Hackler, Rhoda E.A.

Schmitt, Robert C.

eVols at University of Hawaii at Manoa

Notes & QueriesThe Journal welcomes responses to previously published articles, statements onHawaiian and Pacific history, and queries for information that will assistresearch. Opinions expressed here and elsewhere in the pages of the Journal arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Editorial Boardor the Hawaiian Historical Society.SOME NOTES ON CENSORSHIP IN HAWAI'I BEFORE 1950Hawai'i has in the past had some major brushes with censorship.Today, in contrast, censorship no longer seems to be much of anissue: a generally liberal population, vigilant watchdogs like theAmerican Civil Liberties Union and members of the press, statutoryreforms, and the end of military rule have supported considerableloosening of the strictures that once governed Island life. But thisfreedom is a fairly recent phenomenon, which in some details didnot take place until the 1950s or later.Censorship of the press first became evident in 1838, only fouryears after the founding of the kingdom's earliest newspaper. TheReverend Reuben Tinker, editor of Ke Kumu Hawaii, "became dissat-isfied with what he considered a despotic policy of the ABCFM [thesponsors of the Sandwich Islands Mission] which from Boston cen-sored materials for publication," wrote Helen Chapin. "He severedconnections in 1838 and soon departed from Hawai'i."1The Provisional Government was responsible for the first officialcensorship of newspapers. On January 30, 1893, only thirteen daysafter the overthrow of the monarchy, the RG. legislature enacted alaw forbidding "seditious libel," which it defined as any publishedstatement intended "to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excitedisaffection against the Provisional Government."2 A year later, thisstatute was made part of the 1894 Constitution of the Republic ofThe Hawaiian Journal ofHistory, vol. 28 (1994)157158 THE HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORYHawaii and was strengthened by a provision permitting the govern-ment to close down any "libelous" newspaper (and any successorpaper edited, published, or owned by the same personnel) for aslong as four years.3 Under this law, "a score of suits were filed againsta dozen newspapers and their Hawaiian and haole editors and print-ers," notably the royalist and bilingual KaHolomua (The Progressive).As Chapin noted, the 1894 Constitution "in effect cancelled freedomof speech."4 The laws against "seditious libel" were repealed in 1900by the Organic Act.5Different kinds of censorship were imposed during World War I."Late on Thursday, April 5, [1917,] a strict censorship was placed onthe wireless service," according to Ralph Kuykendall. In spring 1918,the Vigilance Corps discovered that copies of a book thought to besympathetic to Germany, The War as Seen Through German Eyes, werebeing circulated, and remaining copies were immediately seized byfederal authorities: after a long trial, its author, F. H. Schurmann, wasstripped of his citizenship.bCensorship was far more pervasive in Hawai'i during World War II."Army and Navy censors were on the job at telephone, radio, andcable companies within two hours after the [Pearl Harbor] attack,"wrote Gwenfread Allen. "They moved into newspaper offices, andthey were soon reading the mail at the post office. Censors listenedto all inter-island and transpacific telephone calls. . . . All radioscripts were censored, and no 'ad-libbing' was allowed."7 J. GarnerAnthony, wartime attorney general of the territory, wrote: "In theyear 1942 there existed no free press in Hawaii. The press operatedunder a military censorship . . . which prohibited publication ofnews items of general interest . . . related to the regime of militarygovernment." The armed forces also controlled shipping alloca-tions and newsprint.8 As in 1918, censorship ended with the end ofhostilities.The censorship of books, pictures, and theatrical performanceswas first authorized during the 1850s. The Penal Code of 1850banned "any obscene picture, or pamphlet, sheet or other thing con-taining obscene language, obscene prints, figures, descriptions orrepresentations."9 Nine years later, the Civil Code of 1859 providedfor licensing "any theater, circus, Hawaiian hula, public show or otherexhibition, not of an immoral character."10 These laws were amendedNOTES & QUERIES 159in 1909 (to include moving picture shows), 1915, and 1929 and dur-ing various periods referred to "obscene and censorious or ridiculouspublications" and "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent ordisgusting . . . pictures or stories of lust or crime."11 They survived,largely intact, until their recent repeal, one statute in 1972 and theother in 1982.12Notwithstanding such legislation, movies made or shown inHawai'i seem to have escaped formal censorship. The chief threatoccurred in 1939, when territorial Senator David K. Trask, upset bythe portrayal of Hawaiians "as a group of savages" in a Hollywoodmusical, Honolulu, unsuccessfully proposed legislation to create athree-member censorship board to restrict local showings to films of"a moral, educational and amusing and harmless character."13 In Jan-uary 1946, three local Americans of Japanese Ancestry "formed acommittee of voluntary censors to review prewar Japanese films soas to ban all showings here if any of them put forth pro-Japanesepropaganda or the spirit of 'bushido,' or its handmaiden, the themeof revenge." Particularly incensed by the classic 47 Ronin, the grouprelied mostly on "moral force."14Although live entertainers presumably tested public morals fromtime to time and consequently incurred police action, relatively fewcases in the postwar years achieved much notoriety. One case that didso involved the Beretania Follies, an "adult movie" house at 1229Kamanuwai Lane, which in July 1947 initiated regular stage shows,beginning with "Cover Girl Scandals."15 The Follies' new live offer-ings, featuring leggy strippers and baggy-pants comedians, quicklyattracted the attention of police and church. According to anaccount published in November 1947,When the police closed a strip joint in the Aala Park district inHonolulu . . . the Judge said he couldn't tell whether the show wasindecent or not unless he saw it. So, [Defense] Attorney O. P. Soaresand the Judge, District Court Magistrate Clifton H. Tracy, braved theirway down "Tin Can" alley . . . to witness a private performance of thestrip tease act put on by a group of malihini wahines who were arrestedfor same. . . . [After viewing the performance,] the Judge . . .announced from the bench: "The women in this show were as wellclothed as the women on the beach at Waikiki and the jokes werecorny."16l 6 o THE HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORYSome of Hawai'i's major bouts with censorship were exceedinglyserious in their civil rights implications but fortunately limited induration. The suppression of free speech after the overthrow of themonarchy and during both world wars is especially troubling. Theprohibition on moral grounds against offensive books, art, plays, andmovies, in contrast, was much longer lasting. Such censorship, how-ever, was pretty common throughout the United States during thoseyears and was seldom viewed then as a civil rights issue. Motion pic-tures, curiously, seem to have escaped systematic censorship in theIslands.Submitted by Robert C. SchmittNOTES1 Helen G. Chapin, "Newspapers of Hawai'i 1834 to 1903: From He Liona to thePacific Cable," HJH 18 (1984):52.2 Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 1893-1894, Act 8.3 Constitution of the Republic, Art. 3, in Penal Laws 1897, p. 2; Penal Laws 1897,chap. g6, sec. 1620—1625.4 Chapin, "Newspapers of Hawaii" 70—71; Albertine Loomis, For Whom Arethe Stars (Honolulu: UP of Hawaii and Friends of the Library of Hawaii, 1976)47-48.5 Organic Act, sec. 7: see Revised Laws of Hawaii (RLH) 1905:47—49.6 Ralph S. Kuykendall, Hawaii in the World War (Honolulu: The Historical Com-mission, 1928) 17,424.7 Gwenfread Allen, Hawaii's War Years 1941—1945 (Honolulu: U of Hawaii P,1950) 146. See also DeSoto Brown, Hawaii Goes to War (Honolulu: EditionsLimited, 1989) 84-85.8 J. Garner Anthony, Hawaii Under Army Rule (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1955)39-40.9 Penal Code 1850, chap. 37, sec. 7—12.10 Civil Code 1859, sec. 96 and 97; Penal Code 1869, chap. 55, sec. 6 and 7.11 SLH 1909, Act 96; SLH 1915, Act 191; SLH 1929, Act 221.12 Hawaii Revised Statutes (1968), sec. 445-161 to 165 and sec. 727-8; SLH 1972,Act 9; SLH 1982, Act 208.13 Senate Journal 1939, references to SB no. 237 on pp. 298—99, 316, and 1565;"Movie Censor Board of 3 Is Asked in Bill," HSB 10 Mar. 1939:1, 4; "MovieCensorship Support Is Denied," HSB 11 Mar. 1939:1, 3.14 "Voluntary AJA Soldier Group Censors Japanese Movies Here," HA 18 Jan.1946:1,7.NOTES & QUERIES l 6 l"Jim Becker's Hawaii," HSB 26 Apr. 1967:C-16; advertisements in HSB for 1July 1947 (p. 12), 5 July 1947 (p. 19), 2 Sept. 1947 (p. 8).Harold Godfrey, "Strip Tease Command Performance," Hawaiian Digest Nov.1947:13-14.UNWARRANTED PROMOTIONSThere is a small but significant error in the otherwise excellent articleby Philip H. Harris on Charles Coffin Harris in volume 27 (1993) ofThe Journal of Hawaiian History. In several places in the article Mr.Harris incorrectly uses the title "ambassador" for Major GeneralEdward M. McCook, a diplomatic representative of the United Statesaccredited to Hawai'i. Mr. McCook's official title was minister resi-dent, a lower rank in the diplomatic service than ambassdor. TheKingdom of Hawai'i never had an ambassador assigned to its govern-ment, nor did the Republic of Hawai'i. In recent years Foreign Ser-vice officers with the personal rank of ambassador were posted toHawai'i in the office of POLAD (Political Advisor to CINCPAC), but thepost did not carry the rank of ambassador.On page 158 Mr. Harris refers to Minister McCook as an ambassa-dor, putting the title in lower case. This is acceptable in the genericsense of an ambassador being an envoy and is particularly under-standable in view of the possible confusion over diplomatic ministersand religious ministers. On page 169, Mr. Harris again refers toMcCook as "no longer ambassador to the Hawaiian Islands," whichagain is permissible, but in the next paragraph when he refers to"Ambassador James McBride" he has overstepped the leeway whichcan be allowed a historian. Dr. McBride was also a minister resident,never an ambassador. If Mr. Harris will refer to Ralph Kuykendall'sHawaiian Kingdom, which he cites, he will notice that McBride is cor-rectly identified there as Minister McBride. Let's not promoteMcCook and McBride at this late date.Submitted by Rhoda E. A. Hackler

Notes & Queries

http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/153/1/JL28163.pdf

Notes & Queries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eVols at University of Hawaii at Manoa