J. GARNER ANTHONY. Hawaii Under Army Rule. Pp. x, 203. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1955. $5.00
| Date | 01 March 1956 |
| Published date | 01 March 1956 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271625630400183 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
196
of
the
problems
of
the
new
Philippine
Re-
public
to
ascribe
the
recent
anti-Communist
victory
to
a
resettlement
plan
which
in
two
small
frontier
areas
in
Mindanao
might
ac-
count
for
a
few
hundred
reformed
Huks
out
of
a
force
which
was
once
estimated
at
a
hundred
thousand.
The
conclusion
which
the
reader
must
reach
is
that
in
a
country
of
democratic
traditions
the
threat
of
communism
may
be
met
successfully,
as
it
appears
to
have
been
in
the
Philippines,
only
by
first
creating
a
political,
economic,
and
social
atmosphere
favorable
to
the
peo-
ple
from
whom
the
government
stems.
In
a
book
on
the
same
subject,
Crusade
in
Asia
(1955),
compiled
from
a
rich
treasure
of
personal
reminiscences,
General
Carlos
Romulo
sounds
the
real
keynote
of
the
valiant
campaign
waged
by
his country-
men
in
answer
to
the
threat
and
the
prom-
ise
of
communism:
&dquo;When
a
government
is
clean,
competent,
honorable,
and
repre-
sentative
of
the
wishes
and
needs
of
the
people,
when
it is
the
people,
Communism
doesn’t
have
the
ghost
of
a
chance.&dquo;
ERNEST
SCHEIN
Washington,
D.
C.
J.
GARNER
ANTHONY.
Hawaii
Under
Army
Rule.
Pp.
x,
203.
Stanford,
Calif.:
Stanford
University
Press,
1955.
$5.00.
This
small
volume
tells
some
of
the
story
of
a
shameful
episode
in
recent
American
history.
In
the
fall
of
1941,
the
Hawaii
Legislature
enacted
a
sweeping
Defense
Act,
at
the
request
of
the
Commanding
General
and
vested
in
the
civil
governor
powers
over
the
inhabitants
of
Hawaii
and
their
prop-
erty
&dquo;adequate
to
meet
any
emergency
limited
only
by
minimum
safeguards
for
the
rights
of
the
individual.&dquo;
But,
within
hours
after
the
bombs
fell
on
Pearl
Harbor,
this
Act
was
bypassed,
the
privilege
of
the
writ
of
habeas
corpus
was
suspended,
mar-
tial law
was
proclaimed,
and
the
Command-
ing
General
became
military
governor
of
the
Territory
and
proceeded
&dquo;to
exercise
increasing
stringent
controls
over
the
civil
population ...
regardless
of
whether
or
not
they
[had]
any
basis
in
military
ne-
cessity.
These
controls
[were]
exercised
in
the
form
of
general
order
[which]
pro-
ceeded
upon
the
theory
that
the
Constitu-
tion
itself
and
all
federal
and
territorial
laws
may
be
freely
ignored
or
suspended
at
the
will
of
the
commanding
general.&dquo;
General
orders
regulated
food,
prices,
liquor
distribution;
froze
labor
in
civilian
occupa-
tions ;
substituted
provost
courts
disgrace-
fully
administered
for
the
civil
courts.
Garner
Anthony,
who
protested
this
con-
duct
both
as
private
citizen
and,
later,
as
Attorney
General
of
Hawaii,
writes
with
vigor
and
with
bitterness.
He
tells
the
story
as
seen
by
a
lawyer
reared
in
the
tra-
ditions
of
American
constitutionalism
and
respect
for
human
rights.
It
is
written
in
anger,
with
an
eloquence
that
should
arouse
equal
anger
in
the
reader-and
his
book
should
be
read
by
everyone
concerned
with
the
preservation
of
America
from
authori-
tarian
assaults,
whether
from
without
or
from
within.
One
of the
most
saddening
components
of
the
disturbing
complex
is
the
reported
complaisance
of
the
citizenry;
yes,
the
positive
endorsement
of
the
usur-
pation
by
eminent
and
influential
elements
of
the
population.
As
late
as
December
27,
1942,
the
Honolulu
Chamber
of
Com-
merce
declared
that
the
&dquo;military
governor
has
been
eminently
fair
and
considerate
of
our
civil
rights,&dquo;
while
about
the
same
time
one
of
the
two
large
local
newspapers
de-
clared
that
&dquo;Hawaii
has
been
a
test
tube
and
a
guinea
pig
for
what
might
happen
on
the
mainland.
It
does
not
mind
this
role.
It
is
proud
that
it
has
had
the
opportunity
to
serve
in
this
humble
way.... The
pub-
lic
has
accepted
military
rule.... It
does
not
ask
its
abolition
or
that
Washington
turn
over
all
of
the
duties
of
the
military
in
government
to
civilian
authority.&dquo;
The
author
indicates
that
other
elements
of
the
population
disagreed.
But
it
is
a
weakness
of
the
book
that
we
receive
no
rounded
portrayal
of
&dquo;Hawaii
under
army
rule.&dquo;
Mr.
Anthony
approaches
the
topic
as
a
lawyer,
and
largely
limits
himself
to
formal
legal
and
governmental
aspects
of
the
situation
described.
The
reader
would
welcome
application
to
the
subject
of
the
techniques
of
the
sociologist,
political
sci-
entist,
psychologist
to
the
end
that
he
be
given
the
full
story
of
American
citizens
under
military
government.
That
story
re-
mains
to
be
written.
Five
appendices
carry
the
proclamations
relating
to
martial
law,
the
general
orders
To continue reading
Request your trial