Template:1024-1025

-p1024-

rights and powers of the people of Hawaii, as being peaceful or revolutionary?

Mr. STALKER. Certainly revolutionary.

Senator GRAY. I will ask you in that connection: Considering that revolutionary, would you consider the fact that no such proclamation of a change of constitution was actually declared, though intended to be declared, coupled with the fact that there was a declaration from the Queen that she had abandoned all idea of changing the constitution, except in accordance with its terms and requirements, revolutionary?

Mr. STALKER. The substitution of a constitution in any such way would be revolutionary.

Senator GRAY. Read the question. The question was read as follows: "I will ask you in that connection: Considering that revolutionary, would you consider the fact that no such proclamation of a constitution was actually declared, though intended to be declared, coupled with the fact that there was a declaration from the Queen that she had abandoned all idea of changing the constitution, except in accordance with its terms and requirements, revolutionary?"

Mr. STALKER. That would admit of a doubt, at least of its being revolutionary.

Senator GRAY. You are asked not a hypothetical question, but a question as to conduct that occurred. The Queen did, according to the evidence, announce her intention of proclaiming, on her own authority, a new constitution; but she never actually did it, but told those who wanted her to do it, and those of the population who were disposed to favor it, that she would defer it. She afterwards issued a proclamation to her people why she abandoned all idea of changing the constitution, except in accordance with its terms and requirements. Taking all that conduct together, do you consider it revolutionary?

Mr. STALKER. I should hardly think it was revolutionary.

The CHAIRMAN. The latter part of that question you certainly would not; that is, you came to the conclusion that the Queen intended to amend it in accordance with existing law?

Mr. STALKER. No; but to change it in accordance with existing law.

The CHAIRMAN. Take the first part of the question, with reference to the methods provided in the constitution of '87, by which the Queen assumed the right to declare the new constitution. Would you regard that revolutionary or a regular proceeding?

Senator GRAY. That is, if she had proclaimed it?

The CHAIRMAN. I speak of her purpose.

Mr. STALKER. Can I answer that in my own way?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it is your own way we want; not anybody else's.

Mr. STALKER. The act of imposing a constitution in such a way would certainly be irregular and revolutionary; if she had it in mind to do that thing, but did not do it, in my mind it would not be revolutionary. Have I answered that question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Suppose that the Queen had it in mind, and was prevented only by the fact of an opposing force which she was afraid would overturn her Government, would her motive and conduct be less revolutionary than they would have been had she gone on and accomplished it in the absence of such an opposing force?

Mr. STALKER. The motive might be; the conduct would not be.

Senator GRAY. Are you aware that this constitution of 1887 that the Queen had sworn to support, had been proclaimed by the King in precisely

-p1025-

the same way that the Queen proposed to proclaim the new constitution?

Mr. STALKER. Yes.

Senator GRAY. Without any reference to the Legislative Assembly or to the people at large?

Mr. STALKER. Yes.

Senator GRAY. You have already stated where you were from, and why you were out on those islands—that you had no interest politically, commercially or otherwise in those islands to affect your inclinations or feelings in regard to this matter?

Mr. STALKER. None whatever.

Senator GRAY. You were not a partisan of either side?

Mr. STALKER. No.

Senator GRAY. To what party do you belong in this country?

Mr. STALKER. I am a Republican.

Adjourned until to-morrow, the 26th iustant, at 10 o'clock a. m.

WASHINGTON, D. C, Friday, January 26, 1894. The subcommittee met pursuant to adjournment.

Present: The Chairman (Senator MORGAN) and Senator FRYE.

Absent: Senators BUTLER, GRAY, and SHERMAN.

SWORN STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MCCANDLESS—Continued.

The CHAIRMAN. I have examined the paper you handed me, entitled Two Weeks of Hawaiian History, from January 14 to January 28, and I find that it is copied into Mr. Blount's report. Do you agree with the statements in that history as being substantially true?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. The proceedings of the meeting which you attended, the mass meeting, as therein set forth are true as therein stated?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. They are true, except as I have noted. There is a typographical error that makes it the 17th where it should be the 16th, and about there being 1,260 present by actual count.

The CHAIRMAN. How many do you think there were?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. My estimate is that there from 1,000 to 1,200. This account of the organization of the government I know to be correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a list of the officers who were engaged in movements against the Queen's government?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I have a list [producing paper.] That is a partial list of the military officers engaged against the Queen's Government, it being a list of the officers who were in the revolution of 1887.

The CHAIRMAN. Were they in that revolution as officers or privates?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. As officers. I have given their official standing from 1887 to 1890. In 1890 they were disbanded, and the same ones came on the 17th of January, 1893, in support of the revolution.

The paper submitted by Mr. McCandless is as follows:

S. Doc. 231, pt 6------ 65