1007-1025

From TheMorganReport
Jump to: navigation, search
Previous Page Next Page

-p1006-

The Chairman. Then there was no danger of a collision that you could see?

Mr. Coffman. None, except that they had taken place there before.

The Chairman. You mean on former occasions, several years before?

Mr. Coffman. Yes; several years before.

The Chairman. The Government building was not a fortified place, was it?

Mr. Coffman. No.

The Chairman. Was it constructed of wood or brick?

Mr. Coffman. I think it is coral, and perhaps brick; not wood.

Senator Frye. What is the color of the coral?

Mr. Coffman. Light color; gray color.

Senator Frye. Does it harden?

Mr. Coffman. Yes.

Senator Gray. After you left Arion Hall was anything done for your comfort—after you went into Camp Boston?

Mr. Coffman. Yes.

Senator Gray. When did you go into Camp Boston?

Mr. Coffman. My recollection is that we remained three nights at Arion Hall, the 16th, 17th and 18th, and the forenoon of the 19th. When we went into Camp Boston we were furnished with beds, matresses, mosquito bars, and mosquito netting for the men, all furnished by the Provisional Government, which at that time had taken possession.

Senator Gray. Did they keep on furnishing you coffee?

Mr. Coffman. No; I do not think they did; I think a short time after that we got our own cooking arrangements and cooked our own provisions.

Senator Gray. How did you get these things; what was the mode?

Mr. Coffman. We had a lot of requisition blanks which were furnished to the camp, and the adjutant—of course, I do not refer to provisions, because when we got there we got our ship's cook—would make a requisition upon the commissary of the Provisional Government, Mr. Hall, and if not through him, Mr. McCandless, who was one of the military committee.

Senator Gray. Did you have sheds?

Mr. Coffman. There were wash sheds for the men to wash their clothing, an officers' kitchen built, and bunks afterward. Bunks were put in the guardroom for the men who remained on shore. My recollection is that was afterward.

The Chairman. You did not decline any of the hospitalities that were offered you?

Mr. Coffman. I never heard of it.

The Chairman. Had the same hospitalities been tendered by the Queen's government would they have been equally acceptable?

Mr. Coffman. I think I would have accepted.

The Chairman. Everything was fish that came to your net?

Mr. Coffman. I think so.

Senator Frye. Are mosquitoes plentiful on the islands?

Mr. Coffman. I did not sleep a wink that night.

Senator Frye. How many months of the year are they troublesome?

Mr. Coffman. The whole year round.

Adjourned until Thursday, the 25th instant, at 10 o'clock a. m.

-p1007-

WASHINGTON, D. C, Thursday, January 25, 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 M. STALKER.

The Chairman. State your age and place of residence?

Mr. Stalker. I am 52 years of age and my residence is Ames, Iowa.

The Chairman. When did you last visit the Hawaiian Islands?

Mr. Stalker. I arrived in the Hawaiian Islands the 17th of December, 1892.

The Chairman. When did you come away from there?

Mr. Stalker. I left there the 1st day of February following.

The Chairman. Had you ever before that visited the Hawaiian Islands?

Mr. Stalker. No.

The Chairman. What was your purpose in making that visit, generally speaking?

Mr. Stalker. I went simply for a pleasure trip, winter's outing, and to consider the customs of the people.

The Chairman. What is your profession?

Mr. Stalker. Professor in the Agricultural College of Iowa.

The Chairman. And it was an interest in your profession that led you to look up the habits and customs of the Hawaiian people?

Mr. Stalker. No; no connection with the college whatever.

The Chairman. Had you ever been there before?

Mr. Stalker. No.

The Chairman. What islands did you visit?

Mr. Stalker. Oahu and Hawaii.

The Chairman. Oahu is the one upon which Honolulu is situated?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Did you go to Hilo?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Did you go out into the country?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Just visited the volcanoes, or make an exploration amongst the people?

Mr. Stalker. I saw comparatively little of the people on the islands. I was there several days and visited the people of Hilo and some of the prominent men of the town, and talked with them.

The Chairman. Did you make any examination of the homes and farms of the common people of Hawaii while you were out there?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; to rather a limited extent—made a number of short excursions from Honolulu and vicinity to some places more remote.

The Chairman. What opinion did you form of the native population of Hawaii, as to their docility, disposition to be quiet and good citizens?

Mr. Stalker. My estimation of them is that they are an exceptionally quiet, docile people.

The Chairman. You would not regard them then as being an aggressive military people, or aggressive in political efforts or ventures?

-p1008-

Mr. Stalker. No; just the reverse of that condition I should say was true of them.

The Chairman. Do they seem to be a happy people at home?

Mr. Stalker. Quite so, I think.

The Chairman. Did you ascertain from your observations whether they were living in a comparative degree of comfort, as other persons in a similar situation in life in other countries?

Mr. Stalker. I think they are. It requires comparatively little in that country to make one reasonably comfortable.

The Chairman. Did they impress you as a misgoverned, depressed, and downcast people?

Mr. Stalker. No; I would not say that.

The Chairman. I suppose their holdings of land are quite limited, small?

Mr. Stalker. That is the result of my observation, that the holdings of a great majority of natives are comparatively small, although I think the aggregate number of holdings is a good deal larger than that of any other nationality.

The Chairman. Did those small holdings seem to be sufficient for the maintenance of the families who were residing upon them?

Mr. Stalker. They seemed to be.

The Chairman. To what do you attribute that they can live on so small an area of land?

Mr. Stalker. In the first place, as I have already stated, one can live in that country better than in an inclement country, such as ours, in clothing and houses, and, to some extent, food. The country is wonderfully productive in some of its vegetable growths. They have access to the sea, which is literally swarming with fish in addition to a small plat of ground to be cultivated in taro. It is possible to support a family in reasonably good condition off what would seem to be exceedingly slender opportunities in this country.

The Chairman. As a class, would you say the people are expert fishermen?

Mr. Stalker. I doubt whether my observation on that subject would make me a very good witness. I should say hardly, in a large sense, as their fishing is carried on for private purposes.

The Chairman. The native Kanaka depends upon his skill as a fisherman, rather than endeavoring to carry on any large enterprise?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; I saw no enterprise like that carried on by the natives in a large way.

The Chairman. Were you in Honolulu in the latter part of the year 1892 and the first part of the year 1893?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. When did you get back to Honolulu from your visit down to Hawaii?

Mr. Stalker. I doubt whether I can give that date. I think I went down about the first of the year and was gone seven or eight days. I returned some days prior to the so-called revolution; the date I can not just recall.

The Chairman. When you returned to Honolulu, what would you say was the situation of the people there in respect to projected or contemplated legislation upon the subject of opium and the lottery; in a state of excitement or quietude?

Mr. Stalker. There was a good deal of excitement in the assembly; or, at least, a good deal of acrimonious discussion; I would not say intense excitement; I would say hot-blooded discussion.

-p1009-

The Chairman. Did you hear the debates in the assembly, the Legislature?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Were the newspapers engaged in considering, discussing these questions?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; the newspapers were pretty actively interested in those topics.

The Chairman. How about the responsible citizens of Honolulu; were they also concerned in these matters?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; I think they were.

The Chairman. Were you made aware while you were there of an alleged effort to press these bills through by getting a change in the ministry of the Queen so that she could get a ministry or cabinet to sign the bills with her on their passage?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; that charge was made in the public press. I had no other means of knowing; I had no private information on that subject.

The Chairman. Was that a subject of anxious discussion amongst the people of Honolulu?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; there was a good deal of talk on that subject.

The Chairman. Were you there at the time the ministry was changed by a vote of want of confidence?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Did that change in the ministry produce any very decided impression upon the people?

Mr. Stalker. I can not say that I appreciated any marked change outside of the atmosphere about the Government building among the public officers, members of the assembly. They manifested a pretty high state of interest and some intensity of feeling on the subject. I can not say that I appreciated anything of the kind among the common people, especially on the streets.

The Chairman. Did you then have the impression that a change in the ministry and the passage of the opium and lottery bills would be likely to result in a revolution in the Government? I am speaking now of the time when the change took place.

Mr. Stalker. No; I am sure that did not manifest itself to my mind.

The Chairman. Did you hear of any association or conspiracy or any other voluntary combination of men in Honolulu at that time for the purpose of revolutionizing the Government, dethroning the Queen, and annexing the islands to the United States, in consequence of the passage of the opium bill and the lottery bill?

Mr. Stalker. No; I did not.

The Chairman. Was there any mob demonstration or military demonstration there to indicate that there was deep-seated or a violent state of feeling amongst the people in regard to these projected measures?

Mr. Stalker. No.

The Chairman. When did you first become aware that a revolution was on foot in Honolulu?

Mr. Stalker. If I remember correctly, it was on Monday, the 16th.

The Chairman. About what time?

Mr. Stalker. I attended a mass meeting at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and had some conversation with some citizens, I believe, earlier in the day, which led me to believe that there was an organized plan being developed to change the Government.

The Chairman. When you say "being developed," do you mean in process of development?

S. Doc. 231, pt 6----64

-p1010-

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. What was the first intimation you had, or first idea grasped by you, that that might result in a complete revolution of the Government?

Mr. Stalker. I think it was other than this. I had formed a conjecture of that kind a day or two earlier from some little matters that I had observed that I could not interpret the meaning of any other way. I refer now to the fact of being in one or two hardware stores in town and seeing----

Senator Gray. Was that on Monday?

Mr. Stalker. This was Monday, and possibly as early as Saturday observing some citizens getting fixed ammunition, cartridges—saw a number of citizens come in and rather quietly procure ammunition and go out with it.

The Chairman. Then you began to think that they would have use for that ammunition in some emeute or disturbance that was to take place?

Mr. Stalker. I began to regard that as a possibility. I knew nothing but what I saw, and began to wonder why there were so many citizens wanting fixed ammunition.

The Chairman. And it was not until Monday, if I gather your recollection about it, that you discovered there was an actual and combined movement in that direction?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. About how many persons do you think were at the meeting which you mentioned as having taken place in Honolulu on Monday?

Mr. Stalker. Twelve hundred or 1,400.

The Chairman. Did it seem to be an intense meeting in its exhibition of feeling?

Mr. Stalker. A good deal.

Senator Gray. You, yourself, were at the meeting?

Mr. Stalker Yes.

Senator Gray. There were other tourists, like yourself, who helped to make up that number?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; I might say I saw people there from our hotel.

The Chairman. Speeches were made and resolutions adopted?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Were there demonstrations of applause and cheering about the meeting?

Mr. Stalker. Applause and cheering were pretty vociferous at the time the speeches became of a rather sensational and exciting nature.

The Chairman. You have seen assemblages of that kind—not that kind particularly, but many public assemblages—would you say from your observation that that was an enthusiastic and strongly exciting, intense meeting?

Mr. Stalker. I can hardly say that they were intensely excited. It was a pretty enthusiastic meeting; a good deal of vociferous cheering greeted the speakers, but there was no excitement, no disturbance.

The Chairman. Did the meeting impress you with the idea that there was a resolute purpose to carry out the end?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; it did.

The Chairman. What was that end, as you gathered it from the meeting; what was the purpose they had in view?

Mr. Stalker. I believed then, for the first time, certainly that a

-p1011-

revolution was in contemplation, although that was disclaimed in the speaking.

The Chairman. In the speeches was it stated, or did you understand it to be advocated as an attitude of the meeting, that in the event they could get a guaranty of their constitutional rights they would not overthrow the Queen or revolutionize the Government?

Mr. Stalker. As I recall it there was no policy, no promise of anything outlined. It was rather a declamatory style of speaking, in which the existing Government was severely criticised, different speakers saying: "We are not here as revolutionists, but to talk about grievances." I can not recall a single speech where so much as a single word was said about changing the form of the Government. I can not recall anything of the kind.

The Chairman. And yet you were conscious all the time that that would be the result?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; when I went to my hotel immediately after the meeting I said to some of my friends, "There will be an attempt at revolution here inside of three days;" I was laughed at.

The Chairman. Suppose that the Hawaiian people had been left to settle this matter in their own way, without the intervention of the United States or any other country, could you state it as your opinion that the popular demonstration which you witnessed at that meeting and the persons who were engaged in it and the purposes which actuated them were sufficiently strong and the people were sufficiently powerful to carry their end against the real government? In other words, did you believe from all the surrounding circumstances that the revolution then inaugurated would be successful aside from the intervention of the United States?

Mr. Stalker. I am not prepared to say I believed the Hawaiian citizens who were most enthusiastic in this meeting would of themselves conduct a successful revolution; but I had been led to believe by some remarks of citizens that the men were coming from the Boston.

The Chairman. State what those remarks were, and who were the men who made them, and when they were made as well as you can remember.

Mr. Stalker. If I remember correctly, it was a friend of mine, a Mr. White, who was a member of the revolutionary party, a nice gentleman. He said to me on this day----

The Chairman. What day?

Mr. Stalker. I think this was Monday—"If you want to see some fun get up early to-morrow; there will be an end of Kanaka Government."

The Chairman. What time of day was that remark made to you?

Mr. Stalker. I have been trying to recall that, and I am not quite able to say whether this was in the forenoon or afternoon.

The Chairman. That was on Monday?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; I am sure this was on Monday.

The Chairman. Where were you when Mr. White made that remark?

Mr. Stalker. I met him on the street.

The Chairman. Do you remember whether it was before or after the the mass meeting which you attended?

Mr. Stalker. I can not say as to that.

The Chairman. You have stated what he said. Have you stated all or is there something else you wish to add?

-p1012-

Mr. Stalker. I think that is all I recall, anything like verbatim. He used those words.

The Chairman. After the mass meeting had passed, I will say the two mass meetings that occurred on Monday, was there a state of quietude in Honolulu?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; I think there was. When I left the meeting at the barracks, held by the supposed revolutionists, I went to the meeting held by the natives—that is, mostly native people who were in attendance at this meeting around at the Government building. I walked in and out of that crowd and through it, and I saw no disturbance.

Senator Gray. That was an open-air meeting?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; this was an open-air meeting. I saw no demonstration. I could not understand what they were talking about. I saw no violence, no demonstration. I walked about the streets afterward, and I saw no disturbance, heard no loud talking, nor anything to indicate violence—so far as a man could see on the surface------

The Chairman. On Monday evening and night was Honolulu in a condition of quietude, or one of excitement?

Mr. Stalker. I saw no excitement whatever.

The Chairman. About what time did the troops from the Boston come in that evening?

Mr. Stalker. Late in the afternoon, a little before sundown; I should think between 4 and 5 o'clock, as I recall it.

The Chairman. Did their appearance create any excitement amongst the population?

Mr. Stalker. Apparently not. There was quite a little talk about it. The question was very frequently asked: "Why are the Boston boys here?" Some of us walked over from the hotel, which was a block or two blocks away, heard their music, and saw the boys marched up the street.

The Chairman. Did the troops come with drums and fifes or with a brass band?

Mr. Stalker. They had a drum corps.

The Chairman. Did you witness anything of an exasperated or agitated feeling on the part of the natives as they were marching up through the streets?

Mr. Stalker. In their faces I think there was a good deal of intense excitement manifested. They were comparatively quiet. That seems to be their disposition. They stood around in considerable numbers. A few hundred of them were out there when the Boston boys came to a halt in front of the palace, standing on the sidewalks and in the streets. But there was very little conversation going on, even amongst them.

The Chairman. Was it a mixed assemblage of women and children?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Such as would attend a demonstration of that kind in towns here?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Was any clamor raised against them—hissing or resentment at their coming ashore?

Mr. Stalker. No; nothing that I could recognize as a hiss.

The Chairman. Did you witness any demonstration against the troops while they were ashore by any person of Hawaiian nativity?

Mr. Stalker. I did not.

The Chairman. You would say, I suppose, that their presence on the island was not a cause of national offense, so far as you could see?

-p1013-

Mr. Stalker. It certainly did not manifest itself in the way of disorderly conduct if it was.

The Chairman. It was not such as would accompany the Britishert if they were to land in Baltimore without invitation from the Presidens of the United States?

Mr. Stalker. I think not.

Senator Gray. While you are on that subject of the landing of the troops, I will ask you a question. You have already said that (on Monday, I think it was) you heard expressions from a number of people that some revolution, indications of which you thought you had seen, would be supported by the troops from the Boston. When these troops landed did you gather from your contact with or observation of the people an impression as to how that landing was regarded, and what was the general opinion as to the purpose of that landing?

Mr. Stalker. The feeling, so far as I was able to judge of it, from conversations with the citizens, was that they would at least not be in the way of any revolutionary effort that might come on.

The Chairman. You mean the troops from the Boston would not be?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

Senator Gray. Was that landing and the impression that it created, in your opinion, a discouragement of those who were in the contemplated revolution?

Mr. Stalker. It was not; most decidedly.

Senator Gray. Were you present when the troops landed from the boats?

Mr. Stalker. Not at the wharf; not at the landing.

Senator Gray. You first saw them as they passed your hotel?

Mr. Stalker. They did not pass immediately by the hotel, but two streets away. I saw them as they came up.

Senator Gray. Where was their first halt?

Mr. Stalker. Their first halt was in a sort of plaza, or broad street, near what they call the royal palace and Government building.

Senator Gray. How long did they halt?

Mr. Stalker. They were there several minutes. I should think they stood around there a quarter of an hour or more, possibly twice that long. Then they marched on past the palace down the street a few blocks beyond and turned into the grounds of a private citizen. A little later they marched back up the street to their same position, the palace being on the right side and the Government building on the left hand as they came back, and went into quarters for the night in a building that stands immediately at the end of the Government building and facing the palace on the opposite side of the street.

Senator Gray. That was Monday?

Mr. Stalker. Monday night. It was dark before all this was through with.

Senator Gray. Were you up there when they went into quarters?

Mr. Stalker. No; I was not there when they returned; this was after dark.

Senator Gray. Did you get up early the next morning, Tuesday, to see what the fun would be which Mr. White had predicted you would enjoy?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

Senator Gray. What did you observe on Tuesday?

Mr. Stalker. I walked out to the corner of the palace grounds, a plot of land possibly of 20 acres, cornering on the hotel grounds. I walked along on the west side of the court over to the street where the

-p1014-

troops were quartered, and walked along immediately in front of where they were quartered, and everything was perfectly quiet. It was just in the gray of the dawn. Everything was perfectly quiet there. There were a few guards on duty; that was all that was visible so far as the troops were concerned. I then walked quite around the palace ground and passed the quarters of the native troops, which were immediately on the opposite side of the palace grounds on which the men of the Boston were quartered. The two were on almost directly opposite sides of the palace. Everything was quiet in the palace grounds.

Senator Gray. Go on in your own way with the events of that day. This was pretty early in the morning; had you your breakfast?

Mr. Stalker. No; I went out pretty early in the morning; I went back to the hotel and had my breakfast as usual; a little later in the morning I went down town. The hotel is away from the business streets of the city, and I went down on the business streets and in some of the business places; dropped in where I had acquaintances and it was all as it had been—business houses were open, men were buying and selling. I saw no demonstration; heard nothing said of an excitable character. I went to the public library for a time and returned to the hotel for my dinner.

Senator Gray. About what time was this?

Mr. Stalker. This was possibly 1 o'clock, I should say; possibly a little after 1 o'clock when I came out from my dinner. I walked out from the dining hall on to a broad lani that runs around the three sides of the hotel; just as I came on to this veranda I heard a shot.

The Chairman. Was this Tuesday?

Mr. Stalker. It was Tuesday morning of which I was speaking. I heard a shot in the direction of the business part of the town. I stood waiting a moment to see whether it was a matter of any consequence. Possibly two or three minutes later a carriage came by at a very rapid pace, with a driver on the front seat and a man on the rear seat with a rifle. This was succeeded in pretty rapid succession by other carriages, being driven at a rapid rate, containing 1, 2, or 3 men with guns. These carriages were driven past the hotel in the opposite direction from the business portion of the city. These carriages came from the direction where the shot was fired, and came in front of the hotel. I walked down in front of the hotel, in the grounds, and asked a gentleman at the telephone station what this meant. He said, "The war has commenced; one man has been killed."

The Chairman. Who told you this?

Mr. Stalker. The man at the telephone station. He said that a policeman was shot. A number of carriages passed by in rapid succession, and occasionally a man on foot. I, with some friends, went to the top of the building, where there is a sort of outlook, an observatory. There is a view in every direction. We could see the palace grounds, the public building, and to some extent the town in other directions. We remained up there twenty minutes, probably thirty minutes; I could not tell the time exactly, and could see little or nothing that was indicative. So we came down, and I remarked to my friends, "Probably it will be uncomfortable for us on the front porch; we had better take the rear of the building if there is to be fighting on the campus." I thought I would go down and see if I could get some word from the seat of war. I walked past the side of the palace grounds and saw no excitement there until I came to the corner, came to the street that passes between the palace and the Government building. On going to the Government building I saw a crowd in the street, quite a

-p1015-

number, and as soon as I reached a point of vantage where I could see well, I observed there were men inside the grounds with guns, and some few straggling citizens were in there unarmed. Guards were placed at the gates, and after that citizens were not allowed to go in without permission. About the time I arrived, or very soon after, a gentleman commenced reading a document which proved to be a revolutionary declaration and the announcement of the organization of a new government.

Senator Gray. Do you know whether he had commenced reading, or whether it was that you then first perceived that he was reading, and had been for a little while after you arrived?

Mr. Stalker. I did hot hear him reading on my arrival, and did not have the impression that he was reading at the time I arrived, though I did not get a good point of observation at once, and there was some confusion. I could not see very well, and I would not be positive whether the man was reading at the time I arrived or not; my impression is that he began reading after I arrived.

Senator Gray. How long did you stay in the vicinity of the Government building at your point of observation?

Mr. Stalker. I stayed there and thereabout for probably half an hour, possibly longer.

Senator Gray. On which front of the building were you?

Mr. Stalker. I was on the side facing the palace—the main entrance of the building.

Senator Gray. Were you down the street that separates the Government building from the building in which the United States troops were quartered?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; the Goverment building and the building in which the United States troops were located are separated by a narrow alley. It is not a public street; it is a very narrow way, and there is practically no travel along it.

Senator Gray. That is called Arion Hall?

Mr. Stalker. Arion Hall.

Senator Gray. How far is Arion Hall, or the ground on which it is situated, from the public building, as nearly as you can estimate?

Mr. Stalker. Simply a narrow roadway or alley between the two. There is room to drive a carriage between the fence inclosing the grounds of the public building and that of Arion Hall, and that is about all, as I remember.

Senator Gray. When you walked down there did you see the United States troops?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

Senator Gray. Where were they?

Mr. Stalker. They were at the end of Arion Hall, in a little court or vacant piece of land.

Senator Gray. Outside the Government building?

Mr. Stalker. Outside the Government building.

Senator Gray. Drawn up in a line?

Mr. Stalker. I do not think they were when I saw them. I do not remember observing them when I walked up first. I think as I came away they were not in line. I would not be too positive about that.

Senator Gray. Did you see any of the officers or converse with them?

Mr. Stalker. At that time?

Senator Gray. Yes.

Mr. Stalker. I do not remember talking with any officer on that occasion.

-p1016-

Senator Gray. Very well: state anything else that occurred in the sequence of events of that day in your observation?

Mr. Stalker. The Hawaiian flag was floating from the mast over on the palace.

The Chairman. On the palace?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; on the Queen's palace. And I observed couriers or orderlies going back and forth. I did not know the significance of it, but observed individuals go from one building to the other; they passed the guards at both places, came in and went out, and this sort of thing was kept up certainly for a half hour or longer without any visible change taking place anywhere.

The Chairman. By the palace do you mean Iolani Palace?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; that is the palace as distinguished from the Government building, where state business is transacted. After a little the flag on the palace came down, and there was a murmur through the crowd that the Queen had probably surrendered; that the flag was down. But a moment later it was pulled up again. It seems it was being adjusted. Then a cheer went through the crowd when the flag was pulled up; but a little later a native Hawaiian came out and lowered the flag, and pretty soon the word went through the crowd on the streets that the Queen had surrendered. A little later it was in print, what doubtless has been presented in evidence here a good many times, that the Queen had surrendered "To the superior military forces of the United States."

The Chairman. I would like you to give the day and the time of day exactly when that occurred.

Mr. Stalker. When the flag came down?

Senator Gray. Mr. Stalker has already said it was Tuesday, the 17th of January.

Mr. Stalker. Yes; Tuesday, the 17th. And this was late in the afternoon. I could not say what time of day it was. I believe it was between 3 and 4, possibly as late as 4 o'clock, though I would not be positive as to the time of day.

Senator Gray. Was it not as late as 5?

Mr. Stalker. That the flag came down?

Senator Gray. Yes.

Mr. Stalker. It might have been. Let me see. About 2 the ball really opened over there, and it might possibly have been as late as 5. I should say it was as late as 5 when the flag came down. There was a good deal of delay, parleying back and forth, until pretty well along in the afternoon.

Senator Gray. You were on the streets all this time, from the time you went up after dinner to the public building to the time of the events which you have described as coming under your observation; did you continue in the streets of Honolulu?

Mr. Stalker. I was back and forth after getting some information. When I first went over I remained a time, half an hour, possibly longer than that, and then went back to the hotel to tell some of my friends there, who were in a pretty uneasy state of mind, what had occurred. I then came out on the street, and I was on the street during the afternoon and evening.

Senator Gray. Did you hear anything said during that afternoon and evening in regard to the presence of the United States troops?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; I heard frequent remarks about their presence.

Senator Gray. And the significance of their presence?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; I believe I did.

-p1017-

Senator Gray. What was it, as you understand it?

Mr. Stalker. This query came up, probably in some conversation with people sitting about in the hotel: "If the troops were there to protect property, why did they not protect that building, its offices and treasury, against parties who came there with arms in their hands, and nobody presumably knowing what they were going to do and what they were there for?"

The Chairman. To what offices do you refer?

Mr. Stalker. The permanent offices of the Hawaiian Government.

The Chairman. The Government building?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; the Government building generally.

Senator Gray. When you got back to the hotel after the proclamation of the new Government and the hauling down of the flag was everything quiet that evening?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

Senator Gray. Do you know what gave that sense of repose? I ask the question in this form: Was it confidence in this newly established Government and its ability to preserve order, or was it the presence of the United States troops?

Mr. Stalker. That I would not be able to answer. As I said before, I saw no street demonstration or acts of violence; nor did I hear threats during this time, either before or after.

The Chairman. You have been speaking about the impressions you derived from conversations you heard at the time you have indicated. Can you trace those conversations to any particular individuals—those remarks?

Mr. Stalker. I do not believe I can. A number of us was at the hotel, and a good many I did not know the names of. We engaged in miscellaneous conversation, and remarks were frequently made by persons whom I did not know.

The Chairman. Were these men who have any connection with the political movement there either for the Queen or against her?

Mr. Stalker. No, I think not; they were people who, like myself, were simply standing by.

The Chairman. Disinterested observers, or rather observers of matters with which they were not connected?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. I suppose it was very much as it would be with any other discussion of a current event by gentlemen looking on and observing without having any participation at all?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

Senator Gray. You were not partisans of either party?

Mr. Stalker. No.

Senator Gray. On the next day what seemed to be the condition of things?

The Chairman. That would be Wednesday?

Senator Gray. Wednesday; yes.

Mr. Stalker. Matters were quiet. I was in and out of the hotel and on the streets around in front of the public buildings. I think on Wednesday I was in Mr. Severance's office. He was our consul at that time, and he gave me a pass or permit which entitled me to go to the building. I had been there a good many times; had a good many acquaintances in the office; and I went in and out and talked to them. I think it was next day that Mr. Severance gave me a pass.

Senator Gray. Did you hear any discussion of the events of the day before?

-p1018-

Mr. Stalker. Comparatively little; there was no excitement on the street that I could detect.

Senator Gray. It was understood that the Queen had surrendered in the way you have described?

Mr. Stalker. Yes. The next morning these matters were all in the public prints, and her ukase, or whatever she termed it, was printed, and in the morning papers.

Senator Gray. Did you hear any talk of projects or schemes of resistance to the Provisional Government on that day, or shortly after?

Mr. Stalker. No; never while I was there did I hear anything to lead me to believe that there was any organized resistance in contemplation.

Senator Gray. Did you ever have any conversation with any of the officers of the Boston?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; I met them frequently at different times on board the boat, and met them at the hotels.

Senator Gray. Did you have any discussion with any of them in regard to these events which had taken place?

Mr. Stalker. I talked with Capt. Wiltse about the subject.

Senator Gray. What was the tenor of your conversation, so far as it had reference to this matter?

Mr. Stalker. I remember on one occasion we were driving up from Waikiki, which is a suburb, bathing resort, and the conversation turned on this matter. I was interrogating Capt. Wiltse as to whether the United States troops had not participated in this matter to rather an unjustifiable extent.

The Chairman. Will you state just when that was?

Mr. Stalker. This was a few days after; I can not state the day.

The Chairman. After this Tuesday?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; after Tuesday—between that and the end of the month some time. I asked him this question, whether this was not a move to destroy the form of government that was the one preferred by the great mass of the people of the islands.

Senator Gray. With reference to the participation by the soldiers?

Mr. Stalker. With reference to their participation; as to whether our Government had not involved itself in what had been done. Capt. Wiltse made this remark to me: "All this talk about who has a right to vote and who has a right to govern in these islands is bosh; I do not care a cent about that; the only question is, does the United States want these islands? If it does, then take them." Those were his words.

Senator Gray. You say this was some days after the revolution?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; some days.

Senator Gray. And after the circumstances which you have described?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

Senator Gray. Was or was not the movement which you have already described, and which resulted in the surrender, such as it was, of the Queen and the establishment of the Provisional Government on the terms of the proclamation, an annexation movement to the United States, as distinguished, I mean, from an ordinary revolution having for its object the displacement of one government by another?

Mr. Stalker. I believe it was. Perhaps even a better form would be----

Senator Gray. State it in your own form.

Mr. Stalker. I believed it was.

Senator Gray. State in your own words what your belief was.

-p1019-

Mr. Stalker. My belief was that it was a movement intended to end in the annexation of those islands to this country.

Senator Gray. By that you mean that was the purpose which animated those who acted in the revolution?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Did you have any reason to know or believe that that movement was disconnected from any purpose on the part of the revolutionists to preserve and maintain their rights under the constitution of 1887?

Mr. Stalker. I did not believe the revolution was inaugurated for the purpose of securing their rights under that constitution.

The Chairman. You did not believe that?

Mr. Stalker. No.

The Chairman. State the grounds of that belief.

Mr. Stalker. I believed it from this fact, that one of the first items of information that came to us after the downfall of the existing government was that a boat would be dispatched immediately to make a tender of these islands to this Government. That was early the next morning. That was a matter of conversation everywhere. On making inquiry, I went down to Mr. Severance's office to ascertain whether I could get a permit to go home on that boat. I had stayed a little longer than I had intended, on account of the exciting events there, and I wanted to come over on the Claudine at the time she sailed with the commissioners. Mr. Severance told me that I would not be able to get on board that boat; and it was evident the following day that the preparations were active for annexing these islands to the United States.

Senator Gray. You were stating, in answer to a question by the chairman, what the grounds of your belief were. You stated one fact. I will ask whether you had any grounds for it in what you heard from those who were active in the revolution that annexation was their object?

Mr. Stalker. Possibly simple disconnected remarks. I had no conversation with any active member of the revolutionary party containing statements to that effect; only incidental remarks dropped in my hearing, like these: "Soon we will all be Americans."

The Chairman. By whom were those incidental remarks dropped?

Mr. Stalker. I can not say. I remember hearing that remark dropped by some person. I believe I heard that remark, or similar remarks, in some of the crowds on the street, from men whom I would not know.

Senator Gray. English-speaking people—American people?

Mr. Stalker. Oh, yes; American people.

The Chairman. To get at the nature of the belief on which you were forming these opinions, I will ask you whether any person officially connected with the Queen or the revolution came to you to inform you of the nature of the affairs or the progress of the affairs that were expected?

Mr. Stalker. No.

The Chairman. What you had learned was the common gossip on the street?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; that is where I gathered practically all my information.

Senator Gray. You were seeking information?

Mr. Stalker. I was seeking information. I was inquiring----

The Chairman. Did you gather from what you heard there and observed there in this way that these people who were promoting the

-p1020-

revolution would not have been satisfied to have continued the monarchy if they could have felt assured of the preservation of the rights which they held under the constitution of '87?

Mr. Stalker. I certainly gathered the impression that they would not be satisfied with that.

The Chairman. From whom did you gather that impression, if you can state?

Mr. Stalker. I gathered that impression first from the speeches made at the mass meeting.

The Chairman. Were those speeches reported in the morning papers or the papers the next day?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Were they correctly reported?

Mr. Stalker. Measurably so.

The Chairman. Have you any fault to find with the report, or any amendment to make of it, according to your memory?

Mr. Stalker. Not specially. I would not make any criticism on the reports. I do not think they were verbatim reports in every respect; but there was nothing stated that would materially change the tone of the speeches.

The Chairman. What you are stating is the conviction that you derived from the speeches as they were delivered and reported?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

Senator Gray. And I thought you said, remarks made in the meeting?

Mr. Stalker. And remarks made in the meeting, some of those in the form of speeches, and occasionally by individuals in the meeting responding. For instance, when Mr. Baldwin, I think, made use of this expression: "What we do ought to be done under the constitution," a number of individuals shouted "No;" and while that might point in the opposite direction from my interpretation—the general belief—the general impression that I would gather from the tenor of those speeches was that they were intending to form a new government if public sentiment would seem to justify the movement.

Senator Gray. Do you mean a form of government in favor of annexation?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. The speeches you refer to—those made to the audience—were very largely by men put up to speak?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. That is your conclusion?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. In regard to these incidental remarks in the audience, were they different from the resolutions adopted at the meeting?

Mr. Stalker. Simply cries of "No," when a speaker indicated cautious movement; but nothing in opposition to the resolution which was a resolution favoring the continuance of the committee of safety and expressing belief in their ability to look out for the interests of the people, or something to that effect.

The Chairman. Amongst those objections that you have been speaking about here, did you hear any cries or expressions to the effect that the Queen was not to be trusted; that she intended to overthrow the constitution?

Mr. Stalker. Nothing of that kind from the crowd, that I recall.

The Chairman. Well, from the speakers?

-p1021-

Mr. Stalker. From the speakers; yes—that the Queen was revolutionary in her acts.

The Chairman. Did the crowd deny that?

Mr. Stalker. No.

The Chairman. Did they not concur with the speakers on that proposition?

Mr. Stalker. They did. It would be my impression that they did.

The Chairman. So that, you would gather that the real pith of the movement was that they would no longer trust the Queen, because she had begun a revolution by overturning the constitution?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; that was said, in effect, by the speakers.

The Chairman. Can you say, on the Tuesday or Wednesday that you have mentioned, that the appearance of the Hawaiian Kanaka population was that of a people resentful at the invasion of a hostile power, and were awed into submission by a display of military force?

Mr. Stalker. That would be my opinion.

The Chairman. Did you observe any evidences of resentment, and what were they, on the part of the Kanaka population at the appearance of the U.S. forces in Honolulu?

Mr. Stalker. Have you in the first part of that question the expression "resentment?"

The Chairman. Resentful at the invasion of a hostile and foreign power?

Mr. Stalker. You had better agree on a way of stating that before it is taken down.

Senator Gray. State it in your own way; you have not answered the question.

The Chairman. Yes; state it in your own way.

Mr. Stalker. I believe that a large majority of the native Hawaiian population, so far as I was able to judge, was opposed to the action taken by the troops of the Boston, and regarded it as unfriendly toward their Government.

The Chairman. Can you state any fact that will go to support that conclusion—any expression from any native Kanaka, or any movement of the Kanaka population that will support that proposition?

Mr. Stalker. I would not be able to recall, probably, a statement of any native. There was a quiet, or rather sullen, expression on the faces of nearly all the native population, and a rather suppressed murmur in regard to the presence of these troops. But I can not recall any expression definitely used by individuals in the way of objection.

Senator Gray. I know the difficulty in stating an impression gathered as to the opinion of a large mass of people, of producing or reproducing individual expressions. But, to put the chairman's question in another form: Did you not receive this impression of which you speak from the deportment and conversation that you observed and felt, so to speak, all around you, and would not that support that opinion?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. Will you state what that deportment and conversation were?

Mr. Stalker. I do recall, after thinking it over, a somewhat protracted conversation with one native who was a member of the assembly.

The Chairman. What is his name?

Mr. Stalker. A Mr. Bush. He was unstinted in his denunciation of the course pursued and of the purpose to overthrow the existing

-p1022-

government and take away from them their independence, as he termed it, and annex the islands to this country. That was his statement of the case. And further, if I maybe permitted to say—as he is in some sense a representative man among them, a public man, at least—he voices this, coupled with the assertion that it was the opinion of an overwhelming majority of their own people.

The Chairman. How long had you known Mr. Bush?

Mr. Stalker. I had only seen him in the assembly as I had seen many others. I saw him probably within a day or two after I went over there first, and saw him almost every day while I was in Honolulu.

The Chairman. Was he opposing or favoring the lottery and opium bills?

Mr. Stalker. I think he was favorable to the bills.

The Chairman. Both bills?

Mr. Stalker. Certainly the lottery bill; I do not recall his action on the opium bill.

The Chairman. Do you remember the persons who were in Honolulu promoting the passage of that bill—I mean from abroad, foreigners?

Mr. Stalker. I simply had it from others, not from any acquaintance, that there were two Americans who were the particular promoters of the scheme.

The Chairman. Who were they?

Mr. Stalker. I do not recall their names; one was said to be from Chicago, the other from St. Louis. Their names I do not recall. I came over on the Australia in her February trip with one of the men in whose favor this grant was given. He was a man whose home, I think, is in the islands. He is a Scotchman.

The Chairman. What is his name?

Mr. Stalker. I have forgotten his name. I met him on board ship only, and his name at this moment has slipped my mind.

The Chairman. In his criticisms on the action of the Government, or upon the revolutionists in breaking down his lottery, was he earnest?

Mr. Stalker. No; I never heard him discuss that question further than this: We had a little talk about it one day, and he simply said that now he did not suppose that any thing would come of it. But he did not enter into any discussion of the merits or demerits of any of the parties engaged in this movement.

The Chairman. But that the revolution had crushed out his lottery?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; and that his lottery was dead. He gave me that impression.

The Chairman. Was there any other person in Hawaii whom you became acquainted with, and with whom you had conversation in the same line that you had with Mr. Bush?

Mr. Stalker. Yes; I talked with other people who criticised these actions.

The Chairman. State who they were, if you please.

Mr. Stalker. I remember a conversation in the family of Mr. Walker.

The Chairman. Was he a member of the Legislature?

Mr. Stalker. He was president of the Assembly.

The Chairman. He was president at the time the vote of want of confidence in the Wilcox-Jones cabinet was expressed.

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. How did he vote on that?

Mr. Stalker. I do not know how he voted on that question.

-p1023-

The Chairman. Do you not remember that he was opposed to the retention of the former cabinet and in favor of putting in the new lottery and opium cabinet?

Mr. Stalker. No; my impression is that he was on the other side of those questions; that is, opposed to the opium and lottery bills.

The Chairman. That is your impression?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. What did Mr. Walker have to say to you about the purpose of this revolutionary movement?

Mr. Stalker. It would be hard, if not possible, to separate just what Mr. Walker said from what was said by other parties, as there were a number of people in the house during the evening.

The Chairman. Was it at the entertainment?

Mr. Stalker. A few people; not a public entertainment. I was invited there to attend the meeting of probably none but members of his own household.

The Chairman. It was not a dinner party?

Mr. Stalker. No.

The Chairman. The subject of Hawaiian politics was under discussion there?

Mr. Stalker. Yes.

The Chairman. What did Mr: Walker say in his opinion was the real motive of this movement?

Mr. Stalker. The expression was freely indulged in that it was a movement to annex that country, to the United States and freely criticised as such.

The Chairman. Did Mr. Walker object to that?

Mr. Stalker. It was objected to; I am not able to fix upon Mr. Walker himself individual expressions as separate from other members of the household, where there were two or three grown sons and others. The action of the revolutionists was freely criticised, and the statement made that it was a few of the missionary stock that created the trouble.

The Chairman. What was said, if anything, about the Queen having made up her mind to overthrow the constitution of 1887 and substitute one of her own making in place of it?

Mr. Stalker. I do not remember any conversation on that phase of the subject.

The Chairman. That was a subject of general conversation in the community, was it not?

Mr. Stalker. Oh, yes.

The Chairman. Can you account for its not being referred to on that occasion when you were discussing Hawaiian troubles?

Mr. Stalker. No; I can not. Let me see. Mr. Walker did criticise the action of the Queen in that particular.

The Chairman. What was his criticism?

Mr. Stalker. Simply that it was not warranted by law.

The Chairman. If not warranted by law, was it revolutionary, or in accordance with law?

Mr. Stalker. No; I do not remember his making a criticism or using the expression that it was revolutionary; do not remember that he did, though he indulged in some general criticism of the course pursued by the Queen.

The Chairman. Would you regard the overthrow of a constitution to which the Queen had made oath of allegiance and to which her title to the throne depended, and the substitution in place of that of a constitution of her own making, of her own will, which changed the

-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 instant, 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. M'CANDLESS—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


Previous Page Next Page