The record-union., 1894-01-15


port.
we have had as yet, no opportunity o.
examining this document; but, from eX-
tracts published in the papers and fol
reasons set forth hereafter, we are not
disposed to submit the fate of Hawaii to
its statements and conclusions. AS q
matter OF fact, no member or the EXecu-
tive of the Government has conferred
with the ex-Queen, either verbally OF
otherwise, from the time that the new
Government was proclaimed till now,
with the exception of one or two notices
which were sent to her by myself in re-
gard to her removal from the Palace and
relating to the guards which the Govern
ment first allowed her, and perhaps
others of like nature. L infer that a
conversation which Mr.. Damon, then a
mem Der of the Advisory Council, is
reported by Mr.. Blount to have had
with the ex-Queen on January 18th, and
which has been quoted in the newspapers,
IS the basis OF this astounding claim OF
the President OF the United States of nis
authority to adjudicate upon our nights
as a Government to exist. Mr.. Damon,
on the occasion mentioned was allowed
to accompany the Cabinet of the former
Government, who had been in conference
with me and my associates to meet the
eX-Queen; he went informally, without
instructions and without authority to
represent the Government, or to assure
the ex-Queen that if she surrendered
under protest her case would afterward
be fully considered by the President oi
the United States
"Our ultImatum had already been
given to the member Of the eX-Cabinet
who had been in conference with us.
What Mr. Damon said TO the ex-Queen
he said on his individual responsibility.
and did not report it to US. Mr.. Blounts
report of his remarks on that occasion
furnished to the Government its first in
formation of the nature of those remarks.
Admitting, for arguments sake, that the
Government had authorized such assur-
ance, what was her case that was after
ward to 'be fairly considered by the
President of the United States" Was it
the question OF her right TO subvert the
Hawaiian Constitution and to proclaim q
new one to suit herself, or was it her
claim against the United States for the
alleged GnWarrantable acts of Minister
Stevens, or was il ali of these in the al
tentative? Who can say?
'But If it had been all of these, or any
of them, could not have been more clearly
and finally decided by the President OF
the United States in favor Of the Provis-
ional Government than when he recog-
nized it without qualification and re-
ceived it's accredited Commissioners, ne
gotiating treaty of annexation with
them, received its accredited Envoy EX-
traordinary and Minister Plenipoten-
tiary, and accredited successively two
Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers
Plenipotentiary to it; the ex-Queen i'll
the mean time being represented in
Washington by her agent. who had full
access to the Department of State.
THE WHOLE BUSINESS.
1.-THE whole business of the Govern
ment with the President of the United
States is set forth in the correspondence
between the TWO Governments and the
acts and statements Of the Minister of this
Government at Washington and the An
nextion Commissioners accredited to it.
Ii we submitted our right to exist TO the
United States the fact will appear in that
correspondence and in the acts Of our
Minister and Commissioners. Such
agreement must be shown as the founda-
tion of the right of your Government to
interfere, for an arbitrator can be created
only by the act of two parties.
''rhe eX-Queen sent her attorney TO
Washington to plead her claim for rein
statement in power, or, failing that, for a
allowance or damages. This at
torney was refused passage on the Gov
ernmen dispatch boat which waSgsent to
San Francisco with the Annexation Com
missioners and their message. The de-
parture of this vessel was less than two
DAYS after the new Government was de-
clared and the refusal was made promptly
upon receiving the request therefor,
either on the day the Government was
declared or on the next day.
''If an intention to submit the question
of the reinstatement of the ex-Queen had
existed, why should her attorneys have
been refused passage on this boat? The
ex-Queen'S letter to President Harrison,
dated January 18th, the day after the new
Government was proclaimed, makes no
to any understanding between
her and the Government for arbitration.
+ In it she states that she yielded to force. !
"If any understanding had existed at
that time between her and the Govern
ment to submit the question of her
restoration to the United States, some
reference to such understanding would
have appeared in this letter, as
every reason would have existed for call
ing the attention of the President to that
fact, especially as she then knew that her
would be seriously delayed in
reaching Washington. But there is not a
word from which such an understanding
can be predicated. The Government sent
its Commissioners to Washington for the
sole object of procuring the confirmation
of the recognition by Minister Stevens of
the new Government. and 10 enter into
negotiations for political union with the
United States.
''rhe protest of the ex-Queen, made
on January l1th, is equally with the let
ter devoid OF evidence of any mutual un-
for a submission of Der claim
to the throne to the United States. 1t is
very evidently a protest against the al
legged action of Minister Stevens as we'll
as the new Government, and contains a
notice of her appeal to the United States.
The document was received exactly as it
would have been received if it had come
through the mail. The Endorsement of
its receipt upon the paper was made at
the request of the individual who brought
it, as evidence of its safe delivery.
LAS to the ex-Queen's notice of her ap-
peal to the United States, it was a matter
of indifference TO us. Such an appeal
could not have been prevented, as the
mail service was in operation as usual.
That such notice and our receipt of it
without comment should be made a
of a claim that we had sub
mitted our right to exist as Government
to the United States, had never occurred
to us until suggested by your Govern
ment.
THE POLICY OF CLEVELAND.
''H ou may not be aware, but such is the
fact, that at no ne until the presentation
OF the claim of the President of the United
states of his right TO interfere in the in
ternal affairs of the country. by you on
December 18th, has this Government been
officially informed by the United States
that any such course was
And not until the publi-
cation OF Mr.. GreSham's letter to the
President of the United States on the Ha-
waiian question had we any reliable init
nation OF such policy. The adherents
of the ex-Queen have indeed claimed
from tine to time that such was the case,
but we have never been able TO attach
serious importance to the rumors to that
effect, feeling secure in our perfect diplo
matte relations with your country, and
relying upon the friendship and fairness
of 4 Government whose dealings with US
has ever shown full recognition of our
incianeufiauce as a aSOvereIgn power, with