The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-06-20
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
Minority Report OF the Committee Pre-
sented to the Legislative Assembly
by Hon. II. T.. Baldwin, June Ii.


by Hon. II. T.. Baldwin, June Il.
1890.
(Concluded)
STATEMENT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COM
MITTEE COMPARED WITH THE FACTS.
After careful examination Of the testi-
mony before us, fail to find as charged
by the majority report, that certain
duplicity has never been absent from the
transactions of the Cabinet in respect OF
the Treaty matter. The evidence par
ticularly of Messrs. Austin, Thurston aud
Damon is straightforward, and carries
conviction that they in 40 way wish to
cover the truth. Rep. Kalua's resolu-
ton did not call for private correspon-
dence nor for Cabinet minutes. Never
theless the Minister of Foreign Affairs
ing to Treaty matters, and is ready at
the committee. find no evidence what
ever that the obnoxious clause relating
to Nanding troops" was in any way pre-
meditated, but that it was merely sug-
gested by Mr. Carter that the United
into the Treaty, if they were to guaran-
SCO VIC lhuC PChOCnCC Va Hawaii
lister Ashford says;, that this clause was
at first unanimously agreed to; that
after discussion it was subsequently
struck out, for the reason that it would
give the existing Government in the
country too much power, and because
His Majesty would certainly object to it,
but that he understood it might be in
serted afterwards in Washington. Mr..
Ashford's statement on this point is not
corroborated by any evidence, either
oral or documentary, and is positively
denied by all the other members of the
Cabinet, who state that the first time the
clause came before them in written form,
they decided unanimously that they
would not consent to any such PROPOSE
ton.
The evidence of Messrs. Austin,
Thurston and Damon differs in minor
points, but agrees remarkably in all i'm
pOrtant points, more especially in regard
to the motives that governed their &C
tons from first to last.
The majority report, in order to show
that the ministerial utterances" were
not reliable, brings up an important
point to illustrate the charge (alluding
to Additions to Article 4''), that Minis
ter Austin positively says that these adj
ditions only came in much later, as
sequence to the discussion of the other
Articles, and Minister ThurstOn corrob-
crates this, whilst Ministers Damon and
Ashford distinctly state that the clause
appeared in appendix, at the very first
presentation OF the draft"
Now all the evidence before us goes to
show that the Cabinet had several meet
ings to discuss the proposed Treaty; that
they first had penciled copy, then a
type written copy, and it is not at all to
be wondered at that after lapse of ten
months there should be slight differ
ence of recollection as to the exact Cab
met meeting at which the Landing of
troops clause was first brought up for
consideration, besides which / can find
| no statement in Minister Austin's evil
dence that the troop clause "came in
| much later" The main point in con-
| nection with this clause is not when it
| first came up for consideration, but what
was done with it, upon which the three
Ministers concur.
The majority report characterizes the
remarks made by Minister Thurston to
His Majesty at the Cabinet council of
December 10Th last, as being "rather
brutal.''
This is, to say the least, very extra
| VACANT, inappropriate and unwarranted
| use of the term. Mr.. Thurston's re-
| marks at that time, in calling on His
| Majesty to do what he (Thurston) con-
sidered to be His Majesty's duty, were
plain and positive, but in no sense OF the
term could they be characterized as
| brutal"
CONCLUSION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE
COMMITTEE.
After discussing number of irrelevant
matters not included in the resolution OF
| the house, such as rumOrs of annexation
| the motives of the ministers the delud-
| ing or intimidating of His Majesty, the
majority of the committee conclude that
there were two Objectionable clauses in
the proposed Treaty, viz:
| l. Gone in Article 4, by which we
were to be deprived of the sovereign
right of concluding treaties with other
nations"
2. Gone in Article 6, by which we
were denied the equally sovereign right
OF terminating the treaty otherwise than
by unanimous consent"
THE COMMITTEES FIRST POINT.
The majority of the committee adj
vance no explanation of their first point
make no argument and give no reasons
for their conclusion.
The reason that they do not is self.
evident from the tact that there is no such
clause in the treaty, nor any semblance
of such clause This statement of the
committee is therefore direct and un
called for misrepresentation.
The only mention of treaties in such
section, is that in consideration of the
United States guaranteeing the indepen
dence OF the Hawaiian Islands, the Ha
waiian Government should inform the
United States OF any treaties which i
proposed to negotiate with any othe
country. There is no suggestion Of thu
"consent of the United States being re
quired, or of any limitation to be place.
upon our present rights in that respect.
AS the first point made by the majorit,
of the committee, has absolutely NJ
foundation in fact, it is not necessary t,
consider it further than to call attention
to it as most signal illustration of tn
partizan spirit in which that report i
drawn.
THE COMMITTEES SECOND POINT.
The committees second point is tina
of Article OF the treaty: eve were de
MED the sovereign right of Terminating
, the treaty, otherwise than by unanimou
CONSENT" and they subsequently speal
OF this section as binding us perpetu
ally f" and " the perpetuity obligation o.
. our side"
The committee advances no proof
reason, argument or precedent to shoN