The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-06-24

eliminating Article and make III purely
a commercial treaty. Mr.. Ashford still
objected, and the question of whether,
from business point OF view, such pro-
posed commercial treaty would be wise,
| it was proposed to consult with some OF
the business men of the country. This
was agreed to by all of the members OF
the Cabinet. A conference of business
men was called for March oath, 1890.
The unanimous opinion of the confer
ence, after a full discussion, was to the
effect that such treaty would be OF
value to the country, and the strong de-
sire was expressed that the Cabinet
should attempt to negotiate it. Notwlth-
standing this, however, Mr.. Ashford still
refused to join his colleagues in advising
His Majesty to sign commission autho-
rizing Mr.. Carter to negotiate treaty on
this basis.
A Cabinet council was then called,
April 10, 1890. All the Ministers were
present, His Majesty presiding. L VIII
quote from the Cabinet council minutes.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs stated ::
"That the majority of the Cabinet ad-
vised His Majesty to sign an authorlza-
ton to Minister Carter to negotiate and
sign, subject to ratification, a treaty with
the United States"
The authorization to Mr.. Carter was in
the following form:
KALAKAUA, King of the Hawaiian
Islands:
To all to whom these presents shall
come,-Greeting:
Know We, that have authorized His
Excellency the Honorable Henry A. P.
Carter, our Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary to the United
States of America. Knight Grand Cross
of the Crown of Hawaii, Grand Officer
of the Order of Kalakaua, Knight Com
mander of the Order of Kamehameha l.,
Actual Privy Councillor of State, to con-
fer with any person or persons. duly
authorized by the Government OF the
United States for that purpose, and with
him or them to negotiate, conclude and
execute q convention upon the basis OF
the project hereto attached and made a
part hereof. All of which acts shall be
subject to our final ratification.
In witness whereof, have caused
the Seal of the Hawaiian
Islands to be hereunto
affixed. Given under my
IL.s.l hand at the city of Homo
lulu, the = day of April,
A. d. 1890, and the seven
teenth year of our reign.
The Attorney General said "He would
not advise the King to sign the commits
sion." The Minister of the Interior took
the ground that the King should follow
the advice of the majority of the Cabinet
in accordance with the decision of the
Supreme Court. The Attorney-General
again advised the King not to sign the
commission; stating That the opinion
of the Judges of the Supreme Court is
not in the slightest degree binding, and
is of no more effect than that of any
other three men of equal ability" His
Majesty thereupon declined to sign the
commission There further considera-
ton of the treaty seems to have ended.
OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COM
NITTEE 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 and
Damon is straightforward, and carries
conviction that they in no way wish to
cover the truth. Rep. Kalua's resolu-
tion did not call for private correspon
dence nor for Cabinet minutes. Never
theless the Minister of Foreign Affairs
has shown me the Cabinet minutes relat
ing to Treaty matters, and is ready at
any time to show the same to the rest OF
the committee. find no evidence what
ever that the obnoxious clause relating
to Landing troops" was in any way pre-
but that it was merely sug-
gested by Mr.. Carter that the United
States might ask that this clause be put
into the Treaty, if they were to guaran
tee the Independence Of Hawaii. Min
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..
Ashferd's statement on this point is not
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 s+ |
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 ac-
tions 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'l, that Minis |
ter Austin positively says that these ad-
ditions only came in much later, as a |
sequence to the discussion OF the other |
Articles, and Minister Thurston corrob- |
crates this, whilst Ministers Damon and |
Ashford distinctly state that the clause |
in appendix, at the very first |
oil 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