956-962

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

-p956-

me and their requests for expression of their sentiments led me to ask Mr. Colburn, minister of the interior, at the close of his speech, what assurance there was that the constituted police and military forces would not make an attack? Whether the Queen's adherents would be removed from command of them? To this Mr. Colburn replied that as a cabinet minister he ought not to be asked to answer such a question in public, but that he could give assurances that a satisfactory settlement was even then being made. He then withdrew and called me to him—he was with Judge Hartwell—and to the best of my recollection one of them said in substance that the matter of which I had spoken was all right. A request to Mr. Stevens to land his forces had been prepared and was in Hartwell's hands to be delivered; that Mr. Stevens had consented to this for the purpose of defending the cabinet and the constitution against any possible aggression by the Queen. Later, Mr. Hartwell told me the paper had gone off for Mr. Peterson's signature and asked me to get it. I tried but failed to find Peterson.

I have since been told that Mr. Peterson still has the paper, and that for palpable reasons it was never shown to Mr. Blount.

The next morning the cabinet evaded all this and adhered to the Queen, and Mr. Stevens stated that he could not assist a counter revolution by the committee of safety.

The foregoing ought to explain the half truth upon which the old cabinet bases its charges against the American minister.

Charles L. Carter
Honolulu, January 2, 1893.


STATEMENT OF L. A. THURSTON, HAWAIIAN MINISTER, PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 21, 1893.

Washington, November 21.

"I am urged to make a statement for publication, setting forth the position and claims of the Hawaiian Government and making reply to charges contained in Mr. Blount's report.

"As I have received no official information that Mr. Blount has made a report, have not seen a copy of it, and do not know what it contains, except from reading newspaper abstractions therefrom, and am unaware of the present contentions of the U. S. Government concerning Hawaii, I am unable, at present, in the absence of such knowledge, to intelligently state what the position and claims of the Hawaiian Government are. It would, moreover, be contrary to diplomatic courtesy for me to publish a statement on such subject prior to informing the U. S. Government of the same.

"A large portion of the published extracts from Mr. Blount's report consists, however, of personal attacks upon me and those associated with me in the Provisional Government, impugning our veracity, good faith, and courage, and charging us with fraud and duplicity. I deem it proper, therefore, to make a personal reply to such charges, confining myself to statements of fact, of which, as a principal actor, I am prepared to testify to before any impartial tribunal.

"First, before stating such facts, I desire to call attention to Mr. Blount's method of constructing his report. Although he, in several places, states that I was the leader of the revolutionary movement, he has never asked me a question concerning the same, nor given me opportunity to make any statement, although I have at all times been

-p957-

ready and willing to do so. The same is true of a large number of other men who took a leading part in the movement of January last.

"In the second place his evidence consists exclusively of prepared affidavits or of answers to leading questions put by himself, at private interviews, no one else being present but the stenographer. In no instance has there been any cross-examination of witnesses or opportunity given to contradict or explain evidence given or present other evidence.

"A brief examination of the published portions of the report shows numerous incorrect statements. I shall endeavor for the present, however, to answer the more salient points only.

"First, Mr. Blount charges that the American troops were landed under a prearranged agreement with the committee of safety that they should so land and assist in the overthrow of the Queen. In reply thereto, I hereby state that at no time did Mr. Stevens or Capt. Wiltse assure me or the committee of safety, or any subcommittee thereof, that the United States troops would assist in overthrowing the Queen or establishing the Provisional Government; and, as a matter of fact, they did not so assist. I can produce witnesses in support of this statement, of the highest responsibility, in overwhelming number, but Mr. Blount has rendered it unnecessary to do so. The statements of Mr. Wundenburg and Mr. Damon have been put forward as the strongest evidence in support of Mr. Blount's contention. In Mr. Wundenburg's statement he says that when the committee of safety told Mr. Stevens they were not ready to act, he replied: 'Gentlemen, the troops of the Boston will land at 5 o'clock whether you are ready or not.' The reason of this reply and the subsequent landing of the troops is manifest. The troops were landed to protect American citizens and property in the event of the impending and inevitable conflict between the Queen and the citizens, and not to cooperate with the committee in carrying out its plans. In fact, the troops did not cooperate with the committee, and the committee had no more knowledge than did the Queen's Government where the troops were going nor what they were going to do. The whole gist of Mr. Damon's long examination is likewise contained in his statement that when, after the organization and proclamation of the new Government, the request was made for the support of the United States troops it was refused, Commander Swinburne, the commanding officer, sending back word, 'Capt. Wiltse's orders are, "Remain passive.'"

"Second, Mr. Blount charges that the Queen had ample military force with which to have met the committee, and but for the support of the United States representatives and troops the establishment of the Provisional Government would have been impossible. In reply thereto I hereby state that, although the presence of the American troops had a quieting effect on the rough characters in the city and may have prevented some bloodshed, they were not essential to and did not assist in the overthrow of the Queen. The result of the movement would have been eventually the same if there had not been a marine within a thousand miles of Honolulu.

"In support of this statement I cite the following facts:

"1. The troops did not land till Monday night, the 16th of January, after the revolution had been in full progress since the afternoon of Saturday, the 14th, during which time the committee of safety was openly organizing for the avowed purpose of overthrowing the Queen.

"2. There was absolutely no attempt at concealment from the Government of the objects and intentions of the committee.

-p958-

"3 . The Queen, her cabinet, and their supporters were utterly demoralized, suspicious of one another, and devoid of leadership.

"4. The committee of safety and their supporters were united; had ample force to execute their purpose; knew precisely what they wanted, and proceeded with intelligent deliberation, thoroughness, and confidence to do it.

"There is no conflict concerning the facts of the first proposition. It is admitted by all that the Queen began the revolution at noon on Saturday, the 14th, by attempting to promulgate a constitution; that such attempt was immediately followed by preparation on the part of the citizens for armed resistance, and that the United States troops landed at 5 o'clock Monday, the 16th.

"In support of the second proposition, that there was no concealment from the Government of the intentions of the committee, I submit the following:

"1. On the afternoon of Saturday, the 14th, in reply to the request of the Queen's cabinet for advice as to what they had better do, the Queen then still insisting upon the proclamation of the constitution and supporting it by force, I advised them to declare the Queen in revolution and the throne vacant, and at their request and at the expressed approval of two of them and the tacit assent of the other two, then and there drew up a form of proclamation to that effect.

"2. At half past 4 in the afternoon of Saturday, the 14th, at a meeting of about 200 citizens at the office of W. O. Smith, the Queen was denounced in the strongest terms, armed resistance and a counter revolution were openly advocated, and the Queen's minister of the interior, John Colburn, addressed the meeting, asking their armed support against the Queen. The Queen's attorney-general, Mr. Peterson, and her attorney, Paul Neuman, were both present taking part in the meeting. The committee of safety was publicly then and there named and proceeded forthwith to organize.

"3. At 6 o'clock on Sunday morning, the 15th, I told Mr. Peterson and Mr. Colburn, two members of the Queen's cabinet, that the committee intended to depose the Queen and establish a provisional government; that if they would take charge of the movement, well and good, otherwise the committee intended to take action on its own account. They ask for twenty-four hours in which to consider the matter. I declined to wait, stating to them that the committee intended to proceed forthwith.

"4. The committee met openly that morning at 10 o'clock, with the full knowledge of the Government of the place of its meeting. It remained in session during the greater part of the day, while several police kept watch of the building from the street.

"5. On Monday morning at 9 o'clock the committee, without attempt at concealment, met in my office, within 200 feet of the police station, Marshal Wilson's headquarters, where the entire police force was stationed. While the meeting was in progress Wilson came to the office and asked to speak to me privately, and we went into an adjoining room. Our conversation was, in substance, as follows:

"Wilson said: 'I want this meeting stopped,' referring to the mass meeting for that afternoon.

"I replied: 'It can't be stopped. It is too late.'

"He said: 'Can't this thing be fixed up in some way?'

"I replied: 'No, it can not. It has gone too far.'

"He said: 'The Queen has abandoned her new constitution idea.'

-p959-

"I replied: ' How do we know that she will not take it ap again as she said she would?'

"He said, 'I will guarantee that she will not, even if I have to lock her up in a room to keep her from doing it; and I'll do it, too, if necessary.'

"I replied : ' We are not willing to accept that guarantee as sufficient. This thing has gone on from bad to worse until we are not going to stand it any longer. We are going to take no chances in the matter, but settle it now, once and for all.'

"Wilson then left the office. He has since stated that he immediately reported to the cabinet and advised arresting the committee, but the cabinet was afraid and refused to allow it.

"6. At 2 o'clock on the afternoon of Monday, the 16th, a mass meeting of 3,000 unarmed men was held within a block of the palace. The meeting was addressed by a number of speakers, all denouncing the Queen. The meeting, with tremendous cheering and enthusiasm, unanimously adopted resolutions declaring the Queen to be in revolution, and authorizing the committee to proceed to do whatever was necessary. The police were present, but no attempt was made to interfere with the meeting or make any arrests. The meeting adjourned amid the most intense excitement, and the citizens dispersed throughout the town awaiting the further call of the committee. While this meeting had been in progress another was being held by the royalists in the streets, within a block of the armory, which adopted resolutions in support of the Queen.

"Never in the history of Hawaii has there been such a tense condition of mind or a more imminent expectation of bloodshed and conflict than there was immediately after the adjournment of these two radically opposed meetings. Mr. Blount's statement that the community was at peace and quiet is grossly inaccurate. It was at this juncture, two hours after the adjournment of the above meetings, that Capt. Wiltse and Mr. Stevens, acting upon their own responsibility and discretion, and irrespective of the request or actions of the committee, landed the troops, which were distributed in three parts of the city, instead of being massed at one point, as stated by Mr. Blount. The reason that the Queen's Government took no action against the committee, or its supporters, was that they were overwhelmed by the unanimous display of indignation and determination shown by the citizens, and were cowed into submission in the same manner that the King and his supporters were cowed under precisely similar circumstances by the same citizens in June, 1887.

"In support of the third proposition, that the Queen and her supporters were demoralized and devoid of leadership I submit the following:

"1. During the few weeks prior to the revolution Mr. Colburn, minister of the interior at the time of the revolution, had been one of the leaders of the political party opposed to myself, and he was bitterly hostile to me personally. My first intimation of the revolutionary intention of the Queen was at 10 o'clock on the morning of Saturday, the 14th, when Mr. Colburn came to me greatly excited. He told me of the Queen's intention to promulgate a new constitution, and asked my advice. I said to him: 'Why do you not go to the members of your own party?' He replied: 'I have no party. Those who have been our supporters are supporting the Queen. The down-town people [referring to the merchants] have got no use for me, and, unless the members of your party and other citizens will support us, we are going to resign right away.'

-p960-

"2. At 1 o'clock the same day I met all the members of the cabinet at the attorney-general's office. They had just come from an interview with the Queen, at which she had announced her intention of promulgating a constitution and demanded their support. They stated that she had threatened them with mob violence, whereupon they had immediately left the palace, each one going out by a separate entrance. While we were talking a messenger came from the Queen requesting them to immediately return to the palace. Peterson and Colburn positively refused to do so, stating that they did not consider their lives would be safe there. I shortly after left them and started down town. After I had gone about two blocks I was overtaken by a messenger from the cabinet asking me to return, which I did. They asked me to ascertain what support they could expect from citizens, and formally authorized me to state the condition of affairs to leading citizens and in their behalf to call for armed volunteers to resist the Queen. I immediately proceeded to comply with their request, and, with the assistance of others, within an hour or two thereafter about 80 leading citizens had signed a written agreement agreeing to support the cabinet against the Queen by force.

"3. Later the same afternoon Mr. Colburn informed me that they had finally gone to the palace and held a stormy interview with the Queen lasting for over two hours. He told me he had no confidence in his colleague, Mr. Peterson, who he believed was playing double with him, and told me to beware of telling Peterson anything further. As a reason for his distrust he said that he knew nothing of the intention to promulgate a constitution, but that, while they were discussing the matter with the Queen, she said, in reply to an objection made by Peterson: 'Why did you not make this objection before? You have had this constitution in your possession for a mouth and raised no objection to it.' Colburn said also that in reply to an objection made by Mr. Parker, minister of foreign affairs, she said: ' Why did you not tell me this last night when we were talking over the subject?' Colburn further stated to me that at a caucus of their party on the previous Friday night one of the members of the Legislature, Kaluna by name, had said that if he could establish the new constitution he would die happy if he could kill some other man before dying.

"4. The Queen was furiously angry at the refusal of the cabinet to join her in promulgating the constitution, and publicly denounced them therefor.

"5. When the Queen made announcement of her failure to promulgate the constitution, two of the leading royalist members of the Legislature, one in the throne room in the palace and one upon the steps of the building, addressed the assembled crowd, denounced the cabinet as traitors, and said that they wanted to shed blood. One of the committee included the Queen in his denunciations.

"6. During the entire time between noon of Saturday, the 14th, and the afternoon of Tuesday, the 17th, when the Provisional Government was proclaimed, the Queen's cabinet was without plan of action, and did practically nothing but rush about the city consulting with various foreign representatives or citizens of all parties as to what they had better do, begging the American minister for the support of the American troops against the committee of safety, and securing from the Queen a declaration that she would not again attempt to abrogate the constitution, which they hurried into print and distributed broadcast to try and appease the indignation of citizens and break up the proposed mass meeting.

-p961-

"In support of the fourth proposition that the committee and their supporters were united, had ample force to execute their purpose, and proceeded with deliberation and confidence to do so, I submit the following:

"An essential factor in judging whether the force of the committee was sufficient, and their confidence in themselves well founded, is to know what the same men under similar conditions have done upon previous occasions. Fortunately, there is no dispute as to the facts concerning two recent incidents in Hawaiian history in which the same parties who were brought into conflict in January, 1893, were arrayed against each other under similar circumstances:

"1 . In 1887 the King, by a manipulation of the electorate and the legislature, had encroached upon popular rights and obtained autocratic power over the people. In this course he was supported by practically the same persons who in January last, and now, constitute the Royalist party in Hawaii. The open bribery, corruption, and debauchery of the King and his supporters crystallized the opposition thereto into an organization of practically the same men who organized and now constitute the Provisional Government. Such organization was formed with the openly avowed intention of wresting from the King his autocratic powers or dethroning him. In preparation for the expected movement the King fortified the palace, loopholed its basement for sharpshooters, erected sandbag breastworks at the entrance of tbe building, mounted cannon and Gatling guns at all the approaches thereto, largely increased his regular military force, and defied the organization and public opinion.

The leaders of the revolutionary movement proceeded deliberately to collect such arms as were available and organized their plans. An executive committee of thirteen was appointed, who took entire control of the movement and called a mass meeting in the same building used for that purpose in January last. The King attempted to head off the meeting by sending a letter to it promising certain reforms. The letter had no effect. Resolutions were adopted denouncing the King and demanding the granting of a new constitution depriving the King of all personal power. The resolutions were forthwith presented to the King by the committee, who, unarmed and alone, proceeded direct from the meeting to the fortified palace with the ultimatum that he comply with the demands within twenty-four hours or take the consequences.

"The King was then in absolute control of the regular troops, the especial troops enlisted for the occasion, 4 companies of native militia, the police, all the artillery and Gatling guns, the government buildings, the palace, the barracks, and the station house, with full knowledge of, and weeks of preparation for, the action taken by the citizens. His military strength was greater and his control of the public buildings more complete than was that of the Queen in January last. He did not fire a shot; submitted to all demands; disbanded his troops and turned the whole control of the Government over to the revolutionary party, which, in consideration of his abject submission allowed him to continue on the throne in a figurehead capacity.

"2. In 1889, while the same men who now constitute the Provisional Government were in control of the King's Government, a conspiracy was organized among the royalist supporters by the King and Liliuokalani for the overthrow of the cabinet and the restoration of the old royal power and constitution. The conspirators took the cabinet by surprise, and on the night of July 29 took possession of the Government

S. Doc. 231, pt 6----61

-p962-

buildings and palace, and securing possession of all the artillery fortified the palace. The regular troops, by order of the King, refused to assist the cabinet, who called upon the white militia and white citizens for assistance. The call was promptly responded to. The revolutionists were protected by an 8-foot stone wall around the palace, and used artillery as well as rifles, while the cabinet supporters were armed with rilies alone. The fighting opened at 9 o'clock in the morning with less than 30 cabinet supporters in position in front of the palace, which number was later increased to about 500. The royalist revolutionists opened with a furious fire of both artillery and small arms. Within half an hour they were driven from their guns. Seven were killed and 12 wounded, and before dark all of them were dispersed or captured, while not one of the Cabinet supporters was injured.

"Such is the undisputed record of events upon two occasions when the royalists and the organizers of the Provisional Government have come into armed conflict when there has been no suggestion of support to either side by any outside power. Under these circumstances I submit that the burden of proof is upon those who claim that the leaders of the Provisional Government are cowards, or that they are incompetent to organize or successfully carry out a revolution against the royalists in Hawaii.

"It is unnecessary for me here to restate the details of the bitter constitutional conflict which had been carried on between the Queen and the Legislature during the seven months prior to January last, or to speak of the intense indignation existing among all classes of citizens by reason of the open and successful alliance of the Queen with the opium and lottery rings. The political liberties of the people had been trampled upon, and their moral sense shocked. It simply needed the added provocation of the arbitrary attempt to abrogate the constitution and disfranchise every white man in the country, to spontaneously crystallize opposition into a force that was irresistible.

"In reply to the sneer that the persons taking part in the movement were 'aliens,' I would say that every man of them was, by the laws of the country, a legal voter, whose right to the franchise was, by the proposed constitution, to be abrogated; a large proportion of them were born in the country, and almost without exception those who were not born there had lived there for years, owned property there, and had made it their home. They were the men who had built up the country commercially, agriculturally, financially, and politically, and created and made possible a civilized government therein. They were and are such men as to-day are the leading citizens of the most progressive communities of the United States, with interests as thoroughly identified with the interests of Hawaii as are the interests of native and foreign born citizens in similar communities in this country identified with it?"

Adjourned until Monday, the 22d instant, at 10 o'clock a. m.

-p963-

Washington, D.C., Monday, January 22, 1894.

The subcommittee met pursuant to adjournment.

Present: The Chairman (Senator Morgan), and Senators Gray, Butler and Frye, and Senators Daniel and Davis, of the full committee.

SWORN STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCANDLESS—Continued.

The Chairman. What connection had you with political movements in Hawaii, and when did you first become associated with any political movement in Hawaii?

Mr. McCandless. My first connection was in 1887. During the winter of 1886 and 1887 there was organized, under the laws of the Kingdom, an organization called the Honolulu Rifles, and it suddenly became very popular with all the foreigners and whites of the islands. I joined that military organization, and continued to be a member of it until 1888, when I made a visit to the States.

The Chairman. Did you hold any office in that organization?

Mr. McCandless. I was nothing but a private. I was one of a committee of thirteen of the political organization.

The Chairman. At that time?

Mr. McCandless. Yes.

The Chairman. What was the nature of that organization ?

Mr. McCandless. That was an organization to compel the King to grant a new constitution, or it was organized with the intention of forming a republic, making a republic—that is, deposing the King, making a republic with a view of annexing the islands to the United States.

The Chairman. Then why was not that purpose persisted in, or was it abandoned?

Mr. McCandless. It was persisted in that a great many people thought we should give the King one last show to redress the wrongs that he had committed, and take a great many of the prerogatives away from him, and perhaps he would do better. That spirit prevailed to such an extent that a mass meeting was called and strong resolutions were drawn up. They were made so strong that they did not think that any man of self-respect could accede to the demands of the resolutions, and so soon as he should refuse they would start the revolution.

The Chairman. How was that mass meeting as to numbers?

Mr. McCandless. The mass meeting of 1887 was a mass meeting of 1,200 people.

The Chairman. Of what class of people was that mass meeting composed?

Mr. McCandless. Of most of the white people of the Hawaiian Islands.

Senator Gray. Where did you go from to Hawaii?

Mr. McCandless. West Virginia.

Senator Gray. Where were you born?

Mr. McCandless. In Pennsylvania. My father moved from Pennsylvania when I was a boy. I went to California and stayed there a year and a half, and went to the Hawaiian Islands in 1881.

The Chairman. Your business out there was sinking artesian wells?

Mr. McCandless. Yes.

The Chairman. Did the King make concessions that reconciled this


Previous Page Next Page