1034-1036
| Previous Page | Next Page |
|
further information, said that when he came to have further intercourse with the people he thought differently of Mr. Neuman.
Mr. Bowen. I am very glad he did. He was a devoted friend of the Queen.
Senator Frye. Then he would not have cheated her?
Mr. Bowen. No; he thought this the best plan. And if it had taken place, there would have been a saving of all the subsequent trouble.
Senator Frye. Is there anything else in the report to which you desire to call attention?
Mr. Bowen. Nothing, except to say that I did not represent myself as being there in a diplomatic capacity; that I was there simply as I have represented to this committee-as a journalist. Mr. Blount states that in his report. I was not conducting any annexation propaganda; I had no such purpose; and Mr. Sewall took no part in the matter, and knew practically nothing about it.
Senator Frye. Are there any facts connected with the affairs of the Hawaiian Islands which you desire to state?
Mr. Bowen. Only impressions. I was not there during the revolution. I was informed by numbers of the Provisional Government, in response to questions, that the American minister did not conspire to overthrow the Queen. I was informed that he did practically as he has stated in his own report. I was told so under certain circumstances and there was no reason for deceiving me.
Senator Frye. Did Paul Neuman make any claim that the minister interfered to destroy the royal government?
Mr. Bowen. He did not. Paul Neuman is a good-natured man, personally not prejudiced against anybody, that is, individuals; but he disliked the so-called "Missionary Party" there and the Annexation Party, and he included Mr. Stevens among them. Paul Neuman was always consistent. He was always a friend of the Queen, and he was head and shoulders intellectually above any others of her supporters. He was intelligent enough to form opinions during his stay here in Washington, and to see that there were great difficulties in the way of restoration; and while he did not commit himself to me on the subject, he thought that this course for pensioning the Queen would be the best for all concerned.
SWORN STATEMENT OF M. STALKER-Continued.
Senator Gray. You have already been sworn, and you have read over your testimony given the other day. Have you any special correction to make?
Mr. Stalker. No; nothing special.
Senator Gray. There was another point about which you spoke to me after having read over your testimony. It was in regard to a question that had been asked you, a point which you had touched upon, as to impressions which you derived from those who were supporters of the Provisional Government. In regard to the impression that prevailed with regard to the ability of the supporters of the Provisional Government to maintain themselves without the aid of the United States troops. Have you anything more to say on that subject?
Mr. Stalker. I did receive the impression from that source that the Provisional Government would not have been able to maintain
|
itself and keep its supporters, or, rather, its defenders, together without the cooperation of the United States troops.
Senator Gray. Do you mean that you gathered that impression from those who were favorable to or supporters of the Provisional Government?
Mr. Stalker. Yes.
Senator Gray. Was the impression gathered that the movement they made depended on the presence of those troops for encouragement, morally or otherwise?
Mr. Stalker. I can not say that I was told that the original movement depended upon the presence of the troops, but rather their ability to maintain their hold without the presence of the troops after it had been acquired.
Senator Gray. It was with reference to that?
Mr. Stalker. Yes; with reference to that, especially.
Senator Gray. Is there any other point on which you wish to be more explicit?
Mr. Stalker. I might say that I received these statements definitely from one or two members of the Provisional Government, or, at least, active supporters and cooperators.
Senator Gray. Will you be good enough to state what opinion or impression you got when you went there as to the ability of the existing Government to maintain peace and order and protect life and property?
Mr. Stalker. I never heard that fact called in question.
Senator Gray. You mean the fact of the ability of the Government?
Mr. Stalker. The fact of the ability of the existing Government to maintain order and protect life and property. In fact, I have heard it repeated by citizens of the country, without respect entirely to their political affiliations, that there is no part of the civilized world where life and property were so secure as in that country.
Senator Gray. Would that tally with your own observation during the weeks that you were there before this revolution?
Mr. Stalker. Yes; I think it would.
Senator Gray. Was there any evidence of any disorder up to the landing of troops on that Monday, the 16th of January-any disorder or feeling of insecurity?
Mr. Stalker. None whatever that I observed.
Senator Frye. What are you professor of?
Mr. Stalker. I am professor of veterinary science.
Senator Frye. Veterinary surgeon?
Mr. Stalker. Yes.
Senator Frye. Where did you live when you were in the islands?
Mr. Stalker. At the Hawaiian Hotel?
Senator Frye. That is the royalist hotel?
Mr. Stalker. Yes.
Senator Frye. Did Mr. English live there at the same time?
Mr. Stalker. Yes.
Senator Frye. Were you and Mr. English on intimate terms?
Mr. Stalker. No.
Senator Frye. You were not?
Mr. Stalker. I can not say that we were.
Senator Frye. Did you not have daily conversations with him?
Mr. Stalker. No.
Senator Frye. Did you not ultimately suggest to him that he come over and become a professor in the college where you were?
|
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
| Previous Page | Next Page |