I)




11
ft
N                               4
)               N,
44               /    K  A
I
GENE[AL LIBR PY
PA       I    UN1VERSITYO          MICHIG N.            j    
PRS   EDB                                 j  A
i8
P
/            /    /1
If
K                                           4
//
I      /
P
4   44  /44




4*
I               Ia
/       a        4<         t      at
*                                          a
4,      4        4        4
11           \                     i4
/      I,
{ 'at
4
4,               '7/
4,>
<4,                 ,1
a     /           7
/1
at,,        'H,
at   '7/                           /     4
/7    '7'        I'     '''
I
I                             /                      at
4                 4
4
*
4,'               7/                /
alt
44/'< 4 
47       /4                 4      /7/
7     1441








Qzr~




I




am. Aft, /
RELATIONS WITH HAWAII.
SPEECH
o0r?
HON. CUSHMAN K, DAVIS,
OF MINNESOTA,
IN THE


iSENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
Wednesday and Thursday, January 10 and 11, 1894.


WASHINGTON.
1894.




te




SPEECH
OF
HON. CUSHMAN K. DAVIS.
The Senate having under consideration the resolution submitted by Mr
FRYE January 3. 1894, proposing to declare as the opinion of the Senate that,
pending the investigation by the Committee on Foreign Relations, there
should be no interference on the part of the Government of the United
States with affairs in HawaiiMr. DAVIS said:
Mr. PRESIDENT: On the 4th day of March, 1893, there was no
question pending between this Government and the Government
of Hawaii except the consideration of the treaty of annexation.
All preceding questions, whatever they were, had been gathered
up into the recognition of that Government, and had been settled
in the most solemn form by the conclusion of a convention which
had been submitted to the Senate. The Provisional Government
of Hawaii had also been recognized by the nations of the civilized world, and from no quarter of the horizon was there any
portent whatever of trouble to come.
Immediately upon the accession of the present Administration
recommendations were made and action was taken which, in the
course of their performance and in their consequences, have
largely undone, and threaten entirely to undo, the composed condition of affairs which up to that time had existed. Our relations
to those islands are now such as to excite the gravest apprehension, and seem to be fraught with consequences which, as they
evolve from day to day, no foresight can adequately predict.
The widest divergence of opinion exists, the matter is thrown
into the sea of debate and public discussion, and it is my purpose,
with powers which I regret are not adequate to so great an occasion, to discuss somewhat extensively the past and the present
of those transactions.
Mr. President, the relations of Hawaii to the United States are
and have been peculiar and exceptional. For more than fifty
years, as a matter of announced national policy on the part of
this Government, acquiesced in by Hawaii and by the nations of
the civilized world, those islands have been entailed to the
United States, and as to the United States have been in reversion
when the time should come when the fleeting monarchy which
has existed there should expire. There has not been a Secretary
of State since 1840 who has not announced this determination
and thispolicy. Mr.Webster, Mr. Legare, Mr. Marcy, Mr. Buchaan, Mr. Seward, Mr. Blaine, and all who have held that
office have spoken in the voice of their Government in this respect with no uncertain tone, and it has been acquiesced in by
foreign nations.
800                                          8




4
So that it is neither extraordinary nor remarkable that at sometime under favorable circumstances and conditions that to which
manifest destiny had dedicated those islands should be brought
to pass. Indeed in 1854, Mr. Marcy, then being Secretary of
State, a treaty of annexation was negotiated and only failed of
confirmation because of its condition respecting pecuniary compensation to be made, and because of the fact that the treaty
provided that the Islands of Hawaii should become a State in
the Union.
Mr. President, the condition of that country, like all communities which have emerged or are emerging from barbarism
into civilization, has always been peculiar and precarious. It
has been subjected to foreign intervention over and over again,
and those interventions were the occasions of many expressions
of policy by the various Secretaries of State whom Ihave mentioned.
In 1836 the English negotiated relations with that island under the guns of a frigate. In 1839 the French did the same. In
1843 the English Government by force took possession of those
islands and held them for months. The French did so substantially on another occasion, and when in 1851, under the guns of
a French man-of-war, treaty obligations were demanded of the
Kingdom of Hawaii, the then king executed a deed of cession
and delivered it in escrow to the United States representative
to be opened and considered as received upon the happening of
certain events.
As I shall, in the course of the remarks which I propose to
make, discuss at considerable length the eventsof January, 1893,
in that island and the events subsequent to that time, it is, in my
conception of the subject, necessary and proper, not for the purpose of vindicating particularly what has been done, but for
showing the reasons and occasions of the action of the civilized
people of those islands, to go somewhat into the history of the
repeated occasions of oppression and abuse of power which finally
brought those people to a conviction that they were under
a condition of government which they could no longer endure and which authorized them to resort to the sacred right
of revolution.
The reciprocity treaty with the Hawaiian Islands was concluded in 1876. Before that time and from the beginning of its
history, or from the beginning of the time when civilization had
come in contact with its history, those islands had been, so far
as their civilized condition was concerned, the outgrowth of
American influence, American settlement, and American civilization. It was a proud memorial of these. No other government exercising a protectorate or a sovereignty over the people
of any other islands in the Pacific Ocean had brought about such
results. The English found a republican form of government
recently organized by the Maorisin New Zealand when they took
possession in 1840, and where are the Maoris now? Swept away
by the inexorable destructiveness of British administration.
But here in these islands, through American settlement,
American influence, American wealth, and American Christianity, is presented the only instance in all that vast sea of a people forming themselves into a government under the guidance of
civilization. So when the reciprocity treaty of 1876 became operative, there poured into those islands thus prepared an enor800




mous accession of American enterprise, wealth, and people, and
its influence upon the destinies of that island of all kinds was of
the most beneficent character.
But the new influences had to contend with a condition of
things destined to soon pass away. The experiment of monarchical rule, then being conducted there, was ephemeral in its very
nature.
Mr. President, relations such as those between this Government and that implied a certain right of intervention and control and interference. Such intervention and control have been
exercised over and over again. That which would not be necessary in any situation which may now be conceived of as to relations which we have with any other nation of the world has been
necessary there.
In 1874, by the death of the King without issue, he naming no
successor, the office became elective by the Legislature. Strife
arose between the partisans of Queen Emma, who represented
the British interests, and those of the late King Kalakaua, whose
disposition toward the United States was supposed to be favorable. The Legislature of Hawaii convened. There was an election. It resulted in the choice of the late King. Immediately a
riot sprang up, intended by its contrivers to grow to the proportions of a revolution. The rioters were natives. They broke
into the legislative chamber where the ceremony of election was
taking place, and assaulted and beat the legislators then in the
performance of their duty. Whereupon, without invitation,
upon the mere motion of the United States minister, the American marines were landed from the ship of war then in the harbor of Honolulu, and that election was thereupon conducted and
concluded, and King Kalakaua was inaugurated under the direct
supervision and guard of American military power.
In 1880 there was trouble in Hawaii because a foreign adventurer by the name of Moreno, who had become minister of foreign affairs or of finance, was playing havoc with the interests
of the islands. The situation became so intolerable that all the
foreign ministers raised their flags over their legations, and declined to hold any further intercourse with that Government
until Moreno was displaced.
In time the Government became corrupt-corrupt beyond example, inefficient beyond precedent; it became the prey of every
flagitious scheme whioh was not able to obtain a foothold in any
other land. The opium bill of 1886, designed by its promoters'
to have its inevitable effect of producing a moral lethargy upon
the people, was introduced, and a most singular system of bribery
did its work.
A Chinese named Aki gave to the then King $71,000 as a consideration for a license to be thereafter issued to him. Another
Chinese paid to the King $80,000 for the same thing, but took
the precaution to get the license before he paid his money. The
consequence of which was that Aki committed suicide and his
estate went into administration. Becauses of the excesses, the
profligacy, the riotous expenditure of the late King, his private
debts had become about $250,000, and he was compelled to assign
thecrown lands to trustees as security for the payment. The administratorof Aki put in his claim. It was contended on the part
of the Hawaiian Government, or by the trustees, that the contract
was against good morals and public policy, and therefore was
800




6


void; but by a strange yet I think logical application of the ancient maxim that the king can do no wrong, the supreme court of
Hawaii held the contract valid and held the estate for the repayment of the sum.
The year 1887 was marked with great disturbances. Many
events,which the limitations of the present occasion do not permit
me to recount in detail, had brought this about. Many people
from civilized lands had come in; great operations were going on,
agricultural and otherwise; the existing constitution of 1874 was
distasteful to them-unjust, for it contained instrumentalities of
oppression. Accordingly, in that year a revolution was organized-revolutions are frequent in that island-and volunteer
companies were equipped. Foreign residents addressed their
ministers and stated that the situation as it had been was intolerable. Mass meetings were held, guarded by armed volunteer
troops; business was suspended, and resolutions were passed declaring that the monarchy had ceased to exist through its incompetency and corruption.
A committee was sent to the King with this resolution. He
called upon certain foreign ministers, those of the United States
and Great Britain and Portugal, and offered to put his Kingdom
into their hands if he could be extricated from what he considered the personal peril of his position. They declined this, and advised him to promulgate a new constitution at once, acceding to
the demands of the revolutionists. He followed the advice.
This was the constitution of 1887, which the ex-queen, by a revolutionary act, and in violation of the terms of every constitution which ever has subsisted in that island, undertook to abrogate by her own personal decree, and to restore that of 1874,
which contained the unjust and oppressive provisions to which
I have alluded.
After the adoption of the constitution of 1887 the next three
years and a half of the history of that island were marked with
sedition, conspiracy, and tumult. There was a revolution in
July, 1889, and it resulted in insurrection, fighting in the streets,
and much bloodshed.
Mr. FRYE. Will the Senator allow me?
Mr. DAVIS. Certainly.
Mr. FRYE. My impression is that the Senator is not strictly
accurate when he says that Queen Liliuokalani proposed to restore the constitution of 1874. I think the evidence shows that
she proposed a constitution of her own, which was infinitely
worse than that of 1874.
Mr. DAVIS. I have compared the constitutions of 1887 and
1874 with what purports to be a copy of the constitution which
she proposed to promulgate in January, 1893, and which until a
very recent date has been visible to no man, and I am inclined
to think that my general statement in that respect is correct.
Mr. FRYE. I simply desire to say further in relation to that,
that there may be similar features in the constitution of 1874 to
the one proposed by the Queen, but as published in the Blount
report there are some parts of it left out of the constitution
which the Queen proposes, notably the article which provided
for disfranchising all the white inhabitants.
Mr. DAVIS. I shall come to that in the due course of my remarks. I propose to analyze those constitutions before I get
through.
80




There was another conspiracy in 1888, the direct object of
which was to depose the then King, and the ultimate object of
which was to procure a n abrogation of the constitution of 1887
and a return to the former b-:d condition of affairs.
Mr. President, I wish to impute in the discussion I am about
to make upon this question of fact improper motives to no man.
I have, however, become impressed with the conviction that
upon the testimony which Mr. Blount took in the Hawaiian
Islands, and upon that alone, his report cln not be sustained.
Mr. FIRYE. If the Senator will pardon me one moment, I
should like him to state right there if it is a fact that his argument is proceeding upon the evidence printed in the Blount report, and that he has not been present as a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations to hear the evidence which has
been since taken?
Mr. DAVIS. That is true. In what I shall say, Mr. President, respecting the bearing of the testimony upon the Blount
report, I shall confine myself exclusively to the testimony reported by that gentleman in connection with it. I will also state
that, as a matter of fact, and designedly, I have not attended a
meeting of the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations now conducting its investigations. No syllable of the
testimony taken there has been reported to me. I am unable to
use it. I would not use it if I could, owing to the manifest impropriety of any such action. But I purpose to test the report
so far as I can by the testimony which was taken by Mr. Blount
and which it is asserted sustains it; and it does seem to me,
weighing it with as much impartiality as one can who has convictions upon either side of the subject. that, instead of sustaining the conclusions to which the commissioner came, it sustains
the action of Minister Stevens and sustains the action of the preceding Administration based thereon.
As I said, another conspiracy was inaugurated in 1888, all of
these conspiracies having for their object the deprivation of the
people there, who are of American and European birth, of the
civil rights guaranteed to them by the constitution of 1887,
having for their object a reversion to the old order of things
whereby only native subjects were electors and eligible to office.
The King having granted the constitution of 1887 under the conditions of force and duress which I have stated, many of his subjects were naturally dissatisfied, and accordingly the conspiracy
of 1888 was entered into, in which the recent Queen, then Mrs.
Dominis, was a prime mover, for the purpose of deposing her
brother. Its object was to compel by force the King to abdicate.
The King got forty-eight hours to temporize, and the result
was that some of the revolutionists were arrested, the conspiracy was frustrated, and the object of Mrs. Dominis, who afterwards became queen, was not attained. I cite this and other
analogous facts to show the character and disposition of this woman, what she has done in the past, what her purposes have been,
how she has violated pledges and oaths, and how much reliance
can be placed upon any assurance of hers that her conduct in
the future will ever be otherwise than it has been in the past.
Another revolution or conspiracy took shape and force on
the 30th day of July, 1889, and Mrs. Dominis was back of that.
It was known as the Wilcox insurrection  He arrayed a force
of one hundred men, and he was a man perfectly competent to
800




8


carry out a design of that character. fe is a somewhat remarkable personage, of Hawaiian birth, largely of Hawaiian blood.
He was educteted in his youth at the expense of the Government
of the islands in the military schools of Italy, and served as a
subaltern in the artillery service of that Kingdom until he was
recalled by his own government. He entered into a conspiracy
to dethrone the King, and Mrs. Dominis, the King's sister, was
a confederate with him. With characteristic falsity she afterwards disavowed it, but no one can read the evidence in this report without being convinced that such was the fact, the scheme
being throughout to procure a return to the old bad order of
things.
Wilcox with his armed force moved out early in the morning
and took possession of the government building. He received
large accessions. The King fled from his palace and took refuge in a boathouse, under the guns of the United States man-ofwar Adams. Some ten Hawaiians were killed in the fighting
which ensued before the insurrection was put down.
On that occasion, in 1889, in the presence of a revolution organized and carried out to overthrow the King, the then minister of the United States did not hesitate. His conduct was never
condemned. Mr. Merrill, who was then our minister, without
any invitation from the Government, landed the American marines from the ship of war then in the harbor. He landed them
because it was necessary to protect American life and property,
no matter what the incidental results or the collateral consequences might be as to the stability of the Kingdom itself. His
conduct was never blamed. Later in the afternoon, at the request of the Government, which he had not asked before, another
detachment was landed and he reports:
The appearance of the marines on the streets and at the legation had a
very favorable effect upon the populace.
Here was a conspiracy to overthrow the throne, necessarily
implicating American interests in the result, whichever way the
result might be, threatening violence; and yet before anything
overt had happened, an article of property destroyed, or the life
or safety of a single person actually threatened, the then minister landed the American troops, and no exception was ever taken
to that act.
The time came for the King to die, and Mrs. Dominis was
elected as his successor and took the title of Queen Liliuokalani.
Mr. MORGAN. Mrs. Dominis was not elected by the Legislature; she was appointed by Kalakaua.
Mr. DAVIS. I did not mean to say that. The constitution of
that kingdom, issue failing, empowers the king the right to
designate his successor, and that failing, the right of election
vests in the Legislature. She was designated by her brother.
When she was inducted into the sovereignty, under circumstances of great solemnity, she took an oath administered by the
chief justice of the Kingdom to support the constitution of the
year 1887; and yet her words had scarcely died away (certainly
not from the recollection and hopes of those who heard them)
before, in the early part of the year 1892, she began to conspire
to do that which she afterwards attempted to do in January,
1893. She purposed and conspired to promulgate a constitution
similar to that of January 14, 1893, and which when attempted
resulted in her downfall. She requested Wilcox, the trained
Noo




military man who conducted the preceding revolution, to assist
her in the attempt and he refused. She caused warrants to be
issued for 87 members of the Patriotic League. She laid plans
to attack and shoot in the streets all who should resist her intended proceedings. Proclamations of martial law were drafted,
to be made efficient by their issuance whenever it should be
thought necessary.
Not meeting with sufficient encouragement, that attempt took
no efficient shape; but the fact that it was made so recently
after her coronation, so recently after she had sworn to support
the constitution under which she had been inaugurated, with the
other facts and circumstances to which I have called and to
which I shall call attention. shows how little she is to be trusted
and how justifiable her subjects were at the time of the revolution of January, 1893, in declaring that the time had passed when
they could put any faith in her promises, and that any excuse
or promise she might make was only significant of ulterior designs of the same character intended by her.
The year 1893 came in. The Legislature had been in session
several months. The constitution of that kingdom provided, not
that the cabinet should exist as long as the sovereign pleased,
but that it should continue until voted out by a want of confidence of the Legislature. Up to January three cabinets had
been voted out. It also provided that no royal act should be of
validity unless countersigned by one member of the cabinet, who
should thereby become responsible therefor.
During the session of this Legislature many causes conspired
to produce the greatest discontent and alarm among the people
of those islands. The opium-license bill came up again; but
worse than that, the Louisiana lottery, driven from its own country, made its appearance through its agents in those islands and
was seeking to spread over them the blight of another leprosy.
The result was that about the 11th of January, 1893, a bill was
passed providing for granting opium licenses and another was
passed granting a franchise to certain persons, but which, it
was understood, was to go from them to the Louisiana lottery. The subsidy to be paid by the lottery company to the
Hawaiian Government annually for the lottery franchise was
$500,000, and the amount expected to be realized annually from
the operations of the opium-license statute was $200,000, in all
$700,000; one-third of the sum had hitherto been the highest
revenues of the Kingdom. Of course, the feelings of the lawabiding people of the islands, of those who saw the correct way
to civilization and who were leading in it, were outraged.
It was, however, a mere matter of domestic administration,
and perhaps might have been suffered but for other proceedings.
It being feared that no member of the then cabinet would countersign those bills, as required by the Hawaiian constitution, in
order to make the Queen's approval valid, it was resolved by those
who had secured the passage of those bills by bribery and corruption that they would obviate that difficulty by voting out the
cabinet, whose action they feared, and by voting in one whom the
Queen should nominate, upon whose favorable action they knew
they could rely.
Accordingly, a vote of want of confidence was passed, and the
ministry that was feared gave way to one from which much was
to be expected with certainty. On the 14th day of January, 1893,
8,,, 00.  *.: w
~,  S:




10
if I am not mistaken in the date, the work all having been done
to which I have alluded, the Queen prorogued the Legislature.
The constitution of Hawaii contained a provision that any amendment of that instrument should be considered by two successive
Legislatures, and be submitted to the people in the meantime.
No proposition was heard in that Legislature for the amendment
of the constitution; no knowledge or hint had been given to the
public of the intention of the Queen; but immediately upon the
prorogation, and upon the same day, word was given out to the
native population to repair to the palace, and that the Queen was
about to proclaim another constitution.
The announcement was heard with alarm, with indignation.
The ultimate extent of her purposes could only be conjectured,
but it was believed that they were radical and subversive in
their character to rights existing and property invested in those
islands by foreign-born residents, and yet who were citizens for
all purposes of holding office and of voting. It is a most singular commentary upon this revolution and everything connected
with it, and a most emphatic refutation of the pretexts of the
defunct monarchy that it had the power at that time to crush
the revolution, that from the time of the announcement of the
Queen's intention to her ministers, of her wish and purpose to
promulgate a new constitution, they were in continual conference with Thurston and the other revolutionists, receiving proposals from them.
On Saturday at 11 a. m., testifies Mr. Smith, Thurston and Colburn, the minister of the interior, had a conference at Hartwell's office, and here is what took place. W. O. Smith, at page
489, states in substance that about 11 o'clock Saturday morning
he found Thurston, Hartwell, and Colburn, one of the cabinet, in
Hartwell's office talking very earnestly. Colburn very much
excited. Colburn said that the ministers had been informed
that the Queen would promulgate a constitution immediately
after the prorogation. Colburn was excited and very much
alarmed. Colburn's manner was that of a scared man, very
much frightened. Smith says that a number of native members knew that the new constitution was coming.
A meeting of some of the native members of the Legislature
had been he'd on the preceding Friday!night. It was reported
that John Kaluna, a member, was very violent in his speech; and
stated at that meeting that he could kill five or six men, and
would be perfectly willing to be hung for it, or die if he only
had the opportunity to kill five or six more in defense of the proposed constitution. On a subsequent occasion, on the same day,
Colburn came to Smith's office wearing a blue sash, only worn on
state occasions, and asked Smith to go with him to the attorneygeneral's office (Colburn was the minister of finance, and the attorney-general was Mr. Peterson) in the Government building.
Smith wentand found there Peterson, Colburn, and Cornwell (the
minister of the interior), Thurston, Wundenburg, and McFarlane.
Colburn stated what had taken place at the palace. The others
advised the ministers not to resign. A messenger ctme from
the Queen requesting the ministers to return to the palace. At
the time the whole of the Queen's guard was drawn up in front
of the palace.
Then, describing the various streets, Mr. Smith says that on
th M.Waikikki side of the main entrance to the palace and on the
*. i  &,  *'  * 
id.< tW  ^:   * 




11
Ewa side of that entrance was a large crowd of natives-two or
three hundred-and half as many more on the Makai side.
Mr. HOAR. What day was that?
Mr. DAVIS. This was Saturday.    Smith says when the
messenger came to summon them he told them not to return,
explaining that three being absent it was a majority of the Government. Colburn expressed unwillingness to go, stating that
he feared an excited mob and felt that their lives were in danger if they went back. It was decided to send for Parker to
come over. He came, and the whole situation was discussed.
Mr. FRYE. Mr. Parker was the other member of the cabinet?
Mr. DAVIS. Parkerwastheminister offoreignaffairs. There
was a third conference between the revolutionists and the Queen's
minister held at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, concerning which Mr. Smith states in substance on page 489:
After the attempt to promulgate the constitution, and at about half past
3, Colburn overtook Thurston and myself returning to my office and told us
how the Queen in great anger had stated to the people that she had been
unable to carry out her wishes and had been prevented.
Concerning this third interview Mr. Waterhouse states in
substance on page 47:
Colburn stated that the Queen had gotten them into a room
and requested them to sign the new constitution; they asked for
a half hour to talk it over; in the meantime the natives were
talking quite loud, and Colburn thought it about time for him to
get out of it. So they went out the back way to the Government
house. If they had gone out thefront way the natives were all
out there, and they were afraid. They wanted to know if the
merchants would support them in their position. After discussing the matter a committee of safety was appointed.
I pause here, Mr. President, to call attention to the fact that this
potent monarchy which it is now asserted was all through these
proceedings, if it had been let alone by the United States, powerful enough to put down the insurrection, was, through three of
its cabinet ministers, consulting with the revolutionists for what
was deemed to be the public good. It was at the last consultation that the committee of public safety was appointed. The
ministers had fled from the palace. The royal power was broken then and there.
Its executive arm was palsied. No element of force able to
sustain it appears during the four days covered by these events
except in the person of Mr. Wilson, concerning whom this testimony is full, and who was the only one of the Queen's adherents,
I am bound to say, who throughout this entire business showed
any courage or manhood, or was willing to employ the powers
which it is said she possessed to put down the revolution, which
they knew from its very inception was in progress, and which
they assisted up to a certain point and knowingly helped to carry
out
There was still a fourth conference upon that Saturday, but it
was probably not the fourth in order. This depends upon the
statement made to Mr. Blount by Mr. Colburn, one of the ministers (page 30). January 14, Colburn and Peterson conferred
with Thurston and others at Smith's office, and Thurston submitted to them a written plan of action in case the Queen persisted. This Colburn and Peterson took, and told Thurston
they would await developments. The Queen was very deter800




12
mined at first. Mr. Colburn further states that Mr. Thurston
came to him and insisted that he (Mr. Colburn) should oppose
the Queen's intention, and that he would receive all the support
wanted, even if necessary to depose her. This was at the Government building, whence the ministers returned to the palace.
The proposition which Colburn and Peterson took from Mr.
Thurston on that Saturday was that the Queen under certain
circumstances should be deposed, and that they should take
part in the act of deposition. And these ministers, invested
with such powers, powerful enough, as they afterward said in
this testimony, to suppress the insurrection if they had been
let alone, neither on that Saturday, nor on any day thereafter,
took one step, so far as physical force is concerned, to attempt
to do it, but put the proposition for the deposition of the Queen,
in which they were to assist, into their own pockets and took it
into further consideration. Some of these conferences to which
I have alluded took place at the Government building and some
of them were held at the office of Mr. R. 0. Smith. Mr. Smith
says, page 489:
And we heard from various sources of the violent speeches of William
White and others threatening bloodshed, and we returned and reported this
to the meeting. My office was crowded with people. Colburn worked his
way in, and Peterson appeared a little later and Colburn repeated his statement. This was after the constitution was attempted to be promulgated.
There is much more in this testimony to the same effect, but
I have given in a condensed way the substance of some of its
salient points.
This was a singular revolution, avowed, open, known to the
Queen's ministers, they consulting and finally confederating with
the revolutionists in a certain contingency, not one of them
invoking any show whatever of physical force for its repression.
The fact is that the monarchy was physically and morally gone
on Saturday, two days, nearly three days, before a United States
marine put his foot upon the island. They knewperfectly welland the silence of the Queen all through these proceedings is
significant, for nobody claims that she is not a bold and brave
woman-that the days of the monarchy were over. The revolution was, like the great volcano on the neighboring island, giving
signs of an activity which no human power could repress, but
in the presence of which all human beings were hushed awaiting
the unavoidable convulsion that was shortly to come to pass with
irresistible power.
The proceedings at the palace when the Queen attempted to
promulgate this constitution throw great light upon what she
intended to do, whether she did in good faith then or thereafter
defer her intention, how much reliance can be placed upon her
promises now, and whether the apprehensions of the people on
the island-the American people, the English people, the German people, the Norwegian people, the Portuguese peoplewere well founded, that there was no safety for them if the rotten
dynasty should be suffered to continue. What took place at the
palace does not seem to have impressed the mind of Commissioner Blount with any particular force, and yet it is concurred
in by witnesses of the highest respectability. I shall take the
liberty to read some condensations of their testimony. I will
read first from the report of the committee on public safety, page
316. I read this for what it is worth, and ask no further credence
800




13
for it than is derived from corroborative evidence to which in
a few minutes I shall call the attention of the Senate.
These portions of the testimonv which I shall state pertain to
the proceedings that took place at the palace between I o'clock
and 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon, the 14th of January, 1893;
and I may say that the entire events of the revolution are comprised within that Saturday, and the following Sunday, Monday,
and Tuesday.
The Queen turned a deaf ear to the protests of the cabinet
that the proposed action would cause the streets to run red with
blood, and threatened that unless they complied with her demands she would state from the steps of the palace that the reason she did not give the people the new constitution was because
the ministers would not let her. Three of the ministers feared
mob violence and went to the Government house. They were
summoned back, but refused to go. Later they returned to the
palace, and for nearly three hours she again endeavored to force
them to acquiesce. Upon their final refusal, in a public speech
in the throne room, and again from the upper gallery of the
palace, she announced that she desired to issue the new constition, but was prevented by her ministers, and would do so in a
few days. So the committee of public safety reported to the
people.
I wish the Senate to be properly impressed with the situation
as it was at the time. A constitution was to be promulgated
without any previous public announcement of the fact. It had
been kept a profound secret except as to very few people. It
was to be promulgated by a revolutionary act to be committed
by the Queen, in violation of the existing constitution which
she had sworn to support. It does not appear in this testimony
that anybody but Peterson, and perhaps some of the natives,
knew of the existence of such an instrument before it was presented by the Queen at the palace about 1 o'clock on Saturday
afternoon, and he had been carrying it around in his pocket
for about eleven days. The entire royal forces of the island
were drawn up in line and in arms before the palace, the force
being limited to seventy-five by the law of the kingdom. Word
had been sent out to the natives to appear, and hundreds of them
surrounded the palace on all sides where the troops were notan excited mob. Bearing in mind the previous attempts to forcibly abrogate the constitution of 1887, the conspiracies in which
the Queen then in private life had figured and in which blood
had been shed, this testimony and that which follows and corroborates it is very significant, not only as to the character of
the woman, but as to the utter want of reliance which any circumspect person or administration can place in her assurance of
her future good conduct.
Mr. Bishop, who was present on the same occasion, says in substance that the Queen drew up the household troops in front of
the palace and determined to promulgate a new constitution;
that she used violent language toward her ministers and they
fled, and that she said she abandoned her intention for the present, but told her native subjects that she did so with regret, and
would promulgate the constitution within a short time. And,
as Mr. Bishop says, this wrecked her government.
Let me call attention to the testimony of Chief Justice Judd,
who had been summoned from the seat of judgment where he
80




14
was holding court to attend at the palace-he learning for the
first time when he was summoned what the object of the message was. Mr. Judd had sworn the Queen to the constitution of
1887. He is a man of great prominence in the island, and is
of the very highest personal character. Let us consider his
version of the events at the palace, of which he was a personal witness. He says, in substance, that the Queen invited
him to attend at the promulgation of the new constitution.
Shortly before the invitation, the chief justice was told that
an advocate of the lottery bill was going to the palace, with a
large number following, and thatt the Queen was going to proclaim a new constitution. The chief justice proceeds to say that
the Queen was in great agitation, and at the same time controlled herself. He gives hlr language as follows: " She had
prepared a new constitution whiLh she thought would meet the
purposes re uired and meet the approval of the people, but "she
said " with great sorrow, I am obliged to tell you that I can not
do it now, but I ask you to go home and love me. and I will continue to love you, and in a few days you will have your wishes
gratified." Whereupon a member of the Legislature turned
around and said: " What shall we do with these men who prevent the gratification of our wishes?"
He was seeking an object of vengeance, and asked what shall be
done with the cabinet, who in obedience to their constitutional
duty, and in fear for the personal consequences to themselves,
had refused to countersign the proclamation of the Queen giving out the new constitution, abrogating a constitution which
she had been solemnly sworn to support, and which contained
provision for the only method by which it could be amended,
namely, by a new organic instrument, or by amendments which
were to be passed upon by the action of two successive Legislatures. And as against this any royal proclamation promulgating another constitution was revolutionary in its character, and by its very force and effect absolved every subject of the
Queen from allegiance to her, just as surely as the arbitrary
acts of the King of Great Britain absolved our forefathers from
allegiance to him.
Mr. Boyd was also present and he says the Queen was a very
angry woman when at 4 p. m. Saturday she returned to the
throne room, where were assembled the Hui Kalaiaina with most
of the native members of the Legislature, the cabinet, the governor of Oahu, the young princess, Chief Justice Judd, and Mr.
Justice Bickerton, the staff, ladies of the court, kahili bearers
and others. She ascended the dais and spoke substantially as
follows: " Princes, nobles, and representatives: I have listened
to the thousands of voices of my people that have come to me,
and I am prepared to grant their request.
".The present constitution is full of defects, as the chief justice
here will testify, as questions regarding it have so often come
before him for settlement. It is so faulty that I think a new one
should be granted. I have prepared one, in which the rights of
all have been regarded-a constitution suited to the wishes of
the people. I was ready and expected to proclaim the new constitution to-day as a suitable occasion for it, and thus satisfy the
wishes of my dear people. But, with deep regret, I say that I
have met with obstacles that prevent it. Return to your homes
peaceably and quietly, and continue to look toward me and I
800




will look toward you. Keep me ever in your love. I am obliged
to postpone the granting of the new constitution for a few days.
I must confer with my cabinet, and when, after you return
home, you may see it, receive it graciously. You have my love,
and with sorrow I now dismiss you."
There is published, in the evidence which accompanies the
report of Commissioner Blount, extracts from an article or a
work called Two Weeks of Hawaiian History, which gives a
somewhat circumstantial account of the proceedings at the
palace.
Its substance is that Mr. White replied, thanking the Queen
and assuring her of the love of the people and that they would
wait patiently until their desires should be fulfilled; to which
the Queen responded with thanks, and left the throne room.
This was after she had announced her failure.
Mr. Kaunamano then began, in a loud voice, an inflammatory
harangue, which was suppressed. He demanded the lives of
the members of the cabinet who had opposed the wishes of Her
Majesty, and declared that he thirsted for bloodshed. A few moments later the Queen went out upon the upper balcony of the
palace and addressed the crowd. She told them that on account
of the perfidy of her ministers she was unable to give them the
constitution which she had promised them, but that she would
take the earliest opportunity of procuring it for them. The
crowd then gave three cheers. Representative White then proceeded to the steps of the palace and began an address. He told
the crowd that the cabinet had betrayed them, and that instead
of going home peaceably they should go into the palace and kill
and bury them. Attempts were made to stop him, which he resisted, saying that he would never close his mouth until the
new constitution was granted. Finally he yielded to expostulations.
Mr. President, this discussion of the question of fact has perhaps been wearisome, but I am very anxious to lay before the
Senate testimony which evidently made no impression whatever
upon the mind of Commissioner Blount. It seems to me if he
had had the least desire to sustain his own country in this matter, to sustain what had been done for our glory and credit, and
not to discompose a condition of affairs which when he went
there was settled, that some weight might have been given to
this testimony. I am aware that there is scattered through this
record testimony which can be strained and perverted according
to the condition of mind in which you look at the transaction, to
sustain to some degree the report of Commissioner Blount.
Mr. HOAR. I should like to ask the Senator from Minnesota,
before he passes from the narrative he has just made, whether
he has found anywhere, in the report of Mr. Blount, or the statement of the case on either side, in the evidence or elsewhere,
in the discussion of the press or otherwise, any claim that the
Queen had anyconstitutional power to proclaim a constitution?
Has any human being claimed that, so far as the Senator knows?
Mr. DAVIS. No human being has ever made that claim. It
has been conceded from all points and it must be conceded that
it was a revolutionary act, in violation of the constitution which
the Queen had sw orn to support.
It is a proper time now, Mr. President, to state very briefly
what these constitutions were; those which had been, were, and
609




16


were proposed, and to which these events have relevance. There
was the constitution of 1874, the constitution of 1887, which was
that in force during the Queen's reign, and the proposed constitution. I said some time ago that the influx into the island of
people of European and American birth after the convention of
1876, establishing reciprocity between that government and ours,
had been so great, and the property thereby created so vast in
value that it was felt, felt by them, felt by many of the enlightened natives, that their interests were not safe until there could
be some radical change in the organic law whereby, by the right
of voting and the right of holding office, they could in some degree protect the great interests which they had created. Out
of this conviction sprang the constitution of 1887.
The constitution of 1874 gave the King the absolute right of
veto. The constitution of 1887 provided, as ours does, that a
vetoed bill could be passed over the disapproval of the executive
by a two-thirds vote. It is certain that the Queen proposed in
the constitution which in 1893 she intended and attempted to
promulgate, to restore and to retake to herself, by the arbitrary
act of proclamation, the right of absolute veto, and to take from
the Legislature any control or restriction of her powers as to
that.
Under the constitution of 1874, the one which was set aside
and supplanted by the revolution of 1887, the right ol suffrage
was limited, and consequently the right of holding office, to
every male subject of the island. Every male subject of the Hawaiian Islands of a certain age and with certain qualifications,
not necessary to be considered here, was an elector, and no one
else. The evils to which I have alluded, and which were remedied in the constitution of 1887 (which, I confess, was revolutionary in its character, but long acquiesced in), procured the introduction of a clause into that constitution by which every male
resident of the island, of Hawaiian or American or European
birth, of a certain age and possessing certain property qualifications, became entitled to the right of suffrage, and became entitled to the right to hold office.
Now that provision, concerning which I will not descant here,
meritorious and protective in its character to all the material
interests of the island, was proposed by the Queen to be taken
away by a revolutionary proceeding in 1893, and the right of
suffrage and the right to hold office were to be revested, as under
the constitution of 1874, only in the male subjects of the island,
the vastly large proportion being of native Hawaiian blood.
That proceeding took from the great interests which have
sprung up there every security which they had. It took away
the right to limit taxation, and vested the power to tax without
limit in a half reclaimed horde of semi-barbarians. It took away
the dearest right which a man in any constitutional government
can have-the right to protecthimself by his suffrage. It limited
it exclusively to others. There is not a government on earth,
constitutional in its form, where the people have the right to exercise the elective franchise, where such people would not rise
in revolution, and have not repeatedly risen, for instances of encroachment less flagrant, and who would not be justified in so
doing by the earnest sympathy, if not by the active assistance of
the people of other nations.
I can not refrain, Mr. President, from the expression thathere
800




17
throughout I am talking on behalf of men and women who are of
American blood and birth or of American descent. This is no
abstract question in that regard. They built up the islands.
They caused the influences of civilization to fall upon them for
more than sixty years. They Christianized them. They reduced
the language to form and put it into printed speech. They invited American industries, American wealth, and American people to those shores. They established and fostered self-government. They drafted their laws; and it is upon them, people of
our own blood, inhabitants and citizens of islands dedicated by a
long system of policy to ultimate annexation to the United States,
that the attack of the present Administration ismade, by processes which many of us think are unconstitutional, and which
are certainly irregular and without precedent.
Under the constitution of 1874 the nobles, who constituted
one-half of the Legislature, were appointed by the King for life.
Under the constitution of 1887 they were elected for six years,
one-third going out at intervals of two years, as is the case with
the Senate of the United States. That was proposed to be taken
away, and the power of the Queen to appoint for life as nobles
one-half of the Legislature was in this unconstitutional form to
be reestablished and revested in the sovereign. The full effect
of this usurpation is apparent when it is considered that the Legislature of that Kingdom sits as one body. The Queen thus purposed to appoint one-half of that Legislature for life.
The cabinet under the constitution of 1874 was appointed and
was removable by the King. Under that of 1887 it was removable only upon a vote of want of confidence, and no sovereign
written act whatever could have any validity without the signature of one member of that cabinet. That provision was to be
abrogated by this revolutionary act of the Queen, secret in its
inception, sprung with sudden force upon the public mind when
she, surrounded by troops and having gathered around her a
turbulent Hawaiian mob, attempted to commit an act of usurpation which was contrary not only to her general duty as sovereign, but was violative of the oath which she took at the time of
her coronation.
The judges under the constitution of 1874 were appointed by
the King for life. The judicial tenure was thus stable, not subject to the mutations of popular caprice nor to the whims of
the sovereign. The proposed constitution of 1893 provided that
they should.be appointed by the sovereign for six years. The
succession to the throne was carefully limited in the constitution of 1887. By this arbitrary act she added two persons to the
line of succession, those failing who stood before them in the
line.
I have stated the provisions of the proposed constitution of
1893 as nearly as they can be ascertained. Up to a very recent
time no copy of that constitution could be obtained. It vanished
at the time of the failure to promulgate it and did not reappear
until very recently, as I find one in the documents which have
been laid before the Senate. It is certified to in the most
guarded manner by Parker and others as to being a copy.and as
to the changes which it was to effect.
Mr. President, as I have said, on Saturday it was resolved to
appoint a committee of public safety. This was done at a meeting at which two of the Queen's cabinet ministers were present
800-2




18
and had taken part. Butbefore I proceed to discuss that branch of
the subject let me call attention to. fact which to my mind all
throughout has had great significance. When the Queen took
occasion to attempt to promulgate the constitution on Saturday,
the 14th day of January, Minister Stevens was not in the islands,
nor was there any United States ship of war there. The Boston,
with Mr. Stevens on board, had been gone to Hilo for about ten
days, and the time of return was uncertain. Itseems to me that
the Queen and those who were conspiring with her took advantage of the absence of the Boston and of the American minister,
thinking that the situation would be more advantageous for the
consummation of this revolutionary act than if the minister or
the ship of war were present.
Mr. PLATT. The revolution was notanticipated by them before leaving?
Mr. DAVIS. When the ship went away no such thing was
suspected. No idea or hint had come from sea or shore to any
person that any revolutionary act whatever was in design or
course of perpetration.
Mr. SHERMAN. The old cabinet was in existence.
Mr. DAVIS. The old cabinet, as is suggested, was in existence-known, I believe, as the Wilcox ministry-one in which
the country had a great degree of confidence, and one which, as
I have remarked, was voted out because it was felt that none of
its members would sign either of those twin iniquities, the opium
and lottery bills, and one voted in that it was known would sign
them. Mr. Stevens returned on Saturday. The Boston sailed
into the harbor of Honolulu on Saturday at about 11 o'clock.
Mr. PLATT. On what day of the month?
Mr. DAVIS. On the 14th of January-this same day. Neither
those who had decided to create a revolution nor the Queen nor
any of her adherents, it is apparent, had any knowledge as to
when the Boston would return. It can not be, and it has not
been, charged against Mr. Stevens or the memory of Capt.
Wiltse that in the preliminary acts by which the revolutionists
irrevocably committed themselves to revolt, they had any lot
or part whatever.
Mr. HOAR. Or that they knew when the Boston was coming
back.
Mr. DAVIS. Or that the revolutionists or anybody knew
when the Boston was coming back. Mr. Stevens's daughter was
an invalid. He was away caring for her health. I say before the
Boston had returned to the port the revolution was under way,
and firm and resolute men with our blood in their veins; yes,
and Englishmen, and Germans, too, and Portuguese, Norwegians, and French, had resolved that they would rise in their
might and majesty against this corrupt dynasty and depose and
overthrow it forever. It is in vain to argue by special pleading
that Mr. Stevens did not, as a matter of fact, find this revolutionary situation there when he returned, and that it was not
one which required his immediate action if he obeyed the dictates of duty as imposed by international law, or if he obeyed the
positive instructions which were then upon file in his office from
Mr. Bayard.
Mr. CULLOM. And by following precedents?
Mr. DAVIS. And by following oit repeated precedents in the
history of our diplomatic relations with those islands. Of course,
800




19


when the Boston came into port with these forces looking each
other in the face, the one side resolute and determined and the
other cowed, with no action 1 tent in them and no resolve to act
except by mob violence breaking out upon impulse, it became a
matter of importance to every citizen. irrespective of his connection with either side, to know what in the certainty and inevitable character of the impending troubles the action of the
Unied St tes fo ces was to be. It was known that they had landed
twice before during revolutionary times. Accordingly, a delegation of the committee of safety was appointed to wait on Mr.
Stevens to ascertain the disposition of the United States minister
and what would be his action in regard to the landing of troops.
He undoubtedly knew the situation. The town is a little town
of 20,000 people. The island is but 600 miles square, turbulent
as the volcano in one of the neighboring islands. Every noise is
heard and every sight is seen by everybody.
The American interests there were vast and the American
population numerous. The matter undoubtedly came with force
and suddenness upon Mr. Stevens's mind the moment he touched
the shore in landing from the Boston, at about 11 or 12 o'clock
on that Saturday. The committee waited on Stevens, and I will
read from the testimony of Mr. Smith the substance of what
they reported he said.
Mr. CULLOM. Is that in the testimony accompanying Blount's
report?
Mr. DAVIS. Everything that I am speaking about is in the
testimony which Mr. Blount has submitted as corroborative of
and as a foundation for his report.
At 8 o'clock in the evening another meeting of the committee
was held at the Thurston House. Thurston stated that Stevens.had said that the United States troops on board the Boston would
be ready to land any moment to protect the lives and property;
and as to the establishment of a provisional government, he
would of course recognize the existing government, whatever it
might be.
If he had taken down a work on international law from the
shelf and read it, he could not have stated the abstract principles any more justly or correctly.
Mr. GRAY. Whom is the Senator now reading from?
Mr. DAVIS. I am reading from my abstract of the testimony
of Mr. Smith, page 489. Thurston stated to Stevens the proposition that was under consideration, and he asked Stevens what
his attitude would be. Stevens told him whatever government
was established and was actually in possession of the Government building, the executive departments and archives, and in
possession of the city, that was a defaclo government, proclaiming itself as a government, and would necessarily have to be
recognized.
I say, Mr. President, that that is a general principle of law
which could not be stated better and never has been stated more
exactly by text-writer or commentator. Time after time in the
history of our diplomatic relations that has gone out as the
standing instruction of our Government in regard to revolutionary transactions, especially upon this hemisphere.
What was Mr. Steven to do under these circumstances? The
revolution was on. It had been resolved to depose the Queen.
All civilization was back of the revolt. The passions of the na800




20
tives were excited. Lives had been threatened in the very
throne room of the palace. Preceding history was full not only of
warnings, but of imperious monitions toaction. Any action taken
there without some restraining force would inevitably result in
danger and perhaps destruction to American life and property.
Why should he have acted differently from the manner Mr. Merrill acted in 1889, or differently from what was done in 1874 when
the election of King Kalakaua was being conducted, and a native
force of insurrectionists broke into the legislative hall and there
inflicted personal violence upon the members because they, the
assailants, favored the cause of Queen Emma?
Mr. President, supposing the marines had not been landed and
this revolution had progressed, as most assuredly it would-for
the men at the back of it were determined men, and I say they
had the force to carry out their intention-suppose the marines
had not been landed and the result had been bloodshed in the
streets of Honolulu, that the lives of American men, women,
or children had been taken away, or arson had lit the sky with
its red glow, or property had been destroyed, how instantly the
American people, officially and unofficially, would have risen up
in condemnation of his negligence 
Mr. Stevens was not without instructions here. If he consulted the records of his legation he found a letter from the premier of Mr. Cleveland's first Administration, Mr. Bayard,to
Minister Merrill of July 12,1887. It is to be found in Executive
Document No. 1, Foreign Relations, 1887, page 580. It will beobserved that this dispatch was written about the time, either
after, or in immediate apprehension of the troubles and insurrections which had culminated in enforcing from King Kalakaua the constitution of 1887. Mr. Bayard recites the necessity
for the strictest vigilance. Mr. Merrill had written to Mr. Bayard stating the precarious condition of things there, the latent
turbulency and unrest, and had requested instructions what to do
in case that happened which actually happened in July andwhich
actually happened in the year of grace 1893.
Mr. Bayard recites in his dispatch the necessity for strict vigilance by those charged with the care of the rights of American
citizens, as well as the rights of the United States under treaties,
regrets recent domestic discords, and states that the interests of
American citizens, which have grown up under the extension
of commerce between the United States and Hawaii, must not
be jeopardized-meaning, as I construe it, must not be put in
peril, but must be protected by precautionary action in advance
of actual assault, or attempt; this is the fair construction of that
language-must not be jeopardized by internal confusion in the
Government of those islands, and that it is the duty of the
United States to see that these interests are not imperiled or
injured, and to do all things necessary for their just protection.
That is very comprehensive language written by the Secretary
of State to Mr. Merrill at the time when the events which afterwards took place were feared-nothing must be jeopardized or
imperiled or injured. He states that the Department can give
only general instructions, which may be communicated to the
commanding officer of the naval forces, "with whom you will
freely confer in order that such prompt and efficient action may
800




21I
be taken as the circumstances may make necessary." Then he
concludes as follows:
While we abstain from interference with the domestic affairs of Hawaii in
accordance with the policy and practice of this Government, yet obstruction
to the channels of legitimate commerce under existing treaties must not be
allowed, and American citizens in Hawaii must be protected in their persons
and property by the representatives of their country's law and power, and
no internal discord must be suffered to impair them. Your own aid and
counsel, as well as the assistance of our G overnment vessels, if found necessary, will therefore be promptly afforded to promote the reign of law and
respect for orderly government in Hawaii.
I maintain, taking into consideration the situation as it was
when Mr. Stevens returned to the port of Honolulu, that those
instructions of Secretary Bayard's vindicated and were a direction to do all that Mr. Stevens did, and to say that because in
doing that, in protecting American citizens, he incidentally,
and as a collateral consequence, made the sustaining of royalty
more difficult than it otherwise would have been by preventing
bloodshed and havoc in the streets, is to attach all importance
to the incidental and particular and to leave out of all account
the general and conclusive object that was to be attained.
These, Mr. President, comprise principally the events of Saturday, sketched at more length than was perhaps necessary, but
sketched, I think, with substantial accuracy from the material
furnished by the testimony taken by Mr. Blount.
We come now to Sunday, and we find Colburn and Peterson
still in collusion with Thurston and the others. I refer to the
testimony of Colburn, on page 30, who says in effect that the next
morning, Sunday, January 15, at 6 a. m., Thurston came to Colburn's house and wanted him to go with him to Peterson's house.
Upon their arrival there Thurston said that he represented a
committee of safety, who had held a meeting at his house on
Saturday evening and decided to send him to us with a proposition that Peterson and Colburn should depose the Queen.
Thurston gave them the names of the committee of thirteen,
and said that the desire of this committee was that you two depose
the Queen and declare a provisional government.
What did the ministers do? Did they rise up in their might
and loyalty and endeavor to secure the arrest or even the rebuke
of Mr. Thurston? Not at all.
We told him that we would have to take the matter under advisement and
would inform him of our conclusions later on.
This proposition, treasonable as it is claimed, was made on
Sunday, when there was not a United States marine on the island,
and when it is asserted by the royalists in the United States and
elsewhere that all-sufficient physical force and military power
were in the hands of the Queen's Government; was made to these
cabinet ministers, who said that they would have to take it into
consideration, and would inform the revolutionists of their conclusions later on. If they thought they had the physical force to
suppress orcheck thatwhich to their knowledge had been resolved
upon. and which to their knowledge was being carried on, why
was it not employed? It was not employed. Mr. President, and
these considerations and suggestions were received thus favorably for the simple and only reason that they knew that the monarchy was powerless, and that it had broken down in substance
and effect.
On the same day, at a meeting at Mr. Thurston's house, a message was received from the cabinet that the ministers would like
800




22


to meet the committee of thirteen, whose names had been given
to Colburn and Peterson.
To show how much force and power there was behind the
Queen's Government, adequate in any degree to prevent that
which afterwards c -me to pass, I call attention to the statement
of Robert Wilcox, (on page 539 of the report), a trained military
man. who conducted the revolution of 1889. Speaking of Sunday he says in substance that on Sunday he was called on by
Colburn, who wanted him to assist the Government, who said
that Thulrston had requested him to sign a document requesting
the ordering of the Boston's marines on shore and to proclaim the
Provisional Government. Colburn called again in the ev:ning
and wanted Wilcox to go down to the Government building.
Several people were there consulting over the situ ttion. Marshal Wilson was there. Wilson decided it wds proper to arrest
the committee of safety.
Mr. PLATT. Was that after the troops landed?
Mr. DAVIS. No; it was the day before. This was on Sunday. The troops landed at 5 o'clock on Monday afternoon.
Wilson, the only resolute man who appears upon the side of the
Queen, was there with full knowledge of the facts and of the
names of the committee of public safety, and he decided and held
that it was proper to arrest that committee.
They asked my opinionIt is Wilcox who is testifyingI said the only thing was to suppress them before they made any progress.
They said the revolutionists were-going to have a mass meeting. Then they
decided to have a meeting of the supporters of the Government in the square
right opposite the Government building, and some one talked about proclaiming martial law, and stop all the rebels and riots, and all that sort of
thing; but Paul Neumann saidHe is one of the leading advocates of the Queen and her trusted
representativeit would not be necessary; it would only create friction. I told Paul Neumann that if there was any bloodshed the Government would be responsible
for taking such a weak stand. Paul Neumann said there was a document
to be read there to dethrone the QueenThat was at the mass meetingby the opposition party. He said, * That is no treason." I said, "If that is
not treason, we had better give up the whole thing."
Here, on Sunday, with full knowledge by the Queen's government and all her ministers that the commnittee of safety had been
appointed; that the Queen was to be deposed, and that a proclamation to that effect was to be read at the mass meeting, as then
intended; with not a show of force up to that time back of the
Provisional Government; with all the public arms in the hands
of the Queen's Government; with the educated military officer,
Wilcox, then adherent to the Queen, sent for to come into their
councils- under all these circumstances the Queen's ad vis rs met
and declined to make any civil arrests: they decided that it was
unnecessary to proclaim marti tl law. because it would produce
friction. Tney decided to do nothing whatever except to call
another mass meeting.
Finally Paul Neumann, the lawyer and attorney of the Queen,
who has held her letters of attorney, who represented her in
Washington, as I am informed, declares that all this proceeding
which they had been discussing is not treason. Then they were
800




23
advised by the only military man on the island on either side, if
that was not treason they had better give up the whole thing.
Mr. FRYE. The Senator ought to add one more thing, that
Wilson, who was the marshal and had charge of the police, was
there.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Wilson was the marshal, as the Senator
suggests, and had the entire control of the police force, 60 in
number: and he was there. as I have stated. He had, in addition to that, 75 of the Queen's guard, a trained body of men. Repeated meetings of the committee of safety had been held in Mr.
Smith's office and elsewhere, and that fact was well known.
Three constables could have effected the arrest of the entire
committee in a time when the Government had any power. It
was not attempted.
I say that Government had broken down, and these pretexts,
officially and otherwise set forth, that this power of the Government, otherwise invincible, broke down at the presence of
United States troops, is absolutely and flagrantly contradicted
by concurrent facts from the time and many hours before a
United States Government marine was in sight of the island.
Mr. GRAY. Will the Senator allow me to ask him whether
I understand him to say that on Sunday there was not a United
States Government marine in sight of the island?
Mr. DAVIS. I do.
Mr. GRAY. The Boston was in the harbor.
Mr. DAVIS. I beg pardon. I did not for the moment remember that.
Mr. GRAY. The Boston arrived at 10 o'clock on Saturday
morning.
Mr. FRYE. There was not a marine on shore.
Mr. DAVIS. There was pot a marine on shore. The Boston
had arrived-and I am very much obliged to the Senator from
Delaware for correcting me.
Mr. GRAY. The Senator will pardon my interruption. I
know he wants to be accurate.
Mr. DAVIS. I am very much obliged to the Senator from
Delaware.
Mr. Wilson, in a statement on page 552, states that he proposed to the cabinet on Sunday to arrest the ringleaders of the
plot at once.
What I have said is aresum6, and hardly that-a few scattered
suggestions of fact as to what took place on Sunday. Two days
had passed away since this revolution was more than brewing;
it had been in full progress.
Coming now to Monday, the 16th of January, Mr. Waterhouse
testifies as to the mass meeting of 2 p. m. on Monday, that after
the mass meeting the committee of safety met and decided to
take possession of the Government. There was still another
meeting on Monday, when they planned what should be done on
Tuesday. After the meeting on Monday, Mr. Carter took the
request of the committee of safety to Mr. Stevens.
Without going into this testimony as fully as I had intended, I
make the statement here that in all the interviews which were
held with Mr. Stevens by the committee of public safety, and
also by the Queen's ministers-for the applications to Mr. Stevens
were not confined to one party-his invariable assertion was that
he would land troops to protect American lives and property,
800




24
and every attempt to draw him by declaration or intimation into
a pledge or understanding, express or implied, that he would
support the Provisional Government failed to elicit anything of
that kind from him. He stated in reply to all such inquiries
the abstract principle of international law, reiterated over and
over again in our diplomatic history, that the Government de
facto would be the one that would be recognized. He had no
authority to stay this revolution; he had no authority to support
this reeling, toppling monarchy. He did have the right, and
it was his duty, if either revolution or monarchy created a situation which, in the language of Mr. Bayard, "imperiled American
interests," to land the troops and to thus prevent those interests
thus imperiled from being injured. If the Queen's Government
had by a course of action created a situation which made the
exercise of that right by Mr. Stevens necessary, she can not
complain if, by her own act thus creating occasion for the exercise of that necessary right by Mr. Stevens, such exercise by
him incidentally and collaterally may have had some effect toward sweeping away the throne which she herself had thus put
in jeopardy.
Mr. PLATT. The Senator does not admit that?
Mr. DAV1S. I do not admit that it did-that his action had
that effect. I maintain that it had not. I shall come to that
in due time. The testimony here is abundant that the revolutionists were able to protect themselves, and that the Queen's
Government was powerless to stay the execution of their purpose.
I may say here, for fear that I forget it in a more appropriate
connection, that the testimony is concurrent that the Provisional
Government expected to have some trouble, and it is abundant,
as I have stated, that they did not rely upon the United States
troops and that they were able to take care of themselves. This
revolution would have gone on if not a marine had ever set his
foot on the island of Oahu. I shall demonstrate, I think, before I get through, that all the talk of intervention or of implied
duress by the United States troops by reason of their position is
the merest fallacy, a far-drawn argument to support what I think
was a foregone conclusion.
As illustrative of just exactly what the attitude of Mr. Stevens
was-and contemporaneous records of this character are of much
greater value than the testimony of any witness whose recollection may be distorted by want of full retention in memory or by
prejudice-I desire to read at length Mr. Stevens's letter to Capt.
Wiltse, and Capt. Wiltse's order to Lieut. Swinburne:
UNITED STATES LEGATION, Ilonolutu, January 16, 1893.
SIn: In view of existing critical circumstances in Honolulu, indicating an
inadequate legal force, I request you to land marines and sailors from the
ship under your command for the protection of the United States legation
-and the United States consulate, and to secure the safety of American life
and property.
Yours truly,
JOHN L. STEVENS,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary
of the United States.
Capt. G. C. WILTSE.
This request to Capt. Wiltse is limited by its very terms to
the protection of the legation and the securing of the safety of
American lives and property. Acting upon that, Capt. Wiltse
800




25
issues to the executive officer, Lieut. Swinburne, the following
order:
U. S. S. BOSTON, SECOND RATE,
Ilonotlul,. Hlawaiian Islands, January 16, 1893.
SIn: You will take command of the battalion and land in Honolulu for
the purpose of protecting our legation, consulate, and the lives and property
of American citizens, and to assist in preserving public order.
Great prudence must be exercised by both officers and men, and no action
taken that is not fully warranted by the condition of affairs, and by the
conduct of those who may be inimical to the treaty rights of American cltizens.
You will inform me at the earliest practicable moment of any change in
the situation.
Very respectfully,
G. C. WILTSE,
Captain, U... avy, Commanding U. S. S. Boston.
Lieut. Commander W. T. SWINBURNE,
Executive Officer, U. S. Boston.
[At this point the honorable Senator yielded the floor for a
motion to proceed to the consideration of executive business.]
T7ursday, January 11, 1894.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, it is always to be considered in
weighing testimony in this matter, and especially in considering
the action of Minister Stevens, that there was as to American
residents in the island a dual citizenship, that of the United
States and that of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The constitution of
Hawaii of 1887, which the Queen unconstitutionally attempted
to abrogate, conferred upon all male residents of Hawaiian or
of European or of American, parentage, of a certain age and
possessing the requisite property qualifications, the elective
franchise and the right to hold office. The question might possibly arise, indeed had arisen, as to what the effect of such a provision would be upon the right of a citizen of the United States
to be regarded thereafter as a citizen of the United States after
his taking advantage of the privileges conferred upon him by
the constitution of HIawaii, and whether he would be entitled to
protection as an American citizen.
So far as that question is concerned it had received ample decision by the State Department, first by Mr. Frelinghuysen,
whose views upon that subject are found in Senate Miscellaneous Documents of 1885 —'86, vol. 10, page 177. The case arose long
before the adoption of the Constitution of 1887, and was decided
upon general principles. Jones was an American citizen domiciled in Hawaii; but in order to obtain the registry of a merchant
vessel under the Hawaiian flag he was compelled by the statute of
the Kingdom to take an oath of allegiance to the Kingdom, which
he did, and the question arose in that particular instance whether
by so doing he had abrogated or could have been held to have
renounced his privileges, rights, or status as an American citizen. Mr. Frelinghuysen says:      *
Your inquiry is as to what effect this proceeding may have upon the staust
of Mr. Jones's Amrerican citizenship.
In becoming a citizen of the United States the law requires that an alien
shall not only swear to support the Constitution and laws of this country,
but also to renounce all other allegiance, and especially that of the country
of which he may be then a subject or citizen. In the oath taken by Mr.
Jones there is no such express renunciation of his American citizenship, nor
do the circumstances manifest any intention on his part to expatriate himself.
it may, however, at some future time, become a question for judicial investigation in his case.
800




26
The doctrine of the executive branch of the Government on this subject
is thus expressed by the Attorney-General:
" To constitute expatriation there must be an actualremoval, followed by
foreign residence, accompanied by authentic renunciation of preexisting
citizenship" (8 Op., 139), and this view finds support in some judicial decisions (Juando vs. Taylor, 2 Paine, 652).
In the absence of a direct judicial determination of the question, I do not
feel disposed to deny to Mr. Jones any right or privilege pertaining to his
character of American citizenship, and therefore, while the Department
will not undertake to express an authoritative opinion on the effect which
his course in Hawaii may ultimately have on his status in that regard, you
are authorized to extend to him such protection as may be properly due to
a citizen of the United States residing in and having acquired a commercial
domicile in a foreign state. This protection must, of course, be.limited and
qualified by the liabilities and obligations incident to such commercial
domicile.
But the question directly arose under the operations of the
constitution of 1887, and was passed upon by Mr. Bayard. (Vol.
1, House Ex. Doc. Second Session, Fiftieth Congress, page 833.)
MR. BAYARD TO MB. MERRILL.
NO. 61.]                         DEPARTMENT OP STATE,
Washington, September 30, 1887.
SIR: Your No. 134, of the 25th of July last, in reference to an oath required
of foreign residents in the islands, is received.
This question was brought to the notice of the Department by Mr. Putman,
in his No. 125, of the 1st ultimo, and In reply he was instructed on the 18th
ultimo that citizens of the United States who take the oath of fealty prescribed by the new constitution of Hawaii remain citizens of the United
States, and are entitled to be regarded and treated as such by our consular
and diplomatic officers.
That such a result is contemplated by the Hawaiian Government appears
evident from the last sentence of the oath, which reads:
"Not hereby renouncing, but expressly reserving all allegiance and citizenship now owning or held by me.'
This Department is informed that this oath is indiscriminately required
of citizens of other nations, who are nevertheless understood by their own
governments to retain their own nationality of origin. Inasmuch also as
this oath is a requisite condition for exercising any political privileges on
the island. it is evident that a refusal on the part of this Government of the
assent to taking it granted by other governments to their citizens would result in the destruction of any political power previously possessed by our
citizens and its transfer to citizens of other assenting nations.
The Department, therefore, desires that you will consider the above instruction as addressed to yourself, and that you will relieve the minds of all
bona fide American citizens who, while honestly desiring to retain their
American nationality, are, in order to obtain the privileges necessary for a
residence in the islands, obliged under local law to take an oath to support
the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
I am, etc.,
T. F. BAYARD.
Mr. President, I shall proceed as rapidly as may be consistent
with a very superficial examination of the testimony which is
contained in Mr. Blount's report, repeating that I am    limiting myself to that testimony strictly in my consideration of
the events that I was discussing when the Senate adjourned
yesterday. On Monday, the 16th day of January, the situation
upon the island had become more critical. It was known to be
such, and indeed had been recognized to be such, as it had been
before, by the Queen's ministers. Accordingly, at 10 o'clock
on Monday morning a meeting of the cabinet was called which
resulted in the drafting and adoption of a proclamation to be
signed by the Queen, stating that she would not attempt to
modify the constitution of 1887 except by the methods prescribed
therein. But she had gone too far. The fate of the monarchy
was settled, and, althojgh the cabinet visited the committee of
public safety and showed that proposed proclamation to the
committee, it was replied what faith could be pat in the prom800




27
ises of the Queen after what had taken place? The cabinet was
notified that it was too late.
It is always the case when thrones are falling under the blows
of revolution that the tottering monarch offers that which he
should have offered long before. If I am correct in my recollections of history, Lord Howe in the darkest period of the American Revolution sent a letter to Gen. Washington, addressing
him as Mr. Washington, offering exemptions and privileges to
the colonies and to the American people which for years before
he had obdurately denied, and which denial had resulted in the
glorious rebellion which gave us our independence. Gen. Washington's reply to those letters was the victories of Trenton and
Monmouth. I am reminded by the learned Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] that in that connection George III sent
over commissioners, of whom I think Lord Howe was one, authorized and plenarily empowered to make those promises.
Now, on this occasion, somewhere about 11 o'clock on Monday,
Mr. Wilson made his way to the meeting of the committee of
public safety and told Mr. Thurston. the master spirit in this
singular rebellion, where those ministers who were intrusted with
the preservation of the Kingdom were associating on the most
familiar terms, terms almost of intimacy, with those who were
termed the plotters, that this thing ought to stop, that there
would be a proclamation issued. Mr. Thurston replied that it
had gone too far; that they were standing on a volcano; that they
would not trust the word of the Queen. Wilson then threatened
him with arrest, and Thurston defied him. That is the nearest
approach to the use of physical force to repress the revolution in
all these four days of intense excitement.
On Monday the committee of ptblic safety, knowing and having been informed th t the United States minister would order
the troops to be landed from the ship at5 o'clock that afternoon,
found that it did not acco:d with the then condition of their plans
and purposes, that it would be too early for what they intended
to do. Accordingly, they sent to Minister Stevens and asked
him to postpone the landing of the tr.oops until the next day, and
his reply wasthat "Asaprecautionary matter I have ordered the
troops be landed at 5 o clock for the protection of American life
and property, and landed they will be." And they were landed
at that hour. That does not look much as if the minister were
playing into the hands of those who afterwards became the Provisional Government.
I have no doubt that, as on such occasions always is the case,
those who were back of the revolution endeavored to m ike it
appear that the United States authorities and troops were to be in
actual sympathy with them, but the United States was not responsible for that, and this evidence can ba searched in vain for
any instance where Mr. Stevens did not expressly say to every
attempt to put him even in an equivoc l attitude in this respect
that he should land the troops for the protection of American
life and property. What was he to do? Suppose he had not
landed the marines and the results had been as everybody feared?
He would h Lve disobeyed the standing instructions of his office;
and, as I said yesterday, if the Queen by her revolutionary acts,
whereby she had absolved from allegiance to her every subject
who chose, had created the situation which made it necessary
to land troops for the protection of American life and property,
800




28
she (having created that necessity) can not complain because
its necessary exercise had the collateral and incidental effect of
contributing in some degree to overthrow the monarchy. That
it did so contribute I deny. I merely suppose the case.
Great stress is laid in Mr. Blount's report upon the use of
troops. One would think from it that a corps d'armee had been
marshalled in the streets of Honolulu. Mr. President, 162
marines were landed, and of those 14 were musicians, 9 were officers. It can be fairly inferred from Mr. Blount's report that
those troops were massed in a commanding position with refer
ence to the capitol building of the Hawaiian Kingdom. But the
facts are, as appear from the testimony submitted by Mr. Blount,
that when they marched from the landing up to Merchant street,
the principal street of the city as I should judge from the map,
a detachment was left at the consular office on that street, a company of marines went to the legation, where they remained, and
the remainder of the force, being the main body, the number of
which is not stated, went off towards Arion Hall seeking shelter.
Not being able to find it there at once, application was made for
the opera house. That building could not be had. The armory
was otherwise occupied, and that could not be had. At a later
hour they went on beyond Arion Hall to the residence of Mr.
Atherton, a place which I should judge from the map is somewhere out in the suburbs; probably obtained refreshment there,
and late in the evening came back and were quartered in Arion
Hall.
Mr. PLATT. At what hour?
Mr. DAVIS. I can not tell exactly; probably it was 8 or 9
o'clock.
At this point another matter in my notes attracts my attention. It is the statement or testimony of Mr. Cornwell. found
on page 27. He was the minister of finance. He says in substance that on Monday, having learned that United States troops
were landing, Parker and Peterson called on Stevens and requested him to keep the troops on board. Stevens replied that
he had landed the troops to protect American life and property,
and proposed to keep them on shore. There was a distinct announcement by the minister of the United States to the Queen's
ministers, consistent with all that he had said before and with
all that he said afterwards, and with all that the naval officers
said or did, owing to the necessity which had been created, and
which he did notcreate, and for which he was in no degree responsible, namely, he would land troops solely to serve the purposes of that necessity, which was the protection of American
life and property.
As I have stated, during the meeting of the committee os
public safety on Monday, Marshal Wilson made his way to the
meeting, and in his testimony, commencing on page 552, he details his interview with Thurston. I think I stated that a few
moments ago, but something else took place there which is corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse about which Mr.
Wilson says nothing, namely, the threat which Wilson then
made to arrest Thurston, and Thurston's defiance.
It would be inferred from the report of Commissioner Blount
that everything was serene and peaceful in Hawaii on this Monday; that there was no public alarm; that this situation so uni800




29


versally known to everybody had not created a ripple on the
placid surface of business or municipal affairs.
It frequently happens, when testimony, given under the disturbing impulse of passion and discordant views is conflicting,that
some incidental, some collateral circumstance comes in, some
fact proved by unimpeachable testimony and not contradicted,
which settles the entire controversy. Such a circumstance is
not lacking here. I refer to the testimony of Mr. Scott, on page
480. Mr. Scott testifies in substance that he was the principal of
a public school in the city of Honolulu, the number of pupils
being 300 white children; that shortly after school began on the
morning of Monday the mothers of those children from all parts
of the city came to the school in their carriages to take them
away. He was so impressed by the gravity of the situation that
he dismissed the school before noon. Nothing but the existence
of great alarm and the prevailing sense of impending danger
could have carried that impression of insecurity into a hundred
separate homes that morning. The feminine instinct in that
case, as it so often is, was unerring. There was danger; it was
so felt.
Tuesday, the day of final action came, and Mr. Cornwell, on
page 27, testifies that Tuesday " We were informed that the
Provisional Government would be proclaimed that afternoon."
Wilson testifies or states in substance, on page 552, that he knew
on Tuesday before 11 a. m. that the committee had agreed to
proclaim a provisional government; to put Chief Justice Judd
or Justice Dole at the head of it, and that they were to hold another meeting at noon; that they would move on the Government building at 3 p. m. and on the police station at 4 p. m. "I
immediately sent for the cabinet, but there was no sign of cabinet."
Now, here was a meeting of the committee of public safety announcing that at certain hours of that day they would seize the
Government of Hawaii and depose the Queen, giving the very
line of action and the place and time of it. They were holding
their meetings in a place not commanded or guarded or threatened in the least degree by United States troops, or defended by
any forces of their own. IHere, on the other hand,was the Queen's
Government, with this amount of power behind it, of which Mr.
Blount talks, and yet no motion was made to put this irresistible
power into operation; not one of the Queen's guards nor one of
Marshal Wilson's police force was sent to arrest those thirteen
men, and there was no sign of the cabinet to be found. They had
vanished
Into thin air; and what seemed corporal melted
As breath into the wind.
The substance of Mr. Bolte's statement, found on page 249, is
that at 2 p. m., Tuesday, when they arrived at the Government
house, there came up others of the revolutionary party, bringing rifles and pistols. HIe says this was premeditated; that the
committee had notified the volunteers that they would go to the
Government house at 2 o'clock, and that they, referring to the
volunteers, arrived before the finishing of the reading of the
proclamation. The testimony shows that before that reading
was finished Capt. Ziegler, a German, brought on his company,
he being the first, and by the time it was through the rest were
800




30
there, so that when the act by which these gentlemen announced
their determination to seize on the Government of Hawaii was
finished, by reading the proclamation, the military force, which
it was concerted should be there at the time the committee on
public safety went to the public building, had arrived. They
came from the armory, a place not at all commanded or dominated by any force of United States marines upon the island.
They could have been met by this vague and yet invincible and
irresistible royal force of which Mr. Blount tells, and the factions could have fought it out to their heart's content, without the
least interference, so long as the contest did not result in or
threaten violence and danger to the lives and property of American citizens.
It could be inferred, and I think it is expressly stated in Mr.
Bloint's report-and such is the desire to dwell upon minute
matters for the purpose of making good the attack upon the
Administration of President Harrison and upon Mr. Stevensthat the committee on public safety furtively and by separate
streets went to the Government building. In that he is squarely
contradicted by the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse, page 47. My
recollection of that testimony is that the committee of thirteen,
with one other gentleman whose name is not given, making
fourteen, started from the meeting place of the committee of
public safety to go to the Government building, and my recollection is positive that the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse is that
twelve of them went in one body, up the same street, of course,
and the other two, for some reason not explained, took another
street.
I infer that the twelve went up Merchant street, the principal
business street of the city, upon which the police station is situated. They had no guard; no soldier went with them. The
names of the committee of thirteen were known, and had been
known since Monday, and perhaps before; yes, Saturday is the
testimony, if my recollection serves me, and yet not one of this
imposing military force which was at the back of the -Iawaiian
Government was invoked to stay or detain or arrest them.
Mr. Waterhouse states that they expected to meet resistance
at the Government building; he had heard a report that there
were 100 men there. He thinks that if the Queen's forces and
the military forces had got to fighting, the United States troops
would not have interfered except to protect American citizens.
That was the conception of the situ tion which the committee
of safety had when they set out for the Government building.
He says that when they were going into the door of the Government building various volunteers kept coming into the yard
with their riles.
Mr. President, they took possession of that building. They
found one government clerk there, making up some official figures.
Mr. Damon states in substance, on page 39, that some of the.
provisional troops came on the ground before the reading of the
proclamation was finished. Immediately after the proclamation
Dole and others met at the office of the minister of the interior,
and Cornwell and Pa/ ker came up from the station house and
held aconference, the result of which was that Deamon and Bolte
were requested to return with Cornwell and Parker to the station house (this was another of the amenities of this revolution)
800




31
and recommend and urge upon the parties in power at the police
station to surrender to the Provisional Government. They held
a conference in the room occupied generally by the deputy marshal, at which were present Peterson, Colburn, Parker, Cornwell, Bolte, and, later, Neumann.
The President of the United States has stated in his annual
message, as Mr. Blount had stated in his report, that this Provisional Government was established with the active aid of the
United States minister, and by the puissant intimidation of the
American troops. I have shown how they were distributed.
I say the United States troops were not drawn up in line, or at
all in a menacing or military attitude or array.
Let us see whether Mr. Blount did not overlook some most important testimony as to what took place right there at the time
when the Provisional Government was coming into being by
reading the proclamation. If the testimony of any witness is
to be regarded respecting the military situation at the time, it is
the testimony of Mr. Wilcox, the military man who was educated
by the Hawaiian Government in the military schools of Italy,
and who at the time of this revolution was passively favorable
to the cause of the Queen. Mr. Wilcox says in regard to the attitude of the troops-I can not give the page exactlyMr. GRAY. Who is the witness?
Mr. DAVIS. Robert Wilcox. I read this question and answer in the examination of Wilcox, on page 542:
Q. Where were the United States troops at the time of the reading of the
proclamation?
A. Right behind the opera house, in a building they called Arion Elall.
Q. In the house or on the street?
A. Some inside and some outside. They took possession of that quarter.
Q. Were they formed or not?
A. No; they just guarded the place.
Q. Had they arms?
A. Yes; and one or two Gatling guns-one or two, 1 am sure of that.
What becomes of the claim that the United States marines
were there drawn up in military array and menacing the operations of the Queen's Government or of her forces:  They had
been stationed at the Arion Hall because there was no other
place in the city where they could find shelter, although other
places had been sought for in vain, hospitality having been denied in other places.
Further, to show the utter incredibility of the report of Commissioner Blount as to the implied duress even in the presence
of United States troops on that occasion, or as to what anybody
had any right to expect or to fear from them, I refer to the testimony of Mr. Damon, on page 39. It seems that while the proclamation was being read, some timid soul among the revolutionists-and there are always such on occasions of that kindtook it into his head that there was danger, and he wanted to
knowwhy they did not get protection from the United States
troops; they were near at hand, but he did not see any protection
particularly interposing between them and the danger which he
feared. So Mr.iDamon said in substance:
While the proclamation was being read, we were all nervous as to our
safety. I asked one of the men with me there," Wtill not the American troops
support us?" Finally I asked one of the men to go over and ask Lieut Swinburne if he was not going to send some one over to protect us. The man
returned and said to mae: "Capt. Wiltse's orders are, 'I remain passive; I
will not support it in any way.'"
800




32
"I remain passive; I will Dot support in any way," was the
response which the commander, Lieut. Swinburne, of the marines stationed in and about Arion Hall at the time of this transaction, made to a pressing demand for support for the personal
safety of the men who were then instituting this Provisional
Government. It all consists with the invariable declaration of
Minister Stevens that he landed troops to protect American life
and property, and that the incidental and collateral transactions
might take care of themselves, provided American life and propwere not put to peril.
Is it not passing strange, Mr. PresidentMr. GRAY. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MANDERSON in the chair).
Does the Senator from Minnesota yield to the Senator from Delaware?
Mr. GRAY., I am trying to follow the Senator, and I am very
much interested in what he is saying. Will it interrupt him if
I call his attention —
Mr. DAVIS. I am making what I regard as a close statement
from notes, speaking under that disadvantage, and I would
rather not be interrupted. The Senator can reply to me when
I shall have concluded.
Mr. GRAY. All right. I only wanted to call the Senator's
attention to a piece of testimony which he could not find..
Mr. DAVIS. It is in the testimony of Mr. Damon.
Mr. GRAY. I have it before me.
Mr. DAVIS. It will be found in the testimony which is in
the record, whether I have made a miscitation or not.
Mr. GRAY. Very well, I shall not interrupt the Senator.
Mr. DAVIS. The testimony is in the record, and that is
what Lieut. Swinburne said when he was appealed to to protect
and care for the personal safety of the men who were then reading the proclamation for the institution of that Provisional Government.
Mr. GRAY. Who was that?
Mr. DAVIS. Lieut. Swinburno.
Mr. FRYE. Lieut. Swinburne was in charge on shore.
Mr. GRAY. Certainly.
Mr. DAVIS. He was acting under the orders of Capt. Wiltse.
Mr. GRAY. He said " I remain passive. " What else did he
say?
Mr. DAVIS. He also said, "I will notsupport it in any way."
Mr. GRAY. I do not find that in the testimony which I have
here.
Mr. DAVIS. I am endeavoring to make this statement with
absolute fidelity. Of course entire accuracy can not be expected
and error may creep in in a matter so complicated as this, and
of course I would not interpolate anything into the record.
Mr. GRAY. No one can be more sure of that than I.
Mr. DAVIS. It was on Tuesday afternoon at about half past
2 o'clock that this appeal to Lieut. Swinburne was made. The
United States troops had been at Arlion Hall from a certain hour
on the evening before and had probably been there over twenty
hours, within 700 feet of the palace, I should thin.k, and within
a shorter distance of the Government building. DS;es anyone
suppose that Wilson and Cornwell and Parker and Colburn and
Peterson and all persons representing the Queen being up to a
s80




33
comparatively recent date in the Government building and within
astone's throw of these troops, could not have ascertained from
Lieut. Swinburne what his purposes and orders were, and that
they would not have been given the same answer which was made
to the members of the Provisional Government when they supposed they were in extremity? Can anyone doubt with the activity which Wilson displayed that he had not asked that question?
Why did not Commissioner Blount, with that thread of evidence placed in his hands, follow it up and ascertain whether. it
was not notified to both parties there that neither one could expect the active aid, assistance, or interference of the United
States military force? The conviction is borne upon my mind
so forcibly that I can not refrain from repeating that I firmly
believe from their action that they had that information from
Lieut. Swinburne, and had it over and over again.
It is suggested to me by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
HOAR] that the Queen, if she had supposed that the force there
was menacing her, would have made a formal inquiry as to why
it was there. No question of that kind is shown to have been
asked. I presume it was asked. The fact is that in the exercise of reasonable diligence, surrounded by counselors such as
she had, she and they knew, and were bound to know by inquiry,
what the presence of that force meant on that occasion.
Mr. President, much has been said as to the time of this recognition. As in all cases where many events are crowded into
a short time, there is confusion in the testimony and some degree of conflict, but after the Provisional Government was declared, Capt. Wiltse sent his aid to see if they were in possession of the Government building. Mr. Stevens, who had a military aid, sent him to see if they were in possession of the Government building, the British minister came over to see whether
they were in possession of the Government building; Mr. Damon
and Mr. Bolte went down to the station house to confer with the
force that was said to be there, and, coming back, they went over
to see the Queen.
About 4 o'clock Parker, the minister of foreign affairs, came
to the Government building, and said, "You are in possession
and we can do nothing." The others had gone to the station
house to recommend the surrender. Returning, as I said, they
had gone to the palace to enforce their recommendation upon
the Queen, two of her ministers and two members or delegates
from the Provisional Government, and after some debate, some
urging, the Queen yielded. About that time Minister Stevens
recognized the Provisional Government.
It is said that in the letter from President Dole to Minister
Stevens he states, "We have not yet got possession of the station house." But he also states, "We expect to be in possession
in a few minutes." There was undoubtedly a time which elapsed
between the agreement of the Queen and her cabinet to surrender the station house and the time of the actual surrender, which
seems to have taken place about 7:30 o'clock.
The capitulation had been made; but, Mr. President, in my
view of all the facts and circumstances which surround the
transactions of this day, taking into consideration everything
which had been done, it was utterly immaterial that the Provisional Government had not possession of that municipal build800-3




34


ing known as the police station house. They had taken, occupied, and posssesed the very seat of government of the Hawaiian
Islands; they held the capitol building of that Kingdom, the building wherein the Legislature sat, where the supreme court sat,
where the offices of the ministers were, wherein all the executive
functions of the Government were conducted. The Queen's government had possibly intended at one time to defend it, for when
the supporters of the Provisional Government went through the
building they found it vacant, it is true, as to armed men, but
they found munitions of war in the foreign office. The intention, if it ever existed, had been abandoned. The Provisional
Government had possession of the very center of power and domination of the Hawaiian Kingdom without resistance, and was
actually negotiating with the Queen's ministers, her responsible
counselors, without whom she could do no valid act, for the surrender of the last lurking place of her illusory power.
Under such circumstances as these Mr. Stevens recognized the
Provisional Government. This was on the 17th, and it was recognized on the next day by the representatives of every foreign
government on that island, excepting the representative of China,
and he recognized iA on the 19th. If there had been any irregularity about this, with this foreign influence perpetually intermeddling in the Hawaiian Islands, is it to be supposed for a
moment that the recognition by representatives of the foreign
powers would have been so instantaneous?
Mr. President, I have conducted this examination through
the memorable four days of this revolution. My discussion of
this matter, I am aware, has been inadequate. That record will
yield rich mines of information to anyone who will sit down and
examine it with an impartial eye. I am aware that there is
testimony on both sides of this question. I have spoken solely
from the evidence presented by Commissioner Blount. What I
criticise is that he has ignored and has not been impressed with
preponderating evidence of the gravest character, which tends
to the support of his own country and his own countrymen.
The Administration of President Harrison was in judgment,
and the conduct of Mr. Stevens was to be passed upon by Mr.
Blount. Mr. Stevens expressly was upon trial. Mr. Blount was
sent out there to test by investigation the validity and uprightness of Mr. Stevens's action. Mr. Stevens was upon the
island. Mr. Blount saw him every day. According to Mr.
Blount's report, Mr. Stevens's conduct was highly reprehensible,
and he is indorsed in that statement by the President in his annual message. In the name of all that is fair, in the name of all
proceedings that would not have scandalized even the star-chamber, why did not Mr. Blountapply to his countryman, Mr. Stevens,
then on the island, for an explanation of the circumstances the
evidence of which he was so industriously gathering against him?
Suppressio veri, su!qyestiofalsi. Everything can be inferred against
such a perverse and determined effort to avoid the sources of evidence.
President Dole bore a prominent part in this transaction. Ee,
ex officio, as presidentof the Provisional Government, is the minister of foreign affairs, and he was also to be judged by Commissioner Blount. Why was not his statement taken? It would
have been freely accorded. It was due to him. Mr. Blount
being accredited to him, as he was by letters of credence, it
800




85
was due to him; due to his character and standing, which Mr.
Willis certifies are of the highest; due to his official position,
that he should be allowed to make an explanation of the
matters concerning which he was to be so gravely compromised
by the report of Mr. Blount, to be adopted as a verity by the
President of the United States in his annual message.
Thus, Mr. President, the curtain fell upon the last scene of
this harlequin monarchy. The stage lords and stage ladies vanished into the mass of the population. The queen of the play
laid aside her tinsel crown, put off her tawdry regalia, and reentered private life through the stage entrance. The play had
had its run. The engagement, which had not been successful, was
ended and the theater was to be closed. The whole proceeding
throughout had been imitative. The monarchy was a spectacle.
It had been tolerated by the civilized world, although frequently
the performance had been rudely and forcibly interrupted by the
foreign spectators. The domestic audience, heavily taxed for
its support, when insulted by the actors, had repeatedly resented
the indignity with violence. The practical and real took the
place of this pernicious mockery. A firm government, conducted
by just and able men, was installed upon the abandoned stage.
The whole proceeding had been spectacular. Civilization had
endured it. The lord of the demesne had for a brief period conferred his functions upon Christopher Sly. But to this general
and correct appreciation of the melodrama there was one exception. As the play was ending the Democratic Administration
came in as a spectator, as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza entered
the puppet show in Spain. To it, as to the don, the performance
was real, and, like real life, it was thought to be continuous. It
saw in the mammets and puppets and in the stage queen weakness overpowered and virginity oppressed and disinherited, while
Sancho, against the evidence of his senses, saw through the eyes
of his master. [Laughter and applause in the galleries.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair calls the attention
of the occupants of the galleries to the requirement of the rules
of the Senate. No marks of applause or disapprobation are permitted. The Senator from Minnesota will proceed.
Mr. DAVIS. And Mr. Blount was sent to the Hawaiian Islands
on the chivalrous quest inspired by that delusion.
Mr. Blount was appointed on the 11th day of March, 1893.
The treaty was withdrawn, I think, upon the 7th day of March,
1893. An inquiry more interesting and important than anything that I have discussed (because this Hawaiian question is
fleeting; it will pass away) is whether the appointment of Mr.
Blount was a constitutional appointment, in that it never received the advice or consent of the Senate.
A most important case as a precedent is immediately raised.
It lays hold of the most distant future, and may affect our relations with other nations than Hawaii. The Constitution of the
United States, Article II, section 1, provides as to the powers of
the President:
He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate
shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of
the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established
by law.
All diplomatic officers and judges of the Supreme Court of the
United States are, by express provision, out of abundance of cau800




36
tlon, named to be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
Was Mr. Blounta diplomatic representative? Was he a diplomatic officer? I turn to his letters of credence, dated at Washington on the 11th day of March, in the year 1893, addressed by
Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, to his great
and good friend, Sanford B. Dole, the president of the executory
and advisory council of the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands:
GREAT AND GOOD FRIiEND: I have made choice of James H. Blount, one
of our distinguished citizens, as my special commissioner to visit the Hawaiian Islands and make report to me concerning the present status of affairs in that country. He is well informed of our sincere desire to cultivate
and maintain to the fullest extent the friendship which has so long subsisted between the two countriesI ask the attention of the Senate to the followingand in all matters affecting relations with the Government of the Hawaiian
Islands his authority is paramount.
In all mattsrs affecting the relations of the Government of the
United States with the Hawaiian Islands his authority is paramount. I should be pleased to hear anyone suggest language
more forcible or comprehensive to confer supreme authority in
all matters of diplomatic relations in any case upon any man.
No matter what Mr. Stevens may have done or what he may
hereafter in his office say, I, the President of the United States,
by my letters of credence to you, Mr. Blount, notify President
Dole that Mr. Blount's authority in all matters affecting relations between these two Governments is paramount.
I shall not discuss the instructions to Mr. Blount, because the
commission comprehends it all and is broader in some respects
than the instructions. What is the use of talking about names
and words and trying to draw vain distinctions here when the
fact, the thing, is what we are after? Mr. Stevens was instructed, I will say, that he could continue to perform the duties
of his office in all matters where Mr. Blount's authority did not
conflict.
Mr. President, if this right exists in the President of the
United States there is not a court in Europe where his familiar
can not sit down with paramount authority by the side of a duly
confirmed minister and overrule him. There is not a court in
the United States where his familiar can not sit down with paramount authority beside the district attorney and control him.
There is not a United States marshal empowered by virtue
of his commission to execute the processes of the courts of
the United States who can not be accompanied by a familiar of
the President of the United States with paramount authority to
overrule and control him. The Presidentis the Commander-inChief of the Army and Navy of the United States. There isnot
a colonel of a regiment, a commander of a military division, or
the captain of a man-of-war who is not subject to have appear
before him the apparition of a familiar of the President of the
United States with a letter giving him paramount authority to
overrule and control him.
It was not without reason that the framers of the Constitution
of the United States provided, in express terms, that consuls
and ambassadors, other public ministers, and the judges of the
Supreme Court, shall be appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate. They considered most protoo




37
phetically what they were doing. By the terms of the Constitution they were framing (the wisest instrument of government ever
prepared by the wit of man, and laying hold of more future contingencies than any such instrument ever did), they made the
President the sole point of contact and means of communication
between the Government of the United States and foreign
powers. Congress in either body, or together, can hold no communication with any foreign power. No governor of a State
nor any State authority can do it. No individual can do it.
Everything must be done through the President of the United
States, who makes the treaties and appoints the ministers.
It was felt that this extraordinary power, necessarily confided
to the direction of a single understanding and a single will, was
susceptible of the greatest abuse; for, although the President
can not declare war, he can, through his foreign policy, conducted by diplomatic officers, embroil this nation in such difficulties as to bring aforeign war upon us, and compel Congress to declare a defensive war. So vast was this power that they deemed
it important expressly to say in the Constitution that the names
of these officers thus appointed should be submitted to the Senate,
that the Senate might know what men were being sent abroad
to conduct these difficult and delicate relations. They are first
named as the most important, for they precede the judges of
the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, as to the judges of the Supreme Court, the
framers of the Constitution considered how republics and other
constitutional governments have been sapped and mined by a
pliant judiciary; how, while an irregular and improper exercise
of the powers of appointment of foreign ministers might affect
disastrously our exterior relations, similar improprieties and
carelessness of appointment in judges might result in seriously
compromising everything that was internal in our system of government. Accordingly with the same care with which they provided that ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
should be named by the President to the Senate, to receive its
advice and consent, they made the same provision in regard to
the judges of the Supreme Court.
Section 1674 of the Revised Statutes provides thatDiplomatic officers shall be deemed to include ambassadors, envoys extraordinary, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, commissioners,
charge d'affaires, agents, and secretaries of legation, and none other.
How does Mr. Blount's commission read?
[At this point the honorable Senator was interrupted by the
expirationof the morning hour, and unanimous consent was given
that he might proceed.]
Mr. DAVIS. The word "commissioner " in the statute which
I have just read, enumerating who shall be diplomatic officers,
distinctly comprehends Mr. Blount, for the letters of credence
read:
I have made choice of James H. Blount * * * as my special commissioner.
He was a special commissioner whose authority in all matters pertaining to the relations between the governments should
be paramount. If special commissioner is not covered by the
express language of the Constitution in its words of enumeration it is covered by the other more general clause, namely, the
inferior officers to be designated by law.
869




38


To show Mr. Blount's understanding of his powers, my friend
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. r-OAR]l calls my attention
to his mode of signature, page 139, Executive Document No. 47,
in a communication to Mr. Greshari.
Mr. GRAY. What is the page?
Mr. DAVIS. Page 139. It is always the same way, I think,
"James H. Blount, Special Commissioner of the United States."
This is his formal report. What was there lacking in what Mr.
Blount did or in what he was empowered to do to constitute him
an ambassador or public minister? He falls within the purview
of the constitutional enumeration. He falls expressly within
the enumeration of the statute which I have just read. In
my view, in the sense of the Constitution, an officer is one who
has authority to act in the name of and on behalf of the United
States and by whose actions the Government may be bound,
Such was Mr. Blount.
Now, Mr. President, it is said that there are precedents for
this. I deny it. I say that there is no precedent in our diplomatic history that protects this flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States. He was empowered, as my friend,
the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT], suggests, in his instructions given to him by Mr. Gresham, to invoke the naval
and military force of the United States by virtue of his paramount official character:
In the judgment of the President, your authority, as well as that of the
commander of the naval forces in Hawaiian waters, should be and is limited
in the use of physical force to such measures as are necessary to protect the
persons and property of our citizens; and while abstaining from any manner of interference with the domestic concerns of the islauns, you should
indicate your willingness to intervene with your friendly omffces in the interest of a peaceful settlement of troubles within the limits of sound discretion.
He was empowered to call into force and active operation the
military force, and was also empowered to use his friendly offices
for a settlement. If there is anything wanting to endow him
fully with complete diplomatic character, it does not at this moment occur to me.
Mr. PLATT. What greater power has any ambassador?
Mr. DAVIS. My friend, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
PLATT]. asks me what greater power any ambassador has. None.
In fact, Mr. President, it is the only instance in our history that
I recollect where any President has e ver undertaken to appoint an
ambassador. The distinction between an ambassador and a minister as laid down in the authoritative works upon international
law is that the ambassador represents the person of his sovereign, whereas the minister does not. In imperial language in
these letters of credence, the President of the United States noti.
fies President Dole that he has appointed Mr. Blount "as my
special commissioner."
Mr. HOAR. I should like to call the attention of my honorable friend to the fact that the recent statute authorizing the
President to appoint ambassa:dors expressly provides that the
functions shall not be enlarged beyond the existing functions.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes; ofa ministeror envoy. I denied a few moments ago that there was any precedent in our history which protects this transaction, even by remote analogy. I do not believe
it can be found. I do not believe it ever will be again attempted
to create another one. If found, it is valueless and should be
800




39
disregarded. I am aware that during the debates in the Senate
upon the fisheries treaty in 1888 a list of some 438 appointments
alleged to be of like character was broug-ht forward, and that
has been a fetish to conjure with ever since: and yet under the
examination to which it was submitted in the remarks of the
senior Senator from   New Hampshire [Mr. CHANDLER] upon
that treaty it lost its charm and should no longer htve any efficacy. When sifted out there were but seven in all that list
(minor matters. passing unquestioned at the time, and doubtless
attributable to inattention) that could with even plausibility
be maintained to be precedents. And even those were not,
in my judgment, cases to which the constitutional provision
under consideration is applicable. I shall ask leave, for the purpose of saving time and presenting that question better than I
can do, to print a short extract from the remarks of the senior
Senator from New Hampshire, made in the discussion of that
treaty, wherein he discussed that particular subject:
No one has ever disputed the privilege of the President to negotiate treaties, using the Secretary of State and the regularly appointed and confirmed
foreign ministers for that purpose. Why, then, do the minority particularize and parade about 438 cases of that character? Simply to obscure the flagrant nature of the case now under review and censure, and to break the
force of the one great and overwhelming precedent against it, to be shortly
stated. In addition to these 438 cases the report gives a list of three persons
appointed by the Secretary of State and a list of thirty-two appointed by the
President, and specially confirmed by the Senate to negotiate treaties. But
of the three appointed by the Secretary of State, two, Hughes and Bates,
were already diplomatic officers, and the thirty-two are of course all precedents against the minority and not in their favor.
There is to be extracted from the list of 473 only the following cases which
are of any value to the minority, being those where private citizens were
employed in negotiations without the prior consent of the Senate:
1. G. Morris, private agent, October 13, 1789, to ascertain the intentions of
Great Britain as to the treaty of 1783, and make a treaty of commerce.
2. John James Appleton, May 12, 1825, to arrange for the settlement of
claims of citizens of the United States against the Kingdom of Naples.
3. Charles Rhind, September 12, 1829, to conclude a treaty of friendship and
commerce with Turkey.
4. Edmund Roberts, January 26, 1832, to conclude treaties of navigation
and commerce with Cochin China, Siam, and Muscat.
5. A. Dudley Mann, March 28, 1846, to conclude with Hanover, Hungary,
Switzerland, etc., treaties of commerce and navigation.
6. Benjamin E. Greene, June 13, 1849, to conclude treaties of commercewith
Hayti and the Dominican Republic.
7. Isaac E. Morse, December 5, 1856, to conclude a treaty with New Granada
With reference to transit across the Isthmus of Panama.
What a pitiful list among the whole 473 which are set out with such elaboration in the minority report  It is sufficient to say in relation to these 7, in
the face of the overwhelming precedents the other way-the 46( cases where
treaties have been negotiated by officials who had been confirmed by the
Senate as required by the Constitution-that they are few in number, that
the negotiations were insignificant, that the precedents were never acquiesced in, and that they constitute no real authority for or justification of the
marked violation of the Constitution committed by the President in appointing Messrs. Angell and Putnam without the consent of the Senate.
I have stated that the object of the minority in cumbering their report
with upward of 438 cases which have no bearing upon the point in controversy is simply to break the force of the one great and overwhelming precedent against them. It is imposible to resist this conclusion or a worse
opinion upon the recorded facts.
On page 130 the minority give the case of the Joint High Commission which
negotiated the Alabama Claims treaty. and they show Messrs. Ebenezer R.
Hoar and George H. Williams as appointed while private citizens two of the
five plenipotentiaries by the President alone; and the minority include the
five in their number (on page 105) of 438 persons appointed by the President
alone.
The minority, therefore, certainly thus appear to have found a pertinent
precedent, especially as the High Joint Commission held its sessions, like
the Bayard-Chamberlain Commission, and with similar festivities, In the
city of Washington. The only objection that can be made against this prece800




40


dent is that the facts are directly the opposite of those stated in the minority
report. Conmmissioners Hoar and Williams, as well as Secretary Fish, Minister Schenck, and Mr. Justice Nelson, were nominated to the Senate and
were confirmed on the 10th day of February, 1871, before they acted.
I have indicated, and others who have preceded me in this de
bate have indicated with an ability that I can not hope to equal,
the serious consequences which are involved in this extraordinary assumption of power. The President has endeavored to
break through the walls which divide our Government into departments. He has invaded the privileges of the Senate in this
particular respect, and we are advised that we ought to sit silent
under this attack; that we should let it pass by without criticism
or protest. So far as we are concerned, perhaps, personally we
might do so, but as guardians of the constitutional rights of the
people we can not.
It is not the first time in history, Mr. President, that an attack upon the privileges of a Senate has been made by an Executive magistrate, nor is it the first time in history that resentment or discussion by the Senate has been deprecated. At
a time in the history of the Roman Empire, when the Emperor
was Princeps Senatus, connected somewhat with that body as
the President of the United States is with this, a resolute
man, a man determined to overthrow the privileges of the
Senate, withdrew himself into seclusion for that purpose to
the island of Capri, and as the last Administration is accused,
as Mr. Stevens is accused, as the American men in that island
are accused, as the privileges of the Senate of the United
States are ignored, so he by a message accused and brought into
question the privileges of the Senate. Discussion was to be
stifled. Nothing was to be said. The few remaining arches which
sustained the senatorial privileges were to be broken down without question. When some one is represented by the satirist to
have asked concerning the man attacked or the privilege to be
overthrown, he thus said, and was answered to:
Sed quo cecidit sub crimine; quisnam
Delator? qui2bu judiciis; quo te^teprobavit?
Nil horum; verbosa et qrandis epistola venit
A Capreis. Bene habet; nul plus interrogo.
My friend from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] requests me to
translate that. He does not need it, of course. But another Senator [Mr. WASHBURN] suggests that some of the rest of us do. I
will not attempt to give a literal translation, but I will give an
accurate paraphrase which will show its application: "Into
what crime has he fallen? By what informer has he been accused? What judge has passed upon him? What witness has
testified against him? Not one or any of these. A verbose and
turgid message has come over from Capri. That settles it. I
will interrogate nofurther." [Laughter.]
Mr. Blount was appointed on the llth day of March, 1893, and
he arrived at Honolulu on the 29th of April, 1893. He called on
President Dole and presented the letters of credence to that
" great and good brother" on the 30th day of April, 1893.
Icommunicated to him the friendly disposition of our Government toward
him and toward the Hawaiian people. I assured him of its purpose to avoid
any interference with the domestic concerns of the islands unless it became
necessary to protect the persons and property of American citizens. I then
offered my letters of credence.
B00




41
Now, in the light of what he did immediately thereafter and
what has been cone since, the proprieties of language fail to
properly characterize that delusive message, for he immediately
proceeded, in violation of a statute of his country, which no
President can dispense with, and of the precepts of international
law to put himself into communication (as he wrongfully charges
Stevens with doing) with an element, to wit, the royal element,
which is in every way hostile to the government to which he
had just presented his letters of credence, and in which he assured it of the entire friendship of the President of the United
States. I refer to Section 1751 of the Revised Statutes:
No diplomatic or consular officer shall correspond in regard to the public
affairs of any foreign government, with any private person, newspaper
or other periodical, or otherwise than with the proper officers of the United
States.
Over and over again Mr. Blount violated that provision.
Mr. HAWLEY. He was sent to do nothing else.
Mr. DAVIS. The instructions which he had received were
not the message which he communicated to President Dole.
Those were concealed.
On the 30th day of March it had got out in Hawaii that Mr.
Blount was there. The hopes of royalty in some way or other
were excited, and a mass meeting of the Hawaiian League was
held. It passed resolutions for the restoration of the monarchy
and the restoration of Queen Liliuokalani, reciting that President Cleveland had sent Mr. Blount out as special commissioner.
This was the next day after he arrived in the island. On the
next day, March 31, he received a messenger wishing to know
when it would be convenient for him to receive a committee from
the mass meeting, which desired to present these resolutions.
If this was not corresponding with, putting himself into communication with private persons, subjects of another power
within the prohibition of the statute which I have read, will
some one tell me what would be? He avows that this raised a
question whether such action would consist with a " recognition
of existing authority and the policy of noninterference." (Page
6.) But he does not avow any intention of consulting President
Dole on this point, nor did he consult him.
But something had to be done to smooth away the road for the
audience which he proposed to give in his court to the committee of the mass meeting which was about to invoke him to aid
in restoring the fallen monarchy. The American flag was floating over the government building at Hawaii at that time. It
was invited to float over there by Mr. Dole's government, which
we had recognized. There was no question of forcible intervention or intrusion there at all. It was properly there by the invitation of the government of President Dole, which was the
only government that had any right to complain.
To make the'way smooth and easy to receive this petition for
the restoration of the royal power, with the inevitable effect of
its raising hopes which were in direct contradiction to the assurances he had given to President Dole two days before, or one
day before, on the 31st day of March, 1893, he called on Mr.
Dole and notified him that he, Mr. Blount, should cause the ensign of the United States to be lowered and the troops ordered
on board their ships; and he ordered Admiral Skerri4 to execute
800                                  *       a -, *I:
+ t 




42


such order on the 1st day of April at 11 o'clock. The flag was
rightfully there. The annexation of the islands was thought
to be imminent. The flag was a coming event which cast its
shadow before. It was there by invitation of the Provisional
Government itself. It was there under the stress of urgent and
imminent dang r, as appeared both to President Dole and Mr.
Stevens when such request was made.
Mr. FRYE. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. FRYE. I desire to put in here the remarkable order
which Mr. Blount gave an admiral of the United States Navy.
Mr. DAVIS. Will my friend please read it? I will adopt it
as a part of my remarks.
Mr. FRYE. It is as follows:
HONOLULU, Mfarch 31, 1893.
SIR: You are directed to haul down the United States ensign from the
Government building, and to embark the troops now on shore to the ships
to which they belong.
This will be executed at 11 o'clock on the 1st day of April.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
JAMES H. BLOUNT,
Rear-Admiral. SRRTT Special Commissioner of the United States.
Rear-Admiral J. S. SKERRETT,
Commanding Pacific Squadron.
The history of this country may be hunted over and no other
instance can be found where a civil officer or a citizen of one of
our States ordered an admiral of the American Navy to haul
down the flag of our Government.
Mr. DAVIS. But it is said that Mr. Blount was not an officer!
Mr. DOLPH. Will the Senator allow me to add that the instructions of the Secretary of the Navy to Admiral Skerrett directed him to obey the orders of Mr. Blount and placed the
naval forces in those islands under the command of Mr. Blount?
Mr. DAVIS. And yet Mr. Blount was not a diplomatic officer, and did not need to have the consent of the Senate to his
nominationI
Mr. FRYE. But, if the Senator will allow me, no diplomatic
officer, no ambassador, no minister plenipotentiary, no officer
whatever outside of the President of the United States and the
Secretary of the Navy and the regular officers of the Navy, ever
made any such order, nor was ever clothed with power to make
any such order; and this, I am happy to say, is the only instance
ever to be found.
Mr. HOAR. Or that ever will be found.
Mr. DAVIS. I have no doubt of the exact historical truth of
that statement and of the verity of that prediction.
Mr. President, this is the first time in nearly thirty years that
the American ifag has been lowered by an American hand under
circumstances which have brought a feeling of dishonor and
shame to an American heart. It is the last time in many years, I
predict, that that act will be done. Although the stars thus disappear d from the Hawaiian sky, that ensign will in due time,
though lowered in dishonor, eventually be raised in power.
After these orders were delivered to Admiral Skerrett, and
when everything was made easy for aspiring royalism by the announcement that it was to be done (for it went out that the American flag was to be lowered and the military recalled on board the
':8sco -




43
ship) Mr. Blount, in the afternoon of that day, March 31, notified
the committee of the league that he would receive them at 4
o'clock, April 1, five hours after the American flag was to be lowered. What was the effect of that'? All that Stevens is charged
with doing by way of inciting rebellion and revolution or tumult
is not the tithe of a thousandth part of that which can be inferred
from the action of Mr. Blount.
When Mr. Blount came to that island everything was serene
and peaceful. Everybody had acquiesced, the Queen included,
in the situation. He had not been there two days before by an
act a thousand times more significant than anything even Stevens
is charged with, he incited all of the trouble, the rebellious feeling, the insurrectionary disposition, which for a time seemed
to have been laid at rest; and then under those circumstances he
notified the committee of the league (which, I think, he says
somewhere in his report comprised 8,0O)0 native Hawaiians), that
the flag being out of the way, the troops off the island, I here, a
special commissioner, am ready to receive you; and he says in
regard to lowering the flag:
This was done in order that, when the committee called, the ensign would
have been hauled down and the troops ordered aboard of their vessels, and
I could state freely to the committee that it was not my purpose to interfere
in their domestic concerns; that the United States troops would not be used
to maintain or restore any form of government, but simply to protect the
persons and property of American citizens.
But the flag that he struck was there at the request of the Provisional Government, which our Government had recognized and
to which he had been accredited. He met this committee, nineteen members. They presented to him the resolutions, desiring
that they be transmitted to the President of the United States.
Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from Minnesota allow me
to ask him a question? If he has it before him, I wish he would
point out the request made by the Provisional Government for
the putting up of the flag.
Mr. DAVIS. It is in one of the documents submitted by the
President to the Senate within a few days. It is in a dispatch
from Mr. Stevens to Mr. Gresham, wherein he goes on at length
reciting the apprehended intrigue of the British commissioner,
the presence of an additional Japanese man-of-war, a translation
of declarations of the Japanese captain, the wish and desire of
President Dole that the marines should be landed-in short,
giving a full and explicit reason for their presence there. Now,
can not give the p ge, and it is asking too much in the manner
in which I am speaking to request it.
Mr. MORGAN. I beg leave to say that the act of raising the
flag was in conjunction with the act declaring the protectorate
of the United States Government over Hawaii. I was not quite
certain whether the raising of the flag and the declaration or
assertion of a protectorate were contemporaneous acts.
Mr. DAVIS. I hear the Senator imp rrfectly. The history of
that protectorate was this, to go back to the beginning. In the
first place, Mr. Stevens established a, protectorate there, general in its character, while the treaty should be under consideration.
Mr. MORGAN. Now, was that point of timeMr. DAVIS. I do not propose to be cross-examined.
800




44
Mr. MORGAN. No; I am asking —
Mr. DAVIS. That is just the amount of the interruption.
Mr. MORGAN. I am asking for information and seeking for
information strictly.
Mr. DAVIS. The idea of the Senator from Alabama asking
me for information!
Mr. MORGAN. Of course.
Mr. DAVIS. He is the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and his memory and capacity to assimilate and
store away all subjects are marvelous to contemplate.
Mr. MORGAN. I am asking for information, and in perfect
good faith. I want to know whether the flag was raised at the
time the protectorate was established?
Mr. DAVIS. Which protectorate does the Senator refer to?
Mr. MORGAN. The one that Stevens asserted over the
island.
Mr. DAVIS. I can not say as to that matter of detail.
Mr. MORGAN. That is the point about which I am uncertain. I wish, however, to remind the Senator of the fact that
Mr. Foster distinctly disavowed the protectorate over the island
in his dispatch to Mr. Stevens, and 1 do not know what the flag
could be doing there without the protectorate, or what the protectorate could be doing there without the flag.
Mr. DAVIS. So much for the interview which Mr. Blount
had with the members of the league within two days after he
landed on the island, praying for the restoration of the monarchy and the deposition of the Government to which he was
accredited. Shortly afterward he received a long petition from
the Hawaiian political league, another affair it seems, numerously signed, which states:
Therefore, we submit to you our humble petition and statements, as you
are in possession of vast powers in your mission to do justice to the Hawaiian people, our independence, the throne, and the Hawaiian flag; we beg
you to restore our beloved Queen Liliuokalani to the throne with the independence of the Hawaiian people, as you have restored the Hawaiian flag.
That no United States minister should correspond with anV
private citizen is the plainest dictate of international law if it
were not against the plain provision of our statute. About the
26th of April (in this case he notified Commissioner Dole of his intention) he called upon Queen Liliuokalani and took her statement,
negotiated with her upon the subject, took her version of the transaction and her claims. But, as I have said, he made no attempt
to take the version of Mr. Stevens or Mr. Dole. On the 31st of
May he did another extraordinary act. Accredited to the Provisional Government as the lord paramount in all matters concerning the political relations between the two countries, he
placed himself in correspondence with the Queen in her royal
character, and with her cabinet in their official capacity; received petitions in that character and in that capacity from
the Queen as Queen, from Samuel Parker, as minister of foreign
affairs; W. H. Cornwell, as minister of finance; John F. Colburn,
as minister of the interior, and A. P. Peterson, as attorney-general. It thus concludes: '
In view of the facts stated above, which can not be controverted, and in
view of the fact that your investigations concerning the matter are shortly
Itkely to terminate, we, Liliuokalani and her cabinet, who formed the Government of the Hawaiian Islands on the 17th of January last havlng surren800




45
dered that Government to the superior force of the United States of America,
now most respectfully ask that you use your good offices in undoing the acts
of a representative of your great country and place the Government of the
Hawaiian Islands as Mr. Stevens found them. Believing that the principle
of justice which has ever dominated American action will prevail in this instance, we remain,
Yours, respectfully
LILIUOKALANI, R.
SAMUEL PARKER,
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
WM. H. CORNWELL,
Minister of Finance.
JOHN F. COLBURN,
Minister of Interior.
A. P. PETERSON,
Attorney- General.
Accredited to President Dole, with letters which bore assurances of good faith, and, if I construe the language correctly, an
implied wish for the stability and perpetuity of the Government
over which Mr. Dole presided, Commissioner Blountentered into
diplomatic relations with a deposed Queen, she signing her name
in royal form and in her royal capacity and her former ministers
countersigning in their official character, received a petition from
her and them in her royal capacity and their official capacity,
requesting him to use his good offices to overthrow the Government to which he had been accredited, a government of Americans, of Englishmen, of our own blood, presided over by a man
of American birth or derivation, and to turn those vast interests,
these our kith and kin, over to the barbarous and revengeful administrationof agovernmentwhich had been successfully rebelled
against and overthrown. A more glaring diplomatic malversation never was committed; and that it is plainly in violation of
the statute which I have read in the hearing of the Senate can
not, I think, be controverted for a moment.
And upon this testimony, this history, these transactions, the
President of the United States in his annual message states that
Mr. Blount's report shows his conclusions to be true beyond all
question. He states that the constitutional government of
Hawaii had been subverted through the active aid of the representative of our Government, and through the intimidation
caused by the presence of an armed naval force of the United
States, which was landed for the purpose at the instance of our
minister. His conclusion is:
Upon the facts developed it seemed to me the only honorable course for
our Government to pursue was to undo the wrong that had been done by
those representing us and to restore as far as practicable the status existing at the time of our forcible intervention. With a view of accomplishing
this result within the constitutional limits of executive power, and recognizing all our obligations and responsibilities growing out of any changed
conditions brought about by our unjustifiable interference, our present minister at Honolulu has received appropriate instructions to that end. Thus
far no information of the accomplishment of any definite results, has been
received from him.
Now, Mr. President, I desire to ascertain and to discuss for a
moment from what source the President of the United States
derived his authority to arbitrate this great question. Who
made him and by what processes did he become the judge of the
case between an overthrown monarchy and a republic which took
its place? Much has been said about the terms of Queen Liliuokalani's abdication, but when did any falling monarch ever fail
to file a caveat with contemporaries and posterity to that effect?
800




46
It is addressed to no person. It was never formally accepted
by,nybody, and no convention has ever been made between the
Haw.aiian Government wlich Mr. Cleveland, following the example of President Harrison, has recognized or the former government of the Queen and ourselves that such an arbitration
should take place.
But there is a consideration back of all this, and back of anything I have said upon this subject, which to me is decisive.
What the Queen of the Hawaiian Kingdom meant and understood
to be meant in the letter of abdication, was that the question of
recognition was to be submitted to the United States; and I assert it as a sound legal proposition, in view and in the light of
all the circumstances of this transaction, that the very question
which the Presidentof the United States has reopened here was
settled when President Harrison recognized the Provisional
Government. The act of recognition is all-comprehending so
far as bringing a nation into existence. It is a deliberate judgment by the recognizing nation that the recognized government
has a valid right to be, has come into being rightfully, and has
the right to continue. It is in its very nature an irrevocable
act. Whoever heard of any civilized country retracting any recognition which it had given to a foreign country? Like an executed grant, it is incapable of revocation because the right has
vested and can not be taken away.
Queen Liliuokalani's protest was received at the State Department on the 3d day of February, 1893, and the treaty, I think, was
not concluded until the 13th day of that month. Her representatives were here at the time. The case was heard and determined,
and wisely determined by President Harrison, and it does not
lie in the capacity of any succeeding Administration to open it
for readjudication. And the Queen passively acquiesced in that
construction of her act of abdication, and in the conclusive effect of President Harrison's recognition of the Provisional Government, until she was enticed to renew her claims by the action
of the present Administration.
Mr. President, it has seemed to become a propensity to restore
royalty, ignorant, savage, alien royalty, over American people.
But in these days of restoring monarchies, suppose the President
of the United States should conceive that President Harrison has
been imposed upon, misled, by the recognition of President Peixoto, who succeeded to the fallen Empire of Dom Pedro in Brazil. 
The recognition in that case was prompt. Suppose the President
should determine to reopen the question and to send a minister
there to stand before President Peixoto and say, " I have become
satisfied that my predecessor was misled, that your Government
was notestablished with the consent of the Brazilian people, and
therefore you are required to relinquish your power to the lineal
descendant and heir of Dom Pedro, whoever he may be."
If this power exists in the President of the United States, it
exists in the successive Presidents to undo the act of a President
who has recognized another government. The same thing might
be done to President Carnot: it might have been done to President Thiers, who was the first President of the now existing
French Republic. Suppose the President of the United States
should take it into his head that the French Republic was wrongfully established and not with the consent of the French people,
and a paramount emissary, emissary at once and ambassador,
oo0




47


should be sent to France accredited td "his great and good
friend," President Carnot, with authority over our Army and
Navy, and that France were in distress, and that as an emissary
he should consort with Bourbons, with Orleanists, with Bonapartists, with anarchists, with every political element of which
French political complexion is composed. Suppose that then,
having so consorted as an emissary, without giving those to wh om
he was accredited a chance to be heard, he should stand forth as
an ambassador before the French President and say " the President of the United States is convinced that the French Republic
was not established with the consent of the French people; a
great wrong has been done. Therefore, you are required to relinquish the republican power which you now hold to the emperor of the Bonaparte family, or the king of the French, whoever he may be, of the other royal houses in the line of lineal
descent."
Mr. President, many questions and illustrations of this kind
press upon the mind while one is speaking, but the limitations
of time do not warrant more extended remarks. They suggest
themselves.
It is said we do not want colonies and that we do not need the
Hawaiian Islands. I am not in favor of acolonial system such as
Great Britain has, and such as France is striving for, but I want
to see my country well defended, and her hold upon the enormous commerce of the future in the Pacific Ocean assured.
That the Sandwich Islands were in time to be an indispensable
element of the prosperity, protection, and defense of our country
has been a cardinal theory with every statesman who ever sat
in the chair of Secretary of State from the beginning of the
question down to the present time, the present occupant excepted.
Humboldt predicted seventy years ago that the greatest maritime commerce of the planet would be carried on on the Pacific.
If you take the globe and look north of the equator and then to
the south of it you will see that the islands of the Pacific Ocean,
except the Sandwich Islands and the Alaskan group, are south of
the equator. Germany, France, and England have partitioned
that archipelago south of the equator.  They have hitherto
kept their hands off the Hawaiian Islands. Those are the only
islands of any importance north of the equator until we almost
touch the coast of Asia, except the Alaskan group. They stand
where commerce from the Nicaragua Cnal, if it shall ever be
constructed, must touch. They stand where ships from Callao and
Valparaiso must touch. They stand where every ship that goes
from San Francisco or Victoria to New Zealand or Australia
must touch. They are 2,100 miles from the city of San Francisco. They are 2.100 miles from the midway island of the
Alaskan group, an island with capacious harbors fit for a naval
station. The Russian Government, our ancient and immemorial
friend, is building a railway across the continent of Asia destined for a port nearby; and her relations and ours have always
been such that, under those circumstances, from the Hawaiian Islands, from the Alaskan islands, from San Francisco, we can
make our commerce safe and dominate that waste of waters.
That is the kind of acquisition and the kind of protection I want
for my country, its future and its commerce.
Mr. President, this is a great question-great in its facts,
809




great in its constitutional aspect. The American people will be
the judges in this controversy. They are adjudicating it now.
In the midst of distress, of financial disorder which the panacea
of legislative action has not cured; with the mine sterile, the
shuttle motionless, the wheel still, the factory sending up neither
pillar of cloud by day nor pillar of fire by night; with hunger
and cold in thousands of homes; with the fear of a relentless
party policy respecting financial and economic legislation which
threatens to intensify all this distress into a deeper agony, the
American people have paused to consider this subject, and they
will settle it in the sublime tribunal of the nation's judgment.
[Applause.]
800
~..i ~~~~~~L
j   g




— l
i




A




f
I
0




xx~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A




UNIVERSITY 0F MICH A
~~~~~~~~I/~~~~~~~~~~~~I
I~~~~~~~~~~MM




xr-.j
1
i
is,?e
B
~I
"; 1
Ii
b
Ir
81
5P~~ibOA'r
I
L