HAWAIIANGROUP. 35 



dependants. The chiefs having a common interest in preserving their 

 power, showed great poKteness and respect towards each other, so 

 much so that they felt themselves at liberty to call upon the depend- 

 ants of another without the fear of giving offence : this operated to 

 the disadvantage of the people, for instead of serving but one master 

 they were subject to several. 



As a general rule, however, the authority descended in the scale of 

 rank, rising from the lowest class of servants to tenants, agents, land- 

 holders, land-ovpners, petty chiefs, high chiefs, and the king, each one 

 ruling according to his own understanding, or that of his superiors. 

 Of course, civil rights could not be expected under such a state of 

 things, nor v^^ere any acknowledged to exist. Some general rules 

 seem to have had place, and when they were infringed the offender 

 was punished, particularly if the crime was of an aggravated nature. 



Murder was punished by death ; and in the time of Kamehameha I. 

 repeated instances of this crime and its punishment occurred. 



Grand larceny was also a capital offence, provided the injured 

 person had power to execute the law ; the king and chiefs not unfre- 

 quently espoused the cause of the injured party, and inflicted the 

 punishment. 



Adultery was likewise often punished by death, and, in a cele- 

 brated case, Kamehameha called upon his highest chiefs to act as 

 executioners. 



The taboo, or sacred law, restrained and regulated, in a considerable 

 degree, the will of those in authority, although it was in other respects 

 very oppressive to the people. A chief, who was a notorious violator 

 of taboo, soon became unpopular, and was eventually supplanted by 

 some other who stood in higher estimation. 



As far as there was any system in their government, it was deeply 

 interwoven with their religious taboos, and partook of law, custom, 

 and will. The taboos that were fixed may be considered as embraced 

 in the first; the second was founded on their superstitions; and the 

 last on the power the chiefs had to enforce them. Thus, no kings 

 have been thought to have governed exclusively by will and taboos; 

 custom and the fear of other chiefs had placed many restraints on 

 them. Among these was the influence of a certain class of men 

 whose business it was to give instruction, and rehearse the proverbs 

 handed down from their ancestors. These men often prophesied that 

 judgment would follow if these were neglected; but, notwithstanding, 

 as may readily be supposed, bad rulers contrived to evade the taboos 



