1022-1023

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

Reports of Committee on Foreign Relations 1789-1901 Volume 6 pp1022-1023 300dpi scan (VERY LARGE!)

Text Only


-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


Previous Page Next Page