personally." Mr. Thurston was only half right -- she had forgiven him. She understood that forgiveness was a virtue to be nurtured, but did not oblige one to forget. Hawaiians today can look to her as an exemplary model of guidance.

Hawaiians are also a compassionate people. They need not be reminded that hundreds of thousands have come to populate these islands; hundreds of thousands who had not the remotest link to the events of 1893. They have put roots down in Hawaii; built their homes; raised their children and grandchildren here and hope to live out their years in Hawaii. They need to be assured that the Hawaiian agenda does them no harm in any way. A prominent member of the Hawaiian community once commented, not too long ago, "Our huhu , anger, at the loss of the Kingdom is more properly directed at the rascals who overthrew the Queen. And none of them is around today." .If we keep that in mind - and I am confident that we will - the Hawaiian quest for justice can only gain even greater respectability.

The world in which we operate today is far different from a century ago. Through the wonders of technology, what happens in Hawaii this morning can be on this evening's news in Washington. It took the provisional government's commissioners 15 days to travel to Washington in 1893. The same journey today can be accomplished in12 hours. The people whom we need to deal with today are informed, worldly, and sensitive to public issues. Hawaiians have not always found favor with national Administrations of the past. The Administration of President George H. Bush, for one, displeased us for its opposition to Hawaiian initiatives. Whether the decisions of his Administration stemmed from the President's personal convictions or from advice of his advisors, I can't say because I simply don't know. But what should concern us now is whether we will receive the same treatment from the son, the sitting President George W. Bush. I think it is too early to tell. However, recent disclosures of executive and corporate malfeasance at Enron, Arthur Anderson LLC, and WorldCom offer a glimmer of hope that things could change. President Bush's announced indignation at corporate and executive misconduct and his call for stringent measures, even criminal penalties, for transgressions evident his intent to set wrongs aright. And it doesn't seem far fetched to think that if a truer account of the cessation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the annexation of Hawaii were known to him, he would see the justice in the Hawaiian position and seek to correct that wrong as well.

For a hundred years, Hawaiians have looked for some acknowledgment that the events of January 1893 were illegal and totally unjustified. P.L. 103-150 accomplishes that; but the victory would be a hollow one if simply left there. Hawaiians are interested in one thing and one thing only -- Justice!

Is there justice for Hawaiians when the United States pays the government of the Marshall Islands millions each year for the use of Kwajalein as a base of operations and subsidizes the Federated States of Micronesia and the Government of the Northern Marianas under compacts of association while Hawaiians receive nothing for the use of Hawaiian lands? And was there justice when the United States paid the Philippines for its presence at Clark Air Base and Subic Bay while Hawaiians received nothing for military bases in Hawaii?

The road to Justice can begin by compensating Hawaiians for the use of lands by the Federal Government, to include such areas as Pearl Harbor, Hickam Field, Schofield Barracks, the Marine Corps Base at Kaneohe, the Pohakuloa training site, and others. U.S. military bases in foreign countries do not come rent free; or, if not in the form of direct rental payments, in the shape of foreign aid packages. If the United States can pay other countries for the use of land and facilities, why can't it compensate the Hawaiian people in like manner? It offers Hawaiians an alternative to independence.

The Hawaiian people have continued to suffer. The events of 1893 were just the beginning. Today Hawaiians are battling on several fronts to preserve what little they have from further erosion. The Hawaiian Homestead Act of 1920 was supposed to put Hawaiians back on the land. In spite of the Federal Government's trust responsibility to Hawaiians, the program was consistently underfunded and many died while on its waiting lists. Despite the program's less than spectacular performance, Hawaiians are spending time and money today against litigation aimed at opening the program to all, disenfranchising Hawaiians in the process. In 1978 Hawaii voters approved an amendment to the State Constitution establishing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to work in behalf of Hawaiians. A U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down the "Hawaiians only vote" in elections for OHA trustees and thereby opened the doors to further assaults on Hawaiian benefits. There is on-going litigation that seeks to terminate OHA funding and/or expand OHA services to everyone. The bleeding has to stop and the wounds repaired and healed.

In 1883, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop bequeathed her sizeable estate consisting of substantial real property to the establishment and operation of the Kamehameha Schools for the education of Hawaiian children. She chose, as the first trustees of her estate, five well- known haole members of the community: her husband Charles Reed Bishop, Samuel M. Damon, Charles M. Hyde, Charles M. Cooke, and William O. Smith. She charged them with the responsibility to carry into effect the trusts she established. It was to be done, and was in fact accomplished, with her own funds and assets.

The question over whether beneficiaries of her trust were to be children of Hawaiian blood only, or any child of Hawaii arose early in the School's history. The Princess was specific in her will that her trustees were to devote a part of each year's income to the "support and education of orphans and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood" (underscoring added). Except in the reference to orphans and indigents, her will does not otherwise include language that is exclusive to Hawaiians. And that is where the argument has raged. But there are three factors that provide rather clear evidence of the Princess' intentions:

  1. In 1883, the year her Last Will and Testament was drawn up, the Hawaiian population had diminished to 40,000, from an estimated 300,000 plus at Cook's arrival. In her lifetime alone, Princess Pauahi had seen her people decline, from 130,000 in 1831, the year of her birth, to 40,000 in 1883. She had seen them ravaged and decimated by foreign disease and illness; had seen them alienated from the land and a traditional lifestyle that had amply supported them at one time. King Kalakaua even urged his people to multiply. It was that bad. So, one might ask, who were the orphans and indigents of the time? And where was Princess Pauahi's greatest concern?
  1. After the Princess' death, Charles Reed Bishop, in addressing the question of beneficiaries and admissions, said on more than one occasion that Princess Pauahi intended that Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood have first right of admission as long as there were sufficient numbers available to make up a good school.
  1. The Princess' first trustees affirmed that intention. They were personally acquainted with Pauahi and certainly in position to know and understand what she intended; they were men of standing in the community, in whose hands were held not only the economic reigns of Hawaii but the social norms as well.

The issue is before us once again and this time perhaps for a long while. Only last week, the school administration and the board of trustees made a decision to admit a non-Hawaiian student to its Maui campus and thereby created a storm of protest and anguish from alumni and others in the Kamehameha family. It was incomprehensible that with the number of Hawaiian children awaiting admission, not a single one could be found to fill the vacancy on Maui. In the meeting with alumni that followed, it seemed that concerns with the IRS played a big part in the decision.

I can understand their feelings on the matter. I believe all Hawaiians do -- and that includes myself. The decision portends further intrusions on the Princess' estate and her concern for the welfare of her people, and adds to a diminishing list of Hawaiian benefits. Despite the Princess' wishes and admonishment to her trustees against the sale of lands in her estate, Hawaiians have seen 70,184 acres of the corpus lost in the period 1884-1963 (and more since then) through a combination of condemnations, exchanges, and sales. Much of these losses were precipitated by eminent domain proceedings and mandatory lease to fee conversion laws. The estate enjoys tax exempt status, but with that comes close scrutiny from the IRS, including not only matters of revenue, but the matter of admissions as well. In 1998 and 1999, the IRS audit provided the leverage for removing the entire Board of Trustees. It was either that or withdrawal of the tax exempt status.

Feelings are running so high that some have suggested that the exempt status be given up in order to escape IRS oversight. I am Hawaiian by birth and a businessman by profession. On that question, my business sense tells me quite clearly that the tax exempt status serves the best interest of the schools and, by extension, the beneficiaries. Education, whether public or private, is a very expensive proposition requiring every possible means of assistance. Kamehameha is engaged in a major expansion of services, with new campuses on Maui and Hawaii and a new outreach program. Its tax exempt status enables Kamehameha to offer quality education at a modest and affordable cost. Building new campuses is only the beginning and is the least of expenses. The cost of operating, maintaining, supplying, and staffing them is where the big money rests, because those are fixed costs that will continue well into the future. Without the tax exempt status, the cost of attending Kamehameha could be prohibitive for many and it wouldn't be long before the schools would be home only for the well to do. Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop's Estate is good not only for Hawaiians, it is good for all of Hawaii. Its tax exempt status provides for a greater level of discretionary income, which translates to more dollars available for spending in the economy. We need to do two things: maintain the tax exempt status and seek a strategy that would legally permit the preference for Hawaiian admissions. .

I want to see Pauahi's legacy continued for Hawaiian children, just as the Kamehameha alumni does. I think the first step is to look to ourselves. We need to avoid any bickering, and that should start by welcoming that Maui student and his family to the ohana. He fell through the cracks in the admission process. We can voice our displeasure at that decision that allowed him in, but not at his presence. To do so will only worsen matters. We need to remember that this is an issue for all Hawaiians, not just graduates. In fact, it is a greater issue for those beneficiaries who are yet to be served by the estate. Those who have not attended Kamehameha exceed, by the tens of thousands, the number who have, and their counsel must be included.

As Governor, I would follow a policy of responsiveness over intrusiveness and intervention. I would have Hawaiians discuss and decide the remedy they would seek; they would be helped, not led; and my support would be available as long as the effort is done within the parameters of law.

I believe that any remedy lawfully permissible must have the consent of a clear majority of Hawaiians eligible under, and voting in, any plebiscite on the question. It is also my belief that a period of education must precede any plebiscite vote to better assure an informed electorate; so that the choices of remedy are clearly understood, both as regards their substance and their implications. To this end, therefore, I would support an educational effort to reach all Hawaiians regardless of their status, political affiliations or persuasions.

I would support a Constitutional Convention to draft a document of governance at a time when and if appropriate to the process. As Governor, I would work tirelessly for a fair resolution to the injustice of more than a hundred years ago.

Hawaii is known the world over as the land of Aloha. And what is Aloha but the sense of affection, hospitality, and genuine warmth of the people who first settled in Hawaii, the loveliest group of islands on the face of this earth. Without Hawaiians there would be no Aloha.


You may now