The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-06-14

PRIVILEGE.
Minister Austin rose to a question
Of privilege, TO answer charges that
had been preferred against him.
Rep. halua said tnet anything
said by the Minister now was out Of
order, as the report oil the majority
of the committee on foreign rela.
tons vas not before the House. 1t
was out for trauslating and printing,
| and when ii was returned the Minis
te. would have an opportunity of
defending himself. The House was
nov unoer the order, reports of
committees" and he raised the
point of order that HIS t.xccllencv
was not III order.
The President ruled that tie Min
lister of Foreign Affairs was entitled
10 speak On the Question OF psiyi.
lege.
Minister Austin said the majority
of the committee ON foreign relations
had made four distinct charges
against him. The first was that he
had disobcyed the order of the
House by Withholding certain treaty
correspondence. In reply he said
he laid before the House all the COR
respondence relating to the treaty
from the lst of December, 1889.
There was no previous correspond
ence.
The second charge was that of
abstracting or causing to be abs
tracted letter No. 35 OF March,
1889. His answer to this was that
it was totally untrue. 1t was a let
ter from Mr.. Carter containing valu.
able information not in any way
connected with the treaty. The
only remark hearing reference to
the treaty was in connection with
Samoan affairs, in which the writer
said it was not perfectly satisfactory
that Hawaii was nst entirely free
from danger Of complications, and
| regretted that there was not in the
treaty with the United States an
absolute guarantee Of Hawaiian III.
| dependence. His private letter in
reply referred to the ocean cable
and Pearl River improvements, ex-
pressing the hope that the United
States would take early action in
both regards.
| The third Charge was that of re.
iusing to communicate to The com.
mittee the minutes Of all Cabinet
councils between April and Decem-
Der, 1889. In reply he would say
that the House in ITS resolution did
not call for minutes of Cabinet
meetings, but distinctly refused to
do so for the reason presented by
Mr.. ThurslOn that there are no Off.
cial minutes Of ordinary Cabinet
con: ultatons.
The fourth charge was that of
having acknowledged that most Of
the correspondence between Mr..
Carter and himself. wa; in the shape
of private letters. The committee
say this is an unusual method Of
conducting diplomatic correspond
ence. The charge was somewhat
indistinct. If it was that he refused
TO show his private letters to the
committee be pleaded guilty to the
charge. In point of fact, il was
usual to carry on preliminary cor
respondence in the manner charged,
and to have 20 public correspond
ence until something WAS ready for
negotiation.
The Minister related the origin of
the treaty discussions in question.
When Mr.. Carter was on his recent
visit 10 the kingdom, the Minister
asked him il there was any hope of
effecting an extension OF our treaty
relations with the United States. He
replied that he thought the Ameri-
can Government would agree TO any
reasonable propositions, hut that he
had never been authorized by this
Government 10 make any proposals
in that regard. 1t was after the
discussions with Mr.. Carter had pro-
ceeded for some time that Mr.. Car.
| IVA NhpiCSoSo VIC opihlOh tiitt tlS
United States Government might de-
sire certain privileges in return for
further extension OF treaty benefits
to this country. AT the request OF
the Cabinet Mr.. Carter submitted u
pencil draft Of the clauses relating
to the landing, of troops and provid.
ing for the United States being no.
tilted of any proposed treaties with
other countries. 1t was perfectly
agreed by the Ministers that not
one Of them would consent to the
landing OF troops provision. 1t was
agreed to prepare draft OF the
treaty project to submit to the Lo-
gislature, as it was considered too
great responsibility for any Min
lister to take, TO recommend the ra-
tilication of such treaty.
There was nothing in Article 4
preventing the country from nego-
tiating treaties. The right to ter
inmate treaty is not sovereign
right but matter of contract.
Regarding Mr.. Carter's quoted
statement about treaties being sub
ordinate to laws in the United
States, the majority of committee
| omittp1 IN etota Mr. rartar,u fu,t h M,