The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-06-10

0 shape of proposed modification to on
Treaty with the United States; and yet
at the very time he made this denial tn
foreign representatives were all in pos
session of copies of the draft afterward
published by the Government; and
similar denial was made in San Fran
cisco by Mr.. Carter. 1t has been sal,
that diplomacy is the art of hiding ant
denying the truth, but We find out her,
that, unless the diplomats are first-clas
!, deceivers, which is not given to ever,
man, the best diplomatic policy, as Bis
,, marck said, is to stick to the truth.
However, we cannot dismiss :his par
of our report, without emphasizing the
fact that we, as Representatives of the
Nation, consider it to be very singular
notion, in public officer, such as the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, to hold the
opinion that private correspondence on
State matters belong to the individual
Probably Minister Austin considers his
incumbency to be for his own benefit,
and the whole country to be kind of a
ranch which he can and has the right to
manage to suit himself and friends, and
not the Sovereign and people he is sup.
posed to represent. We also further take
the liberty OF recommending Minister
Austin's views to the meditation OF all
would-be politicians and diplomats: any
criminal action, any political or financial
misdemeanor, anything they want to
keep in the dark and withhold from the
knowledge of the people is simply to be
labelled 'private and personal" and it
will then nicely escape all and every in
vestigationl
These four charges made by your COM
mittee against Minister Austin, would
in some countries be sufficient for
case of impeachment, but your COM
mittee will limit themselves to say
that, at any rate, thev consider the Min
lister of Foreign Affairs in this matter
guilty OF disrespect towards this House, in
trying to withhold documents whether
| public or private) bearing on the very
questions you had instructed US to inves-
| tigate, the result of such concealment
! being that our report cannot be as con-
elusive as it might otherwise have
been, and that from the simple
perusal OF the explanations offered
by the four Ministers, together
with that of the official documents
placed on the table of this House by the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gall of which
are annexed to the present report it
is hard to reconstruct the history of the
treaty negotiations. However, the first
conclusion to be drawn from the compari
son of the Ministerial utterances is the
following, viz: that it hardly seems
possible that four intelligent men who
have made special study OF any sub
iect-as these four about the proposed
treaty-could ever differ so much in their
recollectlons and statements OF many |
important points. 1t would take too |
much OF your valuable time to bring |
forth all the contradictions that exist be- |
tween those four statements, but as we |
hope that all the documents will be pub |
lished by order of this honorable body, |
every member Will be able to Judge for |
himself, and we shall only offer few re-
marks on the most important.
1t cannot be doubted that for several |
months before Mr.. Carter's visit to these |
Islands, the Ministers had made up their |
minds to ask the United States for new /
treaty, whether in the interest of the |
country or to protect themselves We can
not say. In the absence OF the docu-
ments concealed, or at least refused to |
us by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we
find that Mr.. Austin claims for himself
the paternity of the idea, whilst the At
brings it home to Mr.
Carter and even to Mr.. Blaine, and his
idea is supported by what is known of
the missing documents and by Mr..
Damon's semi-admissions. However,
what does not admit denial, is that Mr..
Carter drew out the draft of the existing
treaty, together with the ob-
noxious clause OF the landing of troops,
called Additions to Art. w." Mr.
Austin positively says that those addi-
lions only came in much later, as
sequence to the discussion of the other
articles, and Mr.. Thurston corroborates
his, whilst Mr.. Damon and Mr.. Ashford :
distinctly state that the clause appeared
n appendix, at the very first presenta- !
ion of the draft. The missing docu- !
nents alone could decide whether the :.
obnoxious clause was premeditated or :
lot.
The Attorney General further says,
hat at first this same clause of landing
roops was unanimously agreed to and
hat some objections against it only grew
ut gradually, in subsequent discussions,
he principal being that that clause
would give any existing government too n
much power against the people, and that r
HIS Majesty the King would certainly Il
bject to it and might thereby be induced
0 refuse the whole treaty; Mr.. Carter is o
hen said to have suggested to drop it for
he time being, with the understanding "
f its being revived in the draft in WASH h
4 ton; the other Ministers land more G.
MIR. Austin) deny this and n
ne House will have to take all of those
Onfiicting testimonies for what they Oh
Til consider them worth. m
About the real intent of the treaty, it
'onld have been our duty to direct our 81
lvestigation in such way as to bring
ut proofs, to exonerate the Cabinet from OF
srtain rumors which had circulated re
mong the people, viz, that some of the
Iinisters had been instigated = in the
rst starting of the treaty negotiations tu
y the idea and hope Of Fastening the tr
nnexation of this Kingdom to the
nited States, even of forcing that an tr
exation on the American Government
nd that suggestions to such an effect Or
ad been offered to Minister Carter. so as
obtain through him a more stringent su
oofry 0ponfuo the ,r-hioh he |