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

Reports of Committee on Foreign Relations 1789-1901 Volume 6 pp1020-1021 300dpi scan (VERY LARGE!)

Text Only


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?


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

Previous Page Next Page