|Previous Page||Next Page|
Senator Butler. When?
Mr. Alexander. Monday afternoon, at 5—-without asking permission of the ministers, the cabinet.
Senator Butler. The ministers of the Hawaiian Government?
Mr. Alexander. Yes.
The Chairman. Without the permission of the Queen's Government?
Mr. Alexander. Yes. That is the principal point. As to the right or wrong of it, it is not for me to say.
Senator Frye. The Senator asked you if the United States officials did anything.
Mr. Alexander. Simply landed. They did nothing.
Senator Frye. You were asked if they did anything to aid the Provisional Government or the Queen, or anything else.
Mr. Alexander. Their presence on shore, had a moral effect on the natives. They did not know what was going to happen.
Senator Butler. I think I understood you to say that, in your opinion, the landing of those marines was not necessary for the protection of the lives of American citizens?
Mr. Alexander. I would not be positive about that. I think there was reason enough for apprehension to justify their landing. If those things had happened which justified their landing and they had not landed the United States authorities would have been to blame. There is some difference of opinion about it.
The Chairman. Would you undertake to say that it was the opinion among the better class of citizens in Honolulu that there was sufficient occasion to require the intervention of these troops?
Mr. Alexander. I have heard that opinion generally expressed.
The Chairman. Would you say whether or not that was the general opinion there at that time, at the time of the landing of the troops and before?
Mr. Alexander. I am inclined to think so.
Senator Gray. Among that class of the people described by the chairman?
Mr. Alexander. Yes, they felt the insecurity.
Senator Gray. You say the opinion of that element was in favor of the establishment of the Provisional Government?
Mr. Alexander. Yes.
The Chairman. You spoke about the interference of the officers of the Government of the United States on previous occasions. State to to what occasions you refer.
Mr. Alexander. I had in mind the landing to quell the courthouse riot in 1874, and I had in mind the landing of the marines in 1889, in which they did not take part, however, but at which time the Wilcox insurrection was suppressed.
The Chairman. Those were two occasions. Were there any more?
Mr. Alexander. Those were the only ones prior to this.
The Chairman. Were they the only ones where the Government of the United States landed troops for the purpose of protecting the lives of people or for the purpose of protecting the public peace?
Mr. Alexander. I think so.
The Chairman. Was there more or less apparent interference on the part of these troops which were landed on the two occasions you have mentioned than there was on this last occasion?
Mr. Alexander. There was more; because in 1874 they proceeded to arrest the ring leaders of the mob, and they stood guard over the public buildings for a week.
The Chairman. That was the mob raised to dethrone Kalakaua?
Mr. Alexander. Yes.
The Chairman. And enthrone Queen Emma?
Mr. Alexander. Yes.
The Chairman. Well, the other occasion?
Mr. Alexander. In 1889 they went further than they did at this time, because they loaned 10,000 rounds of ammunition to the Government troops, the white troops that were putting down this insurrection.
The Chairman. Kalakaua's troops?
Mr. Alexander. Nominally, yes; really, the same men who were upholding the Provisional Government. But at that time they were the legal government.
The Chairman. They were upholding it both as against Kalakaua and Liliuokalaui?
Mr. Alexander. That is what is believed—that they connived at Wilcox.
The Chairman. That is, Kalakaua and Liliuokalani?
Mr. Alexander. Yes.
The Chairman. That is, that they were conniving at the movement against the Wilcox cabinet?
Mr. Alexander. It was in Wilcox's report. I know there was a difference between his case and the other; I know the other two had a form of commission from the other Government.
The Chairman. What other men-of-war were in the harbor of Honolulu when these troops landed in January, 1893?
Mr. Alexander. No other men-of-war except the American man-of war.
The Chairman. No British?
Mr. Alexander. No other nation.
The Chairman. So that there was no chance to appeal to any outside power?
Mr. Alexander. No other nation represented.
The Chairman. Do you know anything about the fact of the recognition of the Provisional Government by the ministers of the other powers then located in Honolulu?
Mr. Alexander. I know by hearsay and what I saw in the papers; that is, that Minister Stevens recognised it the afternoon of the 17th, and the others, the German consul and the Portuguese minister, recognised it the next morning, and Mr. Wodehouse verbally recognized it.
Senator Gray. Who is Mr. Wodehouse?
Mr. Alexander. The British consul general. He verbally told them he recognized it, but he did not send in his official recognition until Thursday afternoon.
NOTES ON COL. BLOUNT'S REPORT.
Prof. W. D. Alexander had several informal conversations with Col. J. H. Blount in Honolulu, which were not taken down by his stenographer.
At Col. Blount's request, Prof. Alexander prepared written papers on the history of the uncompleted annexation treaty of 1854, on the general causes which led to the late revolution, on the political history of Kalakaua's reign until 1888, and on the constitutional history of the country since the beginning of this century.
All of these were printed except the last. He also furnished him pamphlets on the land system, the census, etc.
Col. Blount's sketch of the causes of the late revolution on pp. 3-15 of his report betrays a total misconception of Hawaiian history and of the nature of the political contest that has been going on during the last fifteen years or more.
E.g., on p. 5 he charges to the reciprocity treaty "a new labor system," which preceded it by twenty years, and the "alienation between the native and white races," which had shown itself long before, and the causes of which I have briefly explained in my second paper, and the "many so-called revolutions," which really had no relation to that treaty. On p. 6 is an extraordinary statement about the division of the lands in 1848, which for the first time in history is called "discreditable." He says the Kanaka at that time "generally read and wrote English," which few adults can do now.
His remarks about the descendants of missionaries seem to be borrowed from C. T. Gulick and Nordhoff. The sneering use of the term dates from the days of the "beach-combers" and Botany Bay convicts, who preceded the missionaries in those islands. The descendants of the latter are hated chiefly for their adherence to the principles of their fathers and their endeavors to preserve the constitutional lines on which the Government was administered under the Kamehameha dynasty.
Col. Blount's total misapprehension of history is shown by his astonishing statement on page 7, that the ex-Mormon adventurer Gibson was "free from all suspicion of bribery."
On page 8 he speaks of several criminal acts, proved in open court, as "alleged," and says that the "alleged corrupt action of the King Kalakaua could have been avoided by more careful legislation," when the whole difficulty lay in the autocratic power of the King, which enabled him to appoint the upper house and to pack the lower house of the Legislature. He ignores the fact that it was impossible for a white man to be naturalized unless he was a tool of the King. He passes very lightly over the outrages which caused the uprising of all white men and of the more decent natives in 1887.
On page 10 he omits the vital change made in section 20, which struck at the root of the King's power to pack or bribe the Legislature.
It also should be borne in mind that naturalization in the Hawaiian Kingdom never had included abjuration of one's former citizenship.
Col. Blount is grossly misinformed in regard to the character of the election held after that revolution, 1887. It was the first fair and free election by really secret ballot held for many years. No intimidation whatever. The law was improved afterwards, on the Australian system, by the reform party. The appointment of the upper house was taken from an irresponsible semi-savage monarch and vested in citizens possessing a moderate property qualification. Otherwise all the great financial interests of the country would have been at the mercy of an ignorant populace.
Throughout this sketch he ignores the real distinction between the two principal parties, which for fifteen years have divided the country, the one in favor of reaction in politics, religion, and morals, in favor of free liquor, hulalula dances,sorcery, gambling, gin, opium, and lotteries, and personal government; the other in favor of clean, honest, responsible, and economical government. The former may command a majority of votes in the seaport of Honolulu, but the latter is supported by the property-owners, the leaders of industrial enterprises, and by those who support and carry on all the educational, charitable, and religious work in the country.
Statesmen will take such facts into account, as well as the anti-American animus of the reactionary royalist party.
Col. Blount shows a singular hostility to the Portuguese, who form one of the most valuable elements in the islands, the most moral as shown by the reports of the attorney-general and chief justice, and perhaps the most industrious people in the country, and the most easily Americanized. He even goes so far as to say that they ought not to be classed as Europeans.
A colony of these people exists in Jacksonville and Springfield, Ill., where they bear a good character. Their crime, in his eyes, may be their unanimous support of the Provisional Government and their admiration of American institutions.
On the other hand, his account of the native race is surprisingly incorrect and superficial, although ample statistics relating to lands, property, occupations, accounts of native character, etc., were before him. He says the "majority (of the common people) received nothing" in the way of land. The fact was that all heads of families received homesteads, if they applied for them, and the census shows that 10 per cent of the natives, counting women and children, are even now landowners. Between 1850 and 1860 a large proportion, 40 per cent, of the Government land was sold, mainly to natives, at nominal prices, and every effort was made to encourage habits of thrift among them. Many are now living on the rents of their lands. The chiefs died out, leaving no heirs in many cases, and their lands were largely purchased by foreigners.
ON THE KANAKAS.
Of the utter incapacity of the Kanaka for business, his improvidence, instability, fickleness, duplicity, and indolence, Col. Blount must have been informed. Accustomed from time immemorial to absolute despotism, they (the Kanakas) ought not to have been expected to become fit for self-government in one generation. Besides, they have been too much petted and pauperized by the Government and their white friends, to develop habits of self-reliance.
E. g., about one-tenth of the native girls are in boarding schools, three-fourths of whom are supported by benevolent white people, with rather unsatisfactory results.
The revival of heathen superstitions under the late dynasty for a political object, is ignored by the commissioner. It is too true that their capacity and progress have been grossly overrated from various motives. They need to be cared for like children. If intrusted with supreme power, they would soon involve themselves and their white benefactors in a common ruin, as was shown in Kalakaua's reign. If it was left to them, they might abolish segregation of lepers, and vote for the lottery and fiat paper money. Of course there are honorable exceptions. In regard to the decrease of the native population Col. Blount's conclusions differ from those of all those who have made a study of the subject on the islands. The reports of births and deaths during the present year, unfortunately, show a constant decrease. It is generally
estimated at 2 per cent per annum. In order to save them, President Dole and his colleagues have elaborated a plan for giving the Kanakas homesteads out of the Crown lands, not transferable, on condition of occupation.
CONSPIRACY OF 1892, THE "LIBERALS."
To return to Col. Blount's report, p. 14, his statement of the three parties in the late Legislature is very wide of the mark. Col. V. V. Ashford's statement might have helped him to understand it, if he had been willing to use it. I have written a brief sketch of Hawaiian politics from 1887 to 1893, but have lent or given away all my copies of it. Col. Ashford's account, which is in the main correct (although colored by personal animosity and disappointed ambition), describes the conspiracies of 1888 and 1889, in which Liliuokalani was an accomplice. Her own testimony shows how reluctantly she took the oath to the constitution, and how little conception she had of constitutional government.
The revolutionary movement of 1892 (in regard to which Mr. Stevens wrote his letter of March 8, 1892, p. 178, Sen. Doc. 77) was not countenanced by the better class of people, who considered it uncalled for, and had no faith in the unprincipled adventurers at the head of it, most of whom are now royalists. Their dream was a Kanaka democracy, in which they would hold the offices. The Queen's faction, who had a coup d'etat under consideration, tried to form an alliance with them, which was rejected. C. B. Wilson then arrested a large number of them and broke up the conspiracy.
The Queen had made it a condition in appointing her ministry in 1891, that her favorite, Wilson, the Tahitian half white, should be marshal of the Kingdom.
LEGISLATURE OF 1892.
He (Wilson) associated on intimate terms with Capt. Whaley, part owner of the schooner Halcyon and King of the opium smugglers, and with other like characters, and collected around the police headquarters a gang of disreputable individuals, while opium joints and gambling-houses flourished with his connivance, as was believed. At the same time it was well understood that his influence in the administration was greater than that of any cabinet minister.
The so-called liberals in the Legislature of 1892 joined hands with the reformers (who lacked a few votes of a majority), in order to break the power of the palace party and opium ring, and to remove their enemy, Wilson. Three cabinets were voted out as representing this latter element, and as being in complicity with the lottery.
The British commissioner took an active interest in the struggle and encouraged the Queen to resist.
After a four months' contest she yielded temporarily, and appointed a cabinet of conservative reformers, highly respected and trusted by the community.
This cabinet declared itself against the lottery bill and a fiat paper money bill, which was killed, but did not choose to act on Wilson's case till after the adjournment of the legislature. This weakness on their part and the fact that the liberals were not represented in this cabinet so exasperated the latter that they united with their enemies, the palace party, and voted for measures which they had denounced."
The Chairman. You have prepard a statement in respect of the different constitutions of Hawaii, which statement you have in manuscript?
Mr. Alexander. I have.
The Chairman. And it is correct?
Mr. Alexander. Yes.
Senator Frye. I see Mr. Blount says: "A part of the Queen's forces, numbering 224, were located at the station house, about one-third of a mile from the Government building. The Queen, with a body of 50 troops, was located at the palace, north of the Government building about 400 yards. A little northeast of the palace and 200 yards from it, at the barracks, was another body of 272 troops. These forces had 14 pieces of artillery, 386 rifles, and 16 revolvers."
Are those facts?
Mr. Alexander. I could not state from personal knowledge. I think the other gentlemen who will be here can state.
Senator Frye. You stated that, so far as you had any information, there were 80 soldiers, known as the Queen's Guard, and 60 policemen.
Mr. Alexander. A gentleman will come before you as a witness by and by who was at the station house. My opinion about it would have no weight.
Senator Gray. On page 5 there is a paragraph in Mr. Blount's report which is marked "Not so."
Mr. Alexander. Those are not my marks.
Senator Gray. As your statement was read, my attention having been directed to the marks, I noticed this paragraph, it being the first one. The paragraph is this:
"From it" [that is the reciprocity treaty] "there came to the islands an intoxicating increase of wealth, a new labor system, an Asiatic population, an alienation between the native and white races, an impoverishment of the former, an enrichment of the latter, and the many so-called revolutions, which are the foundation for the opinion that stable government can not be maintained."
That is the paragraph to which you took exception?
Mr. Alexander. It is erroneous in several points.
Senator Gray. Did there come to the islands after the reciprocity treaty "an intoxicating increase of wealth?"
Mr. Alexander. That is one point that is true.
Senator Gray. And was not that the source of a great many evils that followed?
Mr. Alexander. I think it was source of some evils.
Senator Gray. The source of a great many evils?
Mr. Alexander. It led to extravagance on the part of the white people and turned the heads of the natives.
Senator Gray. That increase of wealth which came after the reciprocity treaty was not very evenly or equally distributed over the islands among the population?
Mr. Alexander. Not equally; but it raised wages and increased the rent rolls. The natives as well as the white men profited by it.
Senator Gray. Then you think that paragraph is true?
Mr. Alexander. Yes; I did not except particularly to that. In my history I refer to that.
Senator Gray. Then, with regard to the "new labor system and Asiatic population?"
Mr. Alexander. In regard to the labor system, it dates back to the sixties.
S. Doc. 231, pt 6----43
|Previous Page||Next Page|