Difference between revisions of "Template:1036-1037"
Ken Conklin (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{p|1036}} | {{p|1036}} | ||
− | + | Mr. {{sc|Stalker.}} There was a party suggested it. I did | |
− | Mr. | ||
not suggest to Mr. | not suggest to Mr. | ||
English, nor he to me, about coming here. | English, nor he to me, about coming here. | ||
− | Senator | + | Senator {{sc|Frye.}} Was anything said about Mr. English |
coming over and becoming | coming over and becoming | ||
a professor? | a professor? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Stalker.}} We had some talk; yes-at least, I should |
say Mr. English made | say Mr. English made | ||
application to me with the view of securing a place; | application to me with the view of securing a place; | ||
Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
encouragement to think that he could secure a place. | encouragement to think that he could secure a place. | ||
− | Senator | + | Senator {{sc|Frye.}} Did you state to anybody here that |
when you were at the | when you were at the | ||
Government buildings on the day that the proclamation | Government buildings on the day that the proclamation | ||
Line 23: | Line 22: | ||
arms? | arms? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Stalker.}} I think not. |
− | Senator | + | Senator {{sc|Frye.}} Anything of that kind? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Stalker.}} I think not. |
− | Senator | + | Senator {{sc|Frye.}} Were you not informed that that |
statement could not be | statement could not be | ||
correct, because the testimony showed conclusively | correct, because the testimony showed conclusively | ||
Line 36: | Line 35: | ||
Building? | Building? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Stalker.}} I think my testimony was to the effect |
that the troops were | that the troops were | ||
in line with their arms. | in line with their arms. | ||
− | Senator | + | Senator {{sc|Frye.}} I was not asking what you testified |
− | to. | + | to. I asked you |
whether or not, previously to testifying before this | whether or not, previously to testifying before this | ||
committee, you stated | committee, you stated | ||
Line 50: | Line 49: | ||
the proclamation was being read? | the proclamation was being read? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Stalker.}} I did not. |
− | Senator | + | Senator {{sc|Frye.}} Anything of that kind? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Stalker.}} No; neither here nor elsewhere. |
− | Senator | + | Senator {{sc|Frye.}} And you were not told by anybody that |
that would not do, | that would not do, | ||
because the testimony showed that they were in the | because the testimony showed that they were in the | ||
back yard of Arion Hall? | back yard of Arion Hall? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Stalker.}} No. Your statement is the first that I |
heard of any such | heard of any such | ||
suggestion. | suggestion. | ||
Line 67: | Line 66: | ||
{{break}} | {{break}} | ||
− | + | ={{sc|Washington}}, D. C., ''Tuesday, January 30,1894.''= | |
− | |||
The subcommittee met pursuant to adjournment. | The subcommittee met pursuant to adjournment. | ||
− | Present. The chairman (Senator | + | Present. The chairman (Senator {{sc|Morgan}}) and Senators |
− | + | {{sc|Gray}} and {{sc|Frye}}. | |
− | Absent. Senators | + | Absent. Senators {{sc|Butler}} and {{sc|Sherman}}. |
− | SWORN STATEMENT OF P. W. REEDER. | + | ==SWORN STATEMENT OF P. W. REEDER.== |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Where do you reside and what is your |
age? | age? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} I am 68 years of age and I reside at |
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. | Cedar Rapids, Iowa. | ||
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Have you been in the Hawaiian Islands |
recently?? | recently?? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} I have. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} When was that? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} Last winter. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} How long a time did you stay there? |
Why did you go and | Why did you go and | ||
when did you come away? | when did you come away? | ||
{{p|1037}} | {{p|1037}} | ||
− | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} I do not remember the dates; but it was | |
− | Mr. | ||
during the months of | during the months of | ||
November, December, January, and February. | November, December, January, and February. | ||
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Had you ever been there before? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} No. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} I suppose you were there as a tourist? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} Yes. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Did you spend much of your time in |
Honolulu or through the | Honolulu or through the | ||
islands? | islands? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} Most of the time in Honolulu. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} In what month did you get there? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} I was there fifteen weeks in all, not |
quite four months. | quite four months. | ||
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} When you got there in November, did |
you ascertain or know | you ascertain or know | ||
whether there was any political excitement amongst the | whether there was any political excitement amongst the | ||
Hawaiian people? | Hawaiian people? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} None that appeared on the surface. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Was there any question of grave |
importance politically that | importance politically that | ||
was under discussion among the people? | was under discussion among the people? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} There was not. When you went to the |
state house you could | state house you could | ||
see there was friction between the parties. | see there was friction between the parties. | ||
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} What parties? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} They are divided there between what is |
called the native party | called the native party | ||
− | and the missionary party. | + | and the missionary party. The missionary party now |
does not mean | does not mean | ||
− | missionary per se | + | missionary ''per se''-persons who go there to teach |
− | religion | + | religion-but it is a party |
that has received that name because it is opposed to | that has received that name because it is opposed to | ||
native rule. | native rule. | ||
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Native rule or monarchical rule? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} That means native rule. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} What particular measures were under |
discussion upon which | discussion upon which | ||
these parties were divided? | these parties were divided? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} One thing which was in the Legislature |
there, and which gave | there, and which gave | ||
rise to a good deal of ill feeling, was the discussion | rise to a good deal of ill feeling, was the discussion | ||
Line 163: | Line 160: | ||
and then the discussion of the lottery scheme. There | and then the discussion of the lottery scheme. There | ||
were some men pushing | were some men pushing | ||
− | their interests there | + | their interests there-scheming for some sort of |
license to indulge in the | license to indulge in the | ||
practice of lottery. | practice of lottery. | ||
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Do you know who those men were-any of |
them? | them? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} I did not know them; no. They were men, |
as I understand, from | as I understand, from | ||
New Orleans. | New Orleans. | ||
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Did you get the names of any of them? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} No, I did not. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} But they were there for the purpose of |
pressing their plan | pressing their plan | ||
for getting a charter, I suppose, for the lottery | for getting a charter, I suppose, for the lottery | ||
scheme? | scheme? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} Yes. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Did you understand that it was a part |
of the scheme that had | of the scheme that had | ||
been conducted in New Orleans? | been conducted in New Orleans? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} I understood that they were there for |
that same purpose. | that same purpose. | ||
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Did the subject lead to much |
discussion among the people? | discussion among the people? | ||
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} It did; yes. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Was it acrimonious? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} Yes. |
− | The | + | The {{sc|Chairman.}} Fierce, was it? |
− | Mr. | + | Mr. {{sc|Reeder.}} Yes. Before the matter was adjusted |
finally the ladies thought | finally the ladies thought | ||
they could intercept it between the time it passed the | they could intercept it between the time it passed the | ||
legislature and the | legislature and the | ||
time the signature was given by Liliuokalani, the | time the signature was given by Liliuokalani, the | ||
− | Queen | + | Queen-thought they |
could intercept it by petition, and you could see by | could intercept it by petition, and you could see by | ||
the | the |
Latest revision as of 00:15, 5 February 2006
|
Mr. Stalker. There was a party suggested it. I did not suggest to Mr. English, nor he to me, about coming here.
Senator Frye. Was anything said about Mr. English coming over and becoming a professor?
Mr. Stalker. We had some talk; yes-at least, I should say Mr. English made application to me with the view of securing a place; but I gave him no encouragement to think that he could secure a place.
Senator Frye. Did you state to anybody here that when you were at the Government buildings on the day that the proclamation was made you saw paraded in front of the Government buildings the American troops with their arms?
Mr. Stalker. I think not.
Senator Frye. Anything of that kind?
Mr. Stalker. I think not.
Senator Frye. Were you not informed that that statement could not be correct, because the testimony showed conclusively that the troops were back of Arion Hall, and were not in view of the Government Building?
Mr. Stalker. I think my testimony was to the effect that the troops were in line with their arms.
Senator Frye. I was not asking what you testified to. I asked you whether or not, previously to testifying before this committee, you stated to any one that our American troops were in front of the Government Building, drawn up in front of the Government Building with their guns, when the proclamation was being read?
Mr. Stalker. I did not.
Senator Frye. Anything of that kind?
Mr. Stalker. No; neither here nor elsewhere.
Senator Frye. And you were not told by anybody that that would not do, because the testimony showed that they were in the back yard of Arion Hall?
Mr. Stalker. No. Your statement is the first that I heard of any such suggestion.
|
Washington, D. C., Tuesday, January 30,1894.
The subcommittee met pursuant to adjournment.
Present. The chairman (Senator Morgan) and Senators Gray and Frye.
Absent. Senators Butler and Sherman.
SWORN STATEMENT OF P. W. REEDER.
The Chairman. Where do you reside and what is your age?
Mr. Reeder. I am 68 years of age and I reside at Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
The Chairman. Have you been in the Hawaiian Islands recently??
Mr. Reeder. I have.
The Chairman. When was that?
Mr. Reeder. Last winter.
The Chairman. How long a time did you stay there? Why did you go and when did you come away?
|
Mr. Reeder. I do not remember the dates; but it was during the months of November, December, January, and February.
The Chairman. Had you ever been there before?
Mr. Reeder. No.
The Chairman. I suppose you were there as a tourist?
Mr. Reeder. Yes.
The Chairman. Did you spend much of your time in Honolulu or through the islands?
Mr. Reeder. Most of the time in Honolulu.
The Chairman. In what month did you get there?
Mr. Reeder. I was there fifteen weeks in all, not quite four months.
The Chairman. When you got there in November, did you ascertain or know whether there was any political excitement amongst the Hawaiian people?
Mr. Reeder. None that appeared on the surface.
The Chairman. Was there any question of grave importance politically that was under discussion among the people?
Mr. Reeder. There was not. When you went to the state house you could see there was friction between the parties.
The Chairman. What parties?
Mr. Reeder. They are divided there between what is called the native party and the missionary party. The missionary party now does not mean missionary per se-persons who go there to teach religion-but it is a party that has received that name because it is opposed to native rule.
The Chairman. Native rule or monarchical rule?
Mr. Reeder. That means native rule.
The Chairman. What particular measures were under discussion upon which these parties were divided?
Mr. Reeder. One thing which was in the Legislature there, and which gave rise to a good deal of ill feeling, was the discussion of the opium bill, and then the discussion of the lottery scheme. There were some men pushing their interests there-scheming for some sort of license to indulge in the practice of lottery.
The Chairman. Do you know who those men were-any of them?
Mr. Reeder. I did not know them; no. They were men, as I understand, from New Orleans.
The Chairman. Did you get the names of any of them?
Mr. Reeder. No, I did not.
The Chairman. But they were there for the purpose of pressing their plan for getting a charter, I suppose, for the lottery scheme?
Mr. Reeder. Yes.
The Chairman. Did you understand that it was a part of the scheme that had been conducted in New Orleans?
Mr. Reeder. I understood that they were there for that same purpose.
The Chairman. Did the subject lead to much discussion among the people?
Mr. Reeder. It did; yes.
The Chairman. Was it acrimonious?
Mr. Reeder. Yes.
The Chairman. Fierce, was it?
Mr. Reeder. Yes. Before the matter was adjusted finally the ladies thought they could intercept it between the time it passed the legislature and the time the signature was given by Liliuokalani, the Queen-thought they could intercept it by petition, and you could see by the