Template:956-957 - Revision history

Jere Krischel at 00:11, 2 January 2006

2006-01-02T00:11:16Z

Jere Krischel at 04:59, 12 December 2005

2005-12-12T04:59:40Z

New page

956 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
tne and their requests for expression of their sentiments led me to ask
Mr. Colburn, minister of the interior, at the close of his speech, what
assurance there was that the constituted police and military forces
would not make an attack? Whether the Queen's adherents would be
removed from command of them ! To this Mr. Colburn replied that as
a cabinet minister he ought not to be asked to answer such a question
in public, but that he could give assurances that a satisfactory settlement
was even then being made. He then withdrew and called me to
him—he was with Judge Hartwell—and to the best of my recollection
one of them said in substance that the matter of which I had spoken
was all right. A request to Mr. Stevens to land his forces had been prepared
and was in Hartwell's hands to be delivered; that Mr. Stevens
had consented to this for the purpose of defending the cabinet and the
constitution against any possible aggression by the Queen. Later,
Mr. Hartwell told me the paper had gone off for Mr. Peterson's signature
and asked me to get it. I tried but failed to find Peterson.
I have since been told that Mr. Peterson still has the paper, and that
for palpable reasons it was never shown to Mr. Blount.
The next morning the cabinet evaded all this and adhered to the
Queen, and Mr. Stevens stated that he could not assist a counter revolution
by the committee of safety.
The foregoing ought to explain the half truth upon which the old
cabinet bases its charges against the American minister.
CHARLES L. CARTER.
HONOLULU, January 2, 1893.
STATEMENT OF L. A. THURSTON, HAWAIIAN MINISTER, PUBLISHED
NOVEMBER 21, 1893.
WASHINGTON, November 21.
" I am urged to make a statement for publication, setting forth the
position and claims of the Hawaiian Government and making reply to
charges contained in Mr. Blount's report.
" As I have received no official information that Mr. Blount has
made a report, have not seen a copy of it, and do not know what it contains,
except from reading newspaper abstractions therefrom, and am
unaware of the present contentions of the U. S. Government concerning
Hawaii, I am unable, at present, in the absence of such knowledge,
to intelligently state what the position and claims of the Hawaiian
Government are. It would, moreover, be contrary to diplomatic
courtesy for me to publish a statement on such subject prior to informing
the U. S. Government of the same.
"A large portion of the published extracts from Mr. Blount's report
consists, however, of personal attacks upon me and those associated
with me in the Provisional Government, impugning our veracity, good
faith, and courage, and charging us with fraud and duplicity. I deem
it proper, therefore, to make a personal reply to such charges, confining
myself to statements of fact, of which, as a principal actor, I am prepared
to testify to before any impartial tribunal.
"First, before stating such facts, I desire to call attention to Mr.
Blount's method of constructing his report. Although he, in several
places, states that I was the leader of the revolutionary movement, he
has never asked me a question concerning the same, nor given me
opportunity to make any statement, although I have at all times been
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 957
ready and willing to do so. The same is true of a large number of other
men who took a leading part in the movement of January last.
"In the second place his evidence consists exclusively of prepared
affidavits or of answers to leading questions put by himself, at private
interviews, no one else being present but the stenographer. In no
instance has there been any cross-examination of witnesses or opportunity
given to contradict or explain evidence given or present other
evidence.
" A brief examination of the published portions of the report shows
numerous incorrect statements. I shall endeavor for the present, however,
to answer the more salient points only.
" First, Mr. Blount charges that the American troops were landed
under a prearranged agreement with the committee of safety that
they should so land and assist in the overthrow of the Queen. In
reply thereto, I hereby state that at no time did Mr. Stevens or Capt.
Wiltse assure me or the committee of safety, or any subcommittee
thereof, that the United States troops would assist in overthrowing
the Queen or establishing the Provisional Government; and, as a
matter of fact, they did not so assist. I can produce witnesses in support
of this statement, of the highest responsibility, in overwhelming
number, but Mr. Blount has rendered it unnecessary to do so. The
statements of Mr. Wundenburg and Mr. Damon have been put forward
as the strongest evidence in support of Mr. Blount's contention. In
Mr. Wundenburg's statement he says that when the committee of
safety told Mr. Stevens they were not ready to act, he replied: 'Gentlemen,
the troops of the Boston will land at 5 o'clock whether you are
ready or not.' The reason of this reply and the subsequent landing of
the troops is manifest. The troops were landed to protect American
citizens and property in the event of the impending and inevitable conflict
between the Queen and the citizens, and not to cooperate with
the committee in carrying out its plans. In fact, the troops did not
cooperate with the committee, and the committee had no more knowledge
than did the Queen's Government where the troops were going
nor what they were going to do. The whole gist of Mr. Damon's long
examination is likewise contained in his statement that when, after the
organization and proclamation of the new Government, the request
was made for the support of the United States troops it was refused,
Commander Swinburne, the commanding officer, sending back word,
'Capt. Wiltse's orders are, "Remain passive.'"
" Second, Mr. Blount charges that the Queenhad ample military force
with which to have met the committee, and but for the support of the
United States representatives and troops the establishment of the Provisional
Government would have been impossible. In reply thereto I
hereby state that, although the presence of the American troops had a
quieting effect on the rough characters in the city and may have prevented
some bloodshed, they were not essential to and did not assist in
the overthrow of the Queen. The result of the movement would have
been eventually the same if there had not been a marine within a
thousand miles of Honolulu.
" I n support of this statement I cite the following facts:
" 1 . The troops did not land till Monday night, the 16th of January,
after the revolution had been in full progress since the afternoon of
Saturday, the 14th, during which time the committee of safety was
openly organizing for the avowed purpose of overthrowing the Queen.
"2. There was absolutely no attempt at concealment from the Government
of the objects and intentions of the committee.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
+{{p|956}}
-tne and their requests for expression of their sentiments led me to ask
+me and their requests for expression of their sentiments led me to ask
 Mr. Colburn, minister of the interior, at the close of his speech, what
 assurance there was that the constituted police and military forces
 would not make an attack? Whether the Queen's adherents would be
-removed from command of them ! To this Mr. Colburn replied that as
+removed from command of them? To this Mr. Colburn replied that as
 a cabinet minister he ought not to be asked to answer such a question
 in public, but that he could give assurances that a satisfactory settlement
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 Mr. Hartwell told me the paper had gone off for Mr. Peterson's signature
 and asked me to get it. I tried but failed to find Peterson.
 I have since been told that Mr. Peterson still has the paper, and that
 for palpable reasons it was never shown to Mr. Blount.
 The next morning the cabinet evaded all this and adhered to the
 Queen, and Mr. Stevens stated that he could not assist a counter revolution
 by the committee of safety.
 The foregoing ought to explain the half truth upon which the old
 cabinet bases its charges against the American minister.
-CHARLES L. CARTER.
-HONOLULU, January 2, 1893.
+{{sc|Charles L. Carter}}<br/>
-STATEMENT OF L. A. THURSTON, HAWAIIAN MINISTER, PUBLISHED
+{{sc|Honolulu}}, ''January 2, 1893.''
 NOVEMBER 21, 1893.
-WASHINGTON, November 21.
-" I am urged to make a statement for publication, setting forth the
+==STATEMENT OF L. A. THURSTON, HAWAIIAN MINISTER, PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 21, 1893.==
 position and claims of the Hawaiian Government and making reply to
 charges contained in Mr. Blount's report.
 " As I have received no official information that Mr. Blount has
 made a report, have not seen a copy of it, and do not know what it contains,
 except from reading newspaper abstractions therefrom, and am
@@ Line 40: / Line 47: @@
 courtesy for me to publish a statement on such subject prior to informing
 the U. S. Government of the same.
 "A large portion of the published extracts from Mr. Blount's report
 consists, however, of personal attacks upon me and those associated
@@ Line 47: / Line 55: @@
 myself to statements of fact, of which, as a principal actor, I am prepared
 to testify to before any impartial tribunal.
 "First, before stating such facts, I desire to call attention to Mr.
 Blount's method of constructing his report. Although he, in several
@@ Line 52: / Line 61: @@
 has never asked me a question concerning the same, nor given me
 opportunity to make any statement, although I have at all times been
-HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 957
+{{p|957}}
 ready and willing to do so. The same is true of a large number of other
 men who took a leading part in the movement of January last.
 "In the second place his evidence consists exclusively of prepared
 affidavits or of answers to leading questions put by himself, at private
@@ Line 61: / Line 71: @@
 given to contradict or explain evidence given or present other
 evidence.
 " A brief examination of the published portions of the report shows
 numerous incorrect statements. I shall endeavor for the present, however,
 to answer the more salient points only.
 " First, Mr. Blount charges that the American troops were landed
 under a prearranged agreement with the committee of safety that
 they should so land and assist in the overthrow of the Queen. In
@@ Line 78: / Line 90: @@
 Mr. Wundenburg's statement he says that when the committee of
 safety told Mr. Stevens they were not ready to act, he replied: 'Gentlemen,
-the troops of the Boston will land at 5 o'clock whether you are
+the troops of the ''Boston'' will land at 5 o'clock whether you are
 ready or not.' The reason of this reply and the subsequent landing of
 the troops is manifest. The troops were landed to protect American
@@ Line 92: / Line 104: @@
 Commander Swinburne, the commanding officer, sending back word,
 'Capt. Wiltse's orders are, "Remain passive.'"
-" Second, Mr. Blount charges that the Queenhad ample military force
 with which to have met the committee, and but for the support of the
 United States representatives and troops the establishment of the Provisional
@@ Line 102: / Line 115: @@
 been eventually the same if there had not been a marine within a
 thousand miles of Honolulu.
-" I n support of this statement I cite the following facts:
-" 1 . The troops did not land till Monday night, the 16th of January,
+"In support of this statement I cite the following facts:
 after the revolution had been in full progress since the afternoon of
 Saturday, the 14th, during which time the committee of safety was
 openly organizing for the avowed purpose of overthrowing the Queen.
 "2. There was absolutely no attempt at concealment from the Government
 of the objects and intentions of the committee.