The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-10-09
REV. BISHOPS DEFENSE.

Please accept thanks for prompt
specification of alleged "untruth"
in The Friend. Also further thanks
for such citation of Legislative pro-
ceedings as to entirely exempt me
from the labor of searching for them
in order to establish the truth of my
statement that Mr.. Thurston was
prevented by his successor from
examining the books of the Interior
Office for his own defense"
Using your citations find that
Mr.. Spencer, after some evasive
language, "stated that Mr.. Thurston
being engaged in, CONTRARY to
resolution Of the House, examining
the books and records of the Interior
Office, he told Mr.. Thurston that he
could not do so, and Mr.. Thurston
said he could not reply to the COM
mittee unless he had access to the
records"
The following are the citations
referred to by Mr.. Bishop in the
above paragraph
"Noble Macfarlane asked His EX-
cellencv the Minister of the Interior
| whether he had refused Mr.. Thurs
ton access TO the boSks of the In
terror Office.
Minister Spencer said that 4 re-
fusal implied request, and Mr..
Thurston never requested permis-
sion to examine the records. He
would answer directly to the ques-
ton, NO. Going further he would
say that member Of the finance
committee told him that Mr.. Thurs.
ton was, contrary to a resolution of
the House, examining the books and
records of the Interior Office. He
told Mr.. Thurston that he could not
do so, and Mr.. Thurston said he
could not reply to the committee I'M
less he had access TO the records.
This was at four O'Clock, when bust
ness was over, and he asked Mr..
ThurstOn to return next morning,
and in the meantime he would see
the members of the finance commit.
tee. Mr.. Thurston did not come
back but he q the Minister) saw
members of the committee, who
were willing to give Mr.. Thurstol
every facility, only asking that ont
of the committee should be present
with him.
"Noble Macfarlane declared tina
the published statement of Mr.
Thurston, that he had been refused
access to the books, was entirel,
false. "-EDIToR BULLETIN
This precisely and absolutel,
establishes my statement, that "Mr
Thurston was prevented etc.
1t also seems to prove that Thu
House ordered him to be so pre-
vented. / have some difficulty il
understanding how the House hat
power to make such order, how tn,
Minister should feel bound by it, o.
if so, how he should afterwards
venture to disregard such order.
Any alleged subsequent intention
of the Minister to Withdraw his pro
hibition, does not affect the fact tina
he did stop Mr.. Thurston from pur
suing the inquiries essential TO hi,
vindication, and that he never agaiI
rendered to him the opportunity tt
resume those inquiries. Permit mi
to point ont that the act OF prevent
ing a man from inspecting the pub
lie records of his own Official con
duct for his own defense, was on
Of so much injury--to use mile
term--that in the exercise OF an,
self respect, he could not again seeI
permission, unless rendered freely
TO him with ample apology, Tina
act OF the Minister was moreover 81
clear confession that the Report N
the Finance Committee was too grOs,
u fraud 10 bear Investigation, thai II
really exempted Mr., ThursloB from
tho need " any further rebulla NJ
their charges,
" II he also tho fact that M
House ordered Ma 'lhuTslon 10 III
! forbidden ln rApmlnr lhe lroQulE