Summary of MacArthur's Testimony

From TheMorganReport
Jump to: navigation, search

Charles L. MacArthur lives in Troy, N.Y. where he is editor of the local newspaper. He was in Honolulu during February and early march, 1893. He went there for a vacation, but came upon the aftermath of the revolution, including the beginning of Minister Blount's residency. MacArthur, being a journalist, investigated events, spoke with people on all three sides (royalists, revolutionaries, and peacekeepers) and wrote articles.

"Dr. William Shaw Bowen, of New York, undertook to get the Queen to sell her rights and abdicate. I took a part in that affair, and I could tell the story. ... There are some statistics about the population, showing that just at that time they were saying that they should have a plebiscite there to justify annexation. I investigated that subject, and I found that there never had been one in territory annexed to the United States, and if there had been, the population would have voted it down in each case. We have never seen a case of that kind. Even in the annexation of Louisiana there were two riots against annexation. That annexation would have been beaten had you taken a vote of the population.

The CHAIRMAN: You are the editor of the Northern Budget? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: In the issue of November 26, 1893, you have presented some views about affairs in Hawaii. Those are the conclusions to which you sincerely arrived in your examination of the facts on the ground? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes. I did not go into that part of it which would be more interesting to you. I found that the native population was somewhat against annexation. I never could get at the bottom cause of it; I think I did, however, get at what I thought were the bottom causes. It was the woman question---- the color question. Some of the richest men in the islands had married natives. One, Mr. Bishop, of the State of New York. The CHAIRMAN: You speak of white men? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes, white men---- missionaries there. Of course the native population think it a great thing, an elevated thing, to marry their daughters to white people, and I found on investigating on the Island of Hawaii and on those of Lanai and Oahu that the report had been circulated all through the islands that among the people of the U.S. the men who married negroes were despised, and that they would lose their caste in Hawaii by marrying natives.

"It became a woman question to a great extent in the islands, and the women influence the men always. They thought their daughters ought to marry reputably, and they thought they would occupy the position that the negro does in the U.S. country in such cases. ... Degradation. The women got hold of this question and went into every native household. When I got at the bottom of this matter, I found that every man, native, that I talked with, presented that phase of the subject to me. I made inquiries, and I found that this impression had been carefully circulated everywhere among these native people. I found it in the Island of Hawaii, the Island of Maui, and I found it in Honolulu. I naturally felt that they were a very clannish people. The chief justice told me that in every case in which a jury of native people was had, they never could convict a native---- that they had to take this thing from the juries and from the examining boards, and segregate the lepers in these islands. ...

"The CHAIRMAN: What would you think of the political proposition of incorporating those people into our body politic? Mr. MACARTHUR. I think it ought to be done, because you do not build America for a little time; you build for a century; and the time is not far distant when the Pacific coast will have six or eight millions of people, and the native Hawaii population would be entirely rubbed out, at the present percentage of decrease, somewhere between 1920 and, say, 1930.

The CHAIRMAN: For similar reasons would you also think that it would be better for our country that the Japanese and Chinese should be brought in freely and incorporated into our body politic? ... I am speaking of the social effect in the United States of incorporating the orientals into the social system, what we call the body politic, of the United States. Mr. MACARTHUR: The Asiatics can not vote or become citizens under the Hawaiian constitution. The CHAIRMAN: I am not speaking of that, but the effect of annexation, in your judgment, as to Asiatics? Mr. MACARTHUR: It is not that, because they are a hardworking people. They earn their money, and they get what they consider wealth and return to their own countries. The exports from those islands are $115 for each man, woman, and child in the islands. There are no such exports in the world. I think it is a detriment to confine themselves exclusively to sugar.

The CHAIRMAN: Do you concur in the prevailing opinion that the Kanaka population of Hawaii is passing away---- perishing? Mr. MACARTHUR: At the rate of decrease that is now going on, or in the last decade, they will be entirely wiped out in 1930. It has been carefully calculated. You see there are only 34,000 natives, and there are 90,000 of population. Of that, perhaps 12,000 are Portuguese. The Portuguese and white men there in voting would outnumber the native population, that is, the native voting population---- outnumber them in the property qualification.

Senator DAVIS: What kind of people are those Portuguese? Mr. MACARTHUR: They are mostly from the Azores. ... They are a civil, orderly people. ... Industrious ... law-abiding ... children go to school ... there is compulsory education there for all classes. ... I regard them as the most progressive of all the three natives brought in there---- Chinese, Portuguese, and Japanese. ... They dress well; they have little gardens about their houses; they cultivate various things. The Azores is very similar to the climate of the Hawaiian Islands; it is the same class of soil---- volcanic soil. ... they sent out agents. They wanted to advance the thing, partly Japanese, partly Chinese, and somebody went over and by arrangement brought these people there. ... Not under the cooly system... the people of the Azores are the most liberal- minded of any of the Portuguese. ... They have brought their wives; they have little villages in Hawaii---- the sugar companies build for them Japanese houses. They did not like these houses, so they went to work and made Japanese villages for them---- little wicker things. ...

"The CHAIRMAN: I was speaking of it as an economic question---- whether you think it would be advantageous or disadvantageous to the United States to incorporate such a population as you have been describing into our body politic. Do you think it would be an advantage or a disadvantage? Mr. MACARTHUR: I think it would be an advantage. ... The CHAIRMAN: You do not include the Chinese in that statement? Mr. MACARTHUR: No, not altogether. I think the Chinese are the worst population of all, perhaps. The CHAIRMAN: Do they bring their families with them? Mr. MACARTHUR: Not to a great extent. The CHAIRMAN: Do they intermarry with the native women? Mr. MACARTHUR: Not much. Some of the Japanese do, and I think some of the Portuguese. ... They come there to make money and go home.

"The CHAIRMAN: This article which you published in your newspaper November 20,1893, seems to contain a statement of your views on a number of questions. I want to ask you whether you regard that as your sincere impression now? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes.

"The article is as follows: [From the New York Mail and Express.]


"...I was in the islands with my wife the best part of last winter, for weeks at the same hotel in Honolulu with Commissioner Blount and his amiable lady, saw them daily, and had fairly as good opportunities as he had to get at the bottom facts of the situation, the same sources of information being open to me as to him. Besides, I had greatly the advantage of him in that I saw and conversed with all classes of people and got at their inner ideas, whereas his reticence repelled rather than invited free intercourse.

"It was unfortunate for the object of his mission that he remained secluded in his quarters most of the time, instead of going about with his eyes and ears open and bringing into requisition the Yankee habit of asking questions. ... As I understand it, Mr. Blount only visited the island of Maui outside of Oahu, and then only paid a visit to see the great Spreckels sugar plantation, the largest in the world, where he was, of course, handsomely entertained. ... ... shutting himself up like an oyster in Honolulu and getting most of his information at second hand. ... a trained newspaper man would have bored into all the sources of information and have swept the field cleaner and more thoroughly in gathering material for a satisfactory report by the methods ordinarily in vogue with newspaper men than was possible by the methods and means adopted by the honorable chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee of the last Congress.

"ANNEXATION THE MORE DESIRABLE. "On the assumption that the United States ultimately means to do anything with Hawaii other than to crush it or let it alone severely, there are two solutions of the question pending. One is annexation, the other a protectorate. Of the two, annexation is altogether the more desirable to both countries. The better way would be to provide for annexation on a plan similar to that by which Alaska was admitted. Hawaii does not ask to come in as a State until the islands have grown to somewhere near the stature, in population and importance, of a fullgrown State. The older States, after the late experiences on the silver bill and in other respects, feel like going slow in admitting any new State with a population of, say, not more than 150,000, with two Senators, whose votes in the Senate would equal the votes of the New York Senators, who have a constituency back of them of now nearly 7,000,000, or would have as great a voice in the Senate as Pennsylvania with its more than 5,000,000, or Ohio and Illinois with their more than 3,000,000 of population each, or of five other States with more than 2,000,000 population each, or of eighteen other States with more than 1,000,000 population each, that would naturally object to admitting Hawaii as a State with two Senators, until she grows up to a stature more nearly approaching in population and resources the average size of all the States. ... for the present Hawaii, if annexed, should remain a Territory governed very much as Alaska is governed.

"NOT A SOUND OBJECTION. ... The argument is often used against annexation that the Hawaiian Islands are too far off and too far west to be annexed to this country. From the center of the American Union, now somewhere in the vicinity of Indianapolis, Hawaii is not so far off as portions of some of our Northwestern States, and is nearer than Alaska. Besides the Aleutian Islands, a part of Alaska, are more than 300 miles west of the parallel of the Hawaiian group. With fast railroads across the continent, and steamers that regularly make the trip from San Francisco to Honolulu in six days now, and could in four or live, the 'too far off' and 'too far west' objection don't count. Honolulu is in point of time no further from New York than Washington was from Boston when the Revolution broke out. As to a protectorate, Governor Marcy, when Secretary of State, was thoroughly in favor of annexing the Hawaiian Islands, and ably showed the utter absurdity and folly of the United States establishing a protectorate over the Hawaiian Islands or any other territory. He said that a protectorate gave no sovereignty to the protector. The protected got the substance, while the protector got only the shadow---- and paid all the costs. And he was right. It is notable that every American Secretary of State, including Bayard, who has written upon the subject, except Gresham, and every President down to Cleveland has favored the American acquisition of Hawaii.

"AREA AND POPULATION. "The Hawaiian Islands have an area of 6,470 square miles---- about the size of Connecticut. The population in 1890 was 89,990. Of this number the natives (of the Hawaiian race) counted only 34,436, being in a minority in the population amounting to 21,115. There were 6,186 half-castes. Counting all the natives and all the half-castes as native Hawaiians they still lack 4,373 of being half the population, and are outnumbered by what are classed 'foreigners,' by 8,746 in the population table. All Hawaiians born on any of the islands of foreign parents are classed as 'foreigners,' although native whites born on the soil were ignorantly styled as a class by Secretary Gresham as 'aliens.' These 'foreigners,' Hawaiian native born, number 7,495, are all whites and mostly the children of American missionaries. The other Americans not born there number 1,928, so that the American native-born Hawaiians, or those who have located there, in round numbers count up 9,500. Statistics show that about 91 per cent of all the business of Hawaii and a proportionate amount of all the private property should be classed as American. There were 27,661 Japanese and Chinese, mostly coolies, employed in sugar-making; also, besides nearly 9,000 Portuguese, mostly similarly employed. These latter, being white, are admitted to citizenship and may vote, while the Orientals are excluded from the ballot. The Portuguese are almost to a man annexationists, are American in sentiment, and have a representative in the executive and legislative body of the Provisional Government. All of the other 'foreigners' of Hawaii, exclusive of 588 Polynesians, number only 2,494, of whom 1,344 are Britons and 1,034 Germans. A majority of the Germans are for annexation---- the Britons are not. The latter compose all the real substance among the white population opposed to annexation. It was this body of 20,596 white 'foreigners,' nearly all of whom are Hawaiian citizens under the law and belonging to the constitutional voting class, numbering about two-thirds as many as all the native Hawaiians, that the ex-Queen undertook to disfranchise and to deprive of their civil rights under the old constitution, by suddenly proclaiming a new constitution putting all the political power and rule in the islands in the hands of the natives, that caused the revolution in January last and the deposition of the Queen.

"A CORRUPT LEGISLATURE. 'Her Majesty proceeded on the last day of the session to arbitrarily arrogate to herself the right to promulgate a new constitution, which proposes among other things to disfranchise over one-fourth of the voters and the owners of nine-tenths of the private property of the Kingdom, to abolish the Upper House of the Legislature and to substitute in place thereof an appointive one, to be appointed by the Sovereign. Americans who are now shouting, 'home rule for Hawaiians' and demanding that the Provisional Government should be approved by a popular vote will do well to remember that the native Hawaiians are not by any means a majority of the population, and that the Queen sought to take the ballot from the hands of white men and confer it solely to her Kanaka brethren.

"NOT OF ROYAL BLOOD. It would be well for those to reflect who are now deploring the loss of the deposed Queen's rights to ascertain just what those rights are. She has not a drop of royal blood in her veins, and therefore does not get any of her pretended royal rights by descent. When Kamehameha V expired, December 11, 1872, the royal family became extinct. Then the system of election was resorted to to fill the throne. Lunalilo, one of the high chief class, was elected by a vote of the nobles and representatives. He died in 1874, and then a new election of the sovereign was held by the nobles and representatives. The general supposition was that Queen Emma, the widow of Kamehameha IV, would be elected, but when the election came off Kalakaua captured the Legislature and secured a majority, it was charged at the time, by unfair methods. Riots against Kalakaua followed, and he was only kept on the throne ultimately by the landing of an American force. When Kalakaua died, in 1891, he had no heir, and by his will he selected his sister, Liliuokalni, as his successor. Thus the right to the throne by inheritance or by an election was abandoned, and the Queen who was deposed last winter seemed to owe her elevation to the will of her brother, which mode of selection seems to have been acquiesced in at the time. Whether there was any law or change of constitution which authorized a childless sovereign to will away the throne to a relative or not, I do not know. Similarly, however, the deposed Queen has designated as her successor Kaiulani, the daughter of her sister, now 18 years of age, the daughter of Mr. Cleghorn, an Englishman who married one of Kalakaua's sisters and who held office under that King. Kaiulani is now being brought up in England, under the tutelage of Theophilus C. Davies, formerly English consul at Honolulu, and now in business there, and whose son is said to be engaged to marry Kaulani. She visited Mr. and Mrs. Cleveland last winter in company with Davies, and Mrs. Cleveland gave the incipient Queen distinguished consideration. Davies has lately had interviews with Cleveland and Gresham and has returned to Honolulu, proclaiming that Lil will be restored, and here's where 'the English of it' comes in. Perhaps one reason why women seem to be the favorite sex for sovereigns, in violation of the Salic law, is because the descent of property in Hawaii is through the female and not the male line. Kalakaua and his sister Lil were of what is known as the high chief class. Their blood was not, therefore, 'royal,' but, so far as inherited, of a very bad kind, for it is a historical fact that their grandfather was the first person ever executed in Hawaii for the murder of his wife.

"A DYING RACE. It seems absurd that an American statesman should be willing to commit the future destinies of Hawaii to the rule of the monarchy of a race rapidly dying out, rather than to the vigorous and progressive auspices of the American Republic. The native population of Hawaii fell off from 1866 from 57,125 to 31,446 in 1890---- a loss of 22,679 in twenty-five years. At that rate of loss the whole native population of Hawaii will be wiped out completely early in the second quarter of the next century, so that the child may now be born who will live to see the entire extinction of the Hawaiian race. This is a startling fact. ...A common custom among Hawaiian mothers is to give away their children at birth, some promising to give them away even before they are born. The mother, for this loss of her offspring, solaces herself often by adopting the child of some other woman as a household pet, after the manner of many American women who prefer pugs to progeny. It is certain that a newer and more virile race is shortly to entirely supersede the aboriginals on these islands. The evolution is now going on with startling rapidity. ... shall the structure of the future be built on the basis of a race, as Cleveland proposes, who will sink out of sight among the 'lost tribes' early in the next century? Statesmen who are statesmen worthy of the name do not build the nation for a day, but for all time.

"A SETTLED POLICY. ...The students of American history know that in the United States annexation has been the settled policy always. The original American colonies numbered only eleven, including the three counties of Delaware, which were really a part of Pennsylvania, and the number of States remained at eleven for two or three years after the adoption of the Federal Constitution in 1787. The number was swelled to thirteen in 1789 and 1790, when North Carolina and Rhode Island reluctantly came into the Union. The original colonies contained no more than 1,000,000 square miles of territory, a narrow strip of land stretching from the Atlantic coast to the Alleghenies in the West, to the Floridas and Louisiana in the south, and to the northward to Nova Scotia and Canada. All during our earlier history it was a struggle to annex new territory or to protect what we had. ...The nation has repaid its entire cost of $52,000,000 for all the territory purchased in a single year by the product of the mines of California. Texas was annexed in 1845, not by purchase or treaty, but by a joint resolution of Congress. The acquisition of Louisiana and the Floridas more than doubled the original million square miles of territory on which the United States started into business; then Texas came in with 300,000 square miles more, next California and New Mexico with still a greater extent of territory, then Arizona in 1853 with a large slice more, and Alaska in 1867 with 500,000 more ...The acquisition of territory by America is very much like the birth of children---- not always longed for by the parent or prospectively welcome to the family, but once they join the home circle they are valued above all price and are too precious to be bought with money. So would it be once that Hawaii became an American possession.

"NO PLEBISCITE OR VOTING ON ANNEXATION. It is claimed by some of the Clevelandites that Hawaii should not be annexed without a majority vote of the aboriginal natives, who are themselves a minority of the whole permanent inhabitants, in its favor. This is against all American precedent in annexations in this country, and generally in all practice throughout the world. The question of the annexation of any of the territory acquired by us was never submitted to a vote of the people of the country acquired in any case. It is probable that if the inhabitants had voted, including those of the aboriginal natives, the vote in each case would have been against annexation. The Indians in these countries would have been against annexation, and with their votes annexation would have been defeated. Even as it was the Louisiana acquisition was opposed strongly there, and serious riots in opposition resulted in New Orleans. In our acquisitions the government in control of the territory transferred arranged the terms of each transfer, and there was no popular vote on the subject. Those who controlled territory to transfer transferred it, as has been proposed in the case of Hawaii, and all such transfers have been approved as wise, popular, patriotic, and glorious by the American people. And as those who are represented in the Provisional Government now propose to cede Hawaii control and own nine-tenths of the business and private property of the islands and have shown their ability to sustain that Government against all opposition that can come from within the country, their right to act on the question is indisputable.

"WHAT THE MAP SHOWS. The accompanying map shows that Hawaii is the great crossing point in traversing the Pacific Ocean---- the hub that sends out spokes to all other prominent points and ports of that greatest ocean of the world. All the steamer lines, other than coastwise, here cross and diverge to all points of the compass. It is the strategical and naval key to the whole Northern Pacific Ocean. ... With the laying of an ocean cable to Honolulu, which there is good assurance will be done by a British company very soon, and the completion of the Nicaragua canal, which is also sure to come later, the importance of the Hawaiian Islands will be vastly increased. Within five years after American annexation Honolulu would become the Hong Kong of the Pacific, with a population of at least 100,000, and the population of the whole group would be doubled with a steady increasing growth thereafter. ... And there is no civilizing or Americanizing to be done to train the annexed people into accord with our institutions, for the white men now at the head of the Provisional Government are all of the best New England stock, as well as those who support it. All the executive heads of the Provisional Government, except one, are white men born on the soil of Hawaii, sons of American missionaries, who Christianized, civilized, and raised Hawaii from heathendom, although declared 'aliens' by Secretary Gresham.

"COMMISSIONER BLOUNT'S REPORT. While I write Commissioner Blount's report has just been brought in. It seems to have fallen lifeless, limp, and dead upon the public as being anything like a true and living witness against annexation. As the late American minister, Mr. Stevens, promises to dissect Blount's cadaver, it is only fair that his scalpel shall have the first slash at it. I only say here that I do know that Blount's report is a wicked perversion of the facts, as I had the opportunity of gathering them in Honolulu before his arrival there and after. The story of a Stevens conspiracy is utterly absurd.

"The plain facts, briefly, are these: There was great excitement over the passage of the opium and lottery bills at the close of the legislative session, and the whole civilized and Christianized part of the community was up in arms against these measures, which had been bribed through the Legislature and mothered by the Queen. "The Christian ladies of the city called on the Queen in the interests of morality, asking her not to sign these bills. The Queen promised not to do so, and asked the ladies to unite with her in prayer that God would give her strength to resist the temptation. They did so, and the whole city knew of it. Next morning the city was shocked to learn that she had played the hypocrite and signed the odious bills. A popular ferment ensued. On that day, when the session had closed finally, the community was still farther shocked when the Queen, on her own volition, without the consent of her cabinet, proclaimed a new constitution, cutting off the franchise of a large portion of the whites and practically handing over their liberties and properties to the tender mercies of the native Kanakas. This last straw broke the camel's back. The revolution instantly broke out, which resulted in the establishment of the Provisional Government. Mr. Stevens was absent, and had been for days previous, on board a United States war vessel, the Boston I think, which had gone on a cruise in the outer islands for target practice. Neither Stevens nor the United States cruiser arrived back in Honolulu until after the revolution had been under full head for fully forty-eight hours, and he and the officers of the vessel were in utter ignorance of what had happened until they landed. Then he and they acted promptly. That does not look much like a Stevens conspiracy. It was the fact that the Queen's party took advantage of his absence to establish a new constitution and to make a revolution of their own, and she lost her throne in the attempt." ...

"The CHAIRMAN: Were you personally acquainted with the Queen? Mr. MACARTHUR: I met her in California. She was at the same house that I was. I knew her husband in California, and I should not have been able to see her but for a previous acquaintance. She was not receiving anybody. The CHAIRMAN: What year was it that you first met the Queen? Mr. MACARTHUR. I think it must have been in 1887. I was in California three or four times. I am not quite sure of the year; I think it was in 1887. The Queen's husband was over there trying to float some Government bonds. ... Before her accession. She was Mrs. Dominis then ... I spoke to them frequently at the hotel in California. ...

"The CHAIRMAN: I would like to know what you know in respect to Paul Neuman's authority to represent Liliuokalani, and of any overtures that were made by him, with her consent, or, as he asserted, with her consent, to surrender her crown to the Provisional Government, her royal authority, for a moneyed consideration. ... Mr. MACARTHUR: I went to Mr. Dole. I had trouble in my own mind as to whether the Queen had not some personal rights in the crown lands, for the reason that the treasury department had never asked her to make a return on the income, which was about $75,000 a year, from these lands and which she had received, and as the treasury had never asked her for a return I thought she had an individual right in the lands. I said to the people, "She has individual rights, and you have not asked her to make a return to the treasury of what she has received and what she did not receive." The President explained it all to me, the grounds of it. When Mr. Neuman indicated that they were willing---- I had made the suggestion and others had---- that they ought to buy her out, pay her a definite sum, $25,000 or some other sum per year for her rights. Her rights had been shattered, but I thought they ought to pay for them, and so I went, in accordance with Mr. Neuman's suggestion, or by his consent, to see President Dole. ... After we talked it over we thought Mr. Neuman would not be willing to come there publicly, and so it was suggested that Mr. Neuman could call on Mr. Dole at his house on a given evening and bring his daughter along. ... And in accordance with that, Mr. Neuman and his daughter called, nominally for the daughter to see Mrs. Dole, so that it could not get out, if they made a call, they could say it was merely a social call, not an official call. Of course, I do not know what their conversation was; but Mr. Neuman, acting on that, called on the Queen. Mr. Dole and Mr. Neuman both impressed on me the importance of not having this thing get out, or the whole thing would go up in smoke. Mr. Neuman said he could bring this thing about if he could keep it from the Queen's retainers---- her people. He said, "That is the difficulty about this thing." This matter went on for three or four days. Mr. Neuman saw the Queen and she agreed not to say anything about it, so Mr. Neuman tells me, and I got it from other sources there which I think are reliable. They came to some sort of understanding; I do not know what it was. They went so far as to say this woman would not live over three or four years; that she had some heart trouble; and if they gave her $25,000 a year it would not be for along time. The CHAIRMAN: As an annuity? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes; and Mr. Neuman said she assented to it, if she could satisfy one or two of her people. The CHAIRMAN: From whom did you get the understanding that the Queen assented to it? Mr. MACARTHUR: I got it from Mr. Neuman, who was her attorney, and others. The CHAIRMAN: Was any provision included in that proposed arrangement in favor of the Princess Kaiulani? Mr. MAC ARTHUR: No; in fact, they were a little bit antagonistic. The CHAIRMAN: Was Mr. Neuman acting as the agent of Kaiulani? Mr. MACARTHUR: No; As I understand, he never was the agent of Kaiulani, but of Lilioukalani. ...

"Senator GRAY: Was the result of your observation there such as to bring you to the opinion that the Provisional Government fairly represented in the American fashion the people of those islands? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes. Senator GRAY: You think it did? You think it was supported by a majority of the people of those islands? Mr. MACARTHUR: Not by a majority of the natives. Senator GRAY: I am not speaking of separating the two classes, but of a majority of all the people of those islands, whites, natives, and all. Mr. MACARTHUR: If they took a vote under the present voting system, under the constitution of 1887, with American interests there, and the Portuguese who may become citizens, and are practically citizens there now, they would get a majority. Senator GRAY: Now? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes; now. Senator GRAY: Do you believe they would at the time the Provisional Government was established or within a few weeks thereafter? Mr. MACARTHUR: I believe they would now. Senator GRAY: Do you extend that opinion? Mr. MACARTHUR: That is the voting population. There is a property qualification for the house of representatives and a larger qualification for the house of nobles. Taken together, that vote, combined with the Portuguese and white population, they would secure a majority, because annexation sentiment has grown lately. ...

"Senator GRAY: Did you meet Mr. Blount shortly after your arrival in the islands? ... Mr. MACARTHUR: Every day while I was there. I went down to Mauai, made excursions to the volcano and came back, and would see Mr. Blount every day while in Honolulu. ... Senator GRAY: Did he seem to you to be engaged in gathering information? I do not say from what source; I just say, did he seem to be about that business? ...he seemed to be gathering information? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes; that was about the purport of it. Senator GRAY: Did he seem to be honestly engaged in it? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes; except that he would not see some men at first like Lobenstein, who had been a surveyor and knew all about the land system. After he saw him he said he was the best man he could get---- have you any more such men? ... Senator GRAY: He did not, I assume from what you said, gather information in a way that would satisfy a newspaper man? Mr. MACARTHUR: No; he did not. Senator GRAY: You believe, from what you have noticed of your profession, that the newspaper men have a faculty, trained or otherwise, superior to other men in getting facts? Mr. MACARTHUR: It is the profession of their life; yes. Senator GRAY: And you do not think that Mr. Blount, from what you saw, was up to the standard as a newspaper gatherer of information? Mr. MACARTHUR: No.

"Senator GRAY: I observe in your article, which I have in my hand and glanced at very hastily, you say, "It is claimed by some of the Clevelandites that Hawaii should not be annexed without a majority vote of the aboriginal natives, who are themselves a minority of the whole permanent inhabitants, in its favor." What Clevelandite, so-called, or other person, have you heard claim, or where have you seen in print, as you claim, that Hawaii ought not to be annexed without a majority vote of the native population? Mr. MACARTHUR: The New York Times, The World, and the different administration papers that express their views, held that a vote should be taken on it. Senator GRAY: But there should not be a majority vote of the natives separated from all others? Mr. MACARTHUR: I mean native whites as well as others. There is a large proportion of the population natives who are whites. Senator GRAY: Then you mean that those people contend that there should not be annexation without a vote of all the real population of those islands? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes. Senator FRYE: Of all who are to vote? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes. Senator GRAY: That is not what I mean. The majority vote of all the inhabitants of those islands who belong there either as natives or as naturalized citizens? That is what you mean? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes. Senator GRAY: Then you say, But that is against all American precedent in annexation and generally in all practice throughout the world?" Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes.

"Senator GRAY: Are you aware that Mr. Seward, when he was Secretary of State, declared in an official paper that? "A revolutionary government is not to be recognized until it is established by the great body of the population of the State it claims to govern?" Mr. MACARTHUR: No, I do not know that. What I meant there was that there had never been a case of annexation in this country where the people had voted on it. Senator FRYE: That is, the annexed population? Mr. MACARTHUR: The annexed population. If it had been, the annexation would have been repudiated in every case. the case of Louisiana and the case of Texas, annexation would have been defeated if submitted to a vote of all the inhabitants there. The CHAIRMAN: But in those cases the people were homogeneous with our race here. Mr. MACARTHUR: As to whites that may be.

"Senator GRAY: There was no doubt in the case of Louisiana of the full authority of the French Government to make the cession? Mr. MACARTHUR: Exactly. That is the ground I take on Hawaii. There were two riots in New Orleans against annexation to the United States, and they had to send troops to put them down. The government that is in power and possession has the right to make its treaty of annexation, and there never has been in the history of the country any precedent of its kind of a plebiscitum.

"The CHAIRMAN: In the annexation of a country, merging its sovereignty into another, the question is a governmental question and not of the people concerned? Mr. MACARTHUR: Exactly; because the Government represents the people, as in the case of Texas. The CHAIRMAN: I do not know that you remember, but it appears to me that at the time the treaty with Mexico was sent in by Mr. Triste, and submitted to the Senate of the United States, there was a motion made to submit the question of annexation to a plebiscite. I do not know that you remember that. Mr. MACARTHUR: I do not. ...

The CHAIRMAN: I will ask you whether there exists in Honolulu a club in which men of different politics and different races and different nativity assemble? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes. Mr. Cleghorn is the president of it. He is the father of Kaiulani. The CHAIRMAN: Do gentlemen belonging to different political parties and elements meet there on terms of friendship and cordiality? Mr. MACARTHUR: Entirely so. It is the most good-natured club you ever saw. The CHAIRMAN: And there they discuss questions of annexation? Mr. MACARTHUR: It is all good-natured. The CHAIRMAN: They entertain discussions on that question? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: Having reference to prosperity, etc. Mr. MACARTHUR. Yes. The CHAIRMAN: In those club meetings does good feeling prevail? Mr. MACARTHUR: Certainly. The CHAIRMAN: Will you say, as compared with like assemblages of gentlemen in the United States, there is any more feeling of friction or opinion there? Mr. MACARTHUR: Not as much. There is less friction through all those islands than there is in any other country in the world that I ever saw. The CHAIRMAN: You have traveled a good deal? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes; all over the world. The CHAIRMAN: And your attention has been drawn, of course, to the observation of such questions? Mr. MACARTHUR: Yes. They do not have any angry political discussions in the streets in Hawaii. They meet together, and they are the best-natured people in the world.