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

Reports of Committee on Foreign Relations 1789-1901 Volume 6 pp556-557 300dpi scan (VERY LARGE!)

Text Only


with the second or third, according to my recollection af the chronology, the King began introducing the missionaries into his cabinet, his council?

Mr. Emerson. Kamehameha III.

The Chairman. Yes, one of them remained there a long while as chief of a department of the Government.

Mr. Emerson. Yes, they resigned their missionary relations.

The Chairman. They gave up their missionary relations and became chiefs of the Government?

Mr. Emerson. Yes.

The Chairman. During all the time of the existence of these monarchs, these Kings, was there any want of confidence between the monarch and the white element? When I speak of the white element, I mean those who are in favor of good government and religion. Was there any conflict between these Kamehamehas, or Lunalilo, and the white missionaries, and those persons who where associated with them?

Mr. Emerson. I think there was no conflict except on moral points. The missionaries were their most stanch supporters—loyal subjects.

The Chairman. I want to know whether there was harmony of action between the Hawaiians and Kamehamehas and Lunalilo during their respective reigns.

Mr. Emerson. Yes.

The Chairman. Then it was later that the controversy arose between the Crown and the missionary or white element?

Mr. Emerson. Yes.

The Chairman. It arose then, as I understand it, during the reign of Kalakaua?

Mr. Emerson. Kamehameha V proclaimed a more autocratic constitution. He was criticised. We felt that he was somewhat of a heathen. In 1868 he granted these licenses to the native sorcerers. We felt that he was a man of great force of will. We felt that he was rather introducing heathen elements. Although he was not squarely, flatly against the missionaries, yet they were not so much in sympathy wtih him as they were with Kamehameha III and Kamehameha IV.

The Chairman. Kamehameha V gave the new constitution?

Mr. Emerson. Yes.

The Chairman. When Kalakaua was put on the throne, was there any change?

Mr. Emerson. No.

The Chairman. It was when Kalakaua was chosen king that the constitution of 1864 was changed?

Mr. Emerson. The coup d'etat of Kamehameha V was in 1864, and that constitution continued until 1887.

The Chairman. The point I was trying to get at is this, whether the first political disturbance between the white element and the monarchy was during the reign of Kalakaua.

Mr. Emerson. Yes.

The Chairman. And from that time to this it has been more or less turbulent?

Mr. Emerson. Yes.

The Chairman. And this present revolution is the fruit or result of political movements that took place in the beginning of the reign of Kalakaua?

Mr. Emerson. Yes.

The Chairman. And not before?

Mr. Emerson. I think not before. In 1854 I believe there was talk


of a change of government. That was because of certain difficulties that the King had with foreign relations, not internal relations, as I understand it.

The Chairman. During all this period of time has there been, within your knowledge or belief, according to your understanding, a party of white people existing in Hawaii for the purpose of annexing Hawaii to the United States?

Mr. Emerson. I think there has been, during the latter part of the reign of Kalakaua. I think there were people who looked to ultimate annexation.

The Chairman. Was that because of designs on their part to overthrow the Government and force annexation, or because they were despairing of the power of the native element to rule?

Mr. Emerson. I think the feeling was this: " Just so long as the present Government continues, let us be loyal to that." I think that was the feeling of these men who finally achieved the revolution.

The Chairman. They had been anticipating the fall of the dynasty?

Mr. Emerson. Yes. Some felt that Kalakaua ought to be the last. That was the feeling of a great many.

The Chairman. Anticipating the fall of the Hawaiian dynasty—the monarchy?

Mr. Emerson. Yes.

The Chairman. And that led to the expectation—an earnest one— and hope that the result would be that the Hawaiian Islands would be annexed to the United States?

Mr. Emerson. Coupled with that anticipation of the downfall of the dynasty, was the wasting away of the Hawaiian people, ceasing to be the dominant people.

The Chairman. That is what you have been looking to all the time?

Mr. Emerson. Yes.

Senator Gray. You think there was a distinct party there called the annexation party, or that the policy of annexation was approved by some people?

Mr. Emerson. I do not know of a distinct party that was crystalized, but there was that talk.

The Chairman. What was the sentiment that you gathered from your association with the people over there, in the event that the Hawaiian monarchy is to perish; whether those people would prefer to place themselves within the protection of the United States or Great Britain, or Germany, or France, or Japan, or any other place?

Mr. Emerson. So far as I have talked with my friends (and they put a good many questions to me in regard to this matter), I feel that they prize above all other things annexation to this country, that is, under the situation, seeing that they can not carry things themselves. The Hawaiian would prefer to have the prominence which he has lost. But that he can never regain, and my sentiment is, and so far as I have talked with them I have so expressed it, that they should get as near to the United States as they can, saying, " You will then have as fully as you can your rights of suffrage."

Senator Gray. Prior to that emeute of Saturday, when trouble commenced, was a majority of the people of Hawaii opposing the Queen and in favor of annexing Hawaii to the United States?

Mr. Emerson. Oh, no.

The Chairman. You mean all the people?

Previous Page Next Page