The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-14

access to the Department of State.
Tne whole business OF H. the stnd goysrSS States
Is set forth In the correspondence between
the two governments and the acts ana
statements Of the minister OF this govern
ment at Washington and the annexation
commissioners accredited TO It III We have
submitted our right to exist to the United
States the fact will appear In that corre-
spondence ana the acts of our minister and
commissioners. Such agreement must be
shown as the foundation of the right OF
your government TO interfere, for an arbi-
traitor can be created only by the act OF
two parties.
ington to plead her claim for reinstatement
in power or. failing in that, for a money
allowance or damages. This attorney was
patch boat which was sent TO San
Francisco with the annexation commits
parture of this vessel was less than two
days after the new government was de-
ciared and the refusal was made proniipty niipndyr
on the day the government was declared
or on the next day II any Intention to
Of the ex-Queen had existed why should
her attorney have been refused passage on
this boat? The ex-Queens letter TO Mr. Har-
rison dated Jan. IS. two days after the
new government was proclaimed, makes no
allusion to any understanding between her
and the government for arbitration.
NO UNDERSTANDING WITH ILL.,
President Dole here quotes the ex-Queens
He then proceeds:
If any understanding had existed at that
time between her and the government TO
submit the question of her restoration TO
the United States, some reference to such
an understanding would have existed for
calling the attention or the President 10
that fact, and especially as she then knew
that her attorney would be seriously de-
layed In reaching Washington, but there is
not a word from which such an understand
ing can be predicted. The government sent
Washington
sole purpose of procuring the confirmation
OF The recognition by Minister stevens or
the new government and TO enter into nego-
tiations for political union with the United
States.
The protest of the ex-Queen on Jan. II
is, equally with the letter, devoid OF evil
dence of any mutual understanding for
submission of her claim 10 the throne TO
the United States. 1t Is very evidently
protest against the alleged action of Min
lister Stevens as well as the new govern
ment, and COZ contains Si notice h of her appeal peal
received IL 1t had come through the mail
The Endorsement of its receipt upon the pa
ual who brought 1t, as evidence of its safe
delivery. AS to the ex-Queen's notice OF
her appeal to the United States. il was a
matter of indifference to US. Such an ap-
| peal could not have been prevented, as
| the mail service was in operation as usual.
| That such notice and our receipt of Ii with
| out comment should be made a foundation
of claim that we have submitted our
right to exist as government to the United
-
gested to US by your government.
The protest of the ex-Queen already pub
| lished is here quoted. and Mr.. Dole then
proceeds:
You may not be aware. but such is the
| fact, that at no time until the present
the United states of his right to interfere
| in the internal affairs of this country by
yc,I1 You on Dec H. has this -, government been
| government that any such course was con-
tsmplated. and. not until the publication
| of Mr.. Greshams letter to the President
| of the United States on the Hawaiian ques-
| ton, had 1t reliable intimation of such
| policy. The adherents OF the ex-Queen
| have, indeed, claimed, from time TO time,
that such was the case, but we have never
| been able TO attach serious Importance TO
their rumors to that effect feeling sure,
in our perfect diplomatic relations with
| your country and relying upon the friend
| ship and fairness OF a government, whose
| dealings with US has ever shown full recog-
milton of our independence as a sovereign
power without any tendency to take ad-
vantage Of the disparity of strength be-
| tween the two countries.
| A PERTINENT QUESTION.
| If your contention that PRESIDENT Cleve-
land believes that this government and the
| ex-Queen have submitted their respective
| claims to the sovereignty of this country
| TO adjudication OF the United States is
correct. then, may i ask when and where
| has the President held this court of arbi-
| tration? This government has had no no.
| tice of the sitting OF such a tribunal and
| no opportunity of presenting evidence of
| its claims. If Mr.. Blounts investigations
were part of the proce eedings of such a
| court this government did not know it,
| and was never informed of it; indeed. as /
| have mentioned above, we never knew iln-
| Til the publication of Secretary Gresham s
letter to President Cleveland. a few weeks
| ago, that the American executive had a
| policy OF interference under contempla-
Even if we. had known that Mr.. RIount
| was authoritatively acting as a commits
sioner TO take evidence on the question of
the restoration of the ex-Queen. the meth
| ods adopted by him in making his inyesti-
| cations were, i submit, unsuitable 10 such
an examination. or any examination upon
| which human interests were to be adjudi-
| Gated. AS / am reliably informed he Sc
| lected his witnesses and examined them in
| secret, freely using leading questions, Civ
| ing no opportunity for a cross-examination,
| and often not permitting explanations by
| witnesses themselves. as they desired to
| make. of evidence which he had drawn
from them 1t is hardly necessary for me
| TO suggest that. under such a mode of ex-
| animation, some witnesses would be al
| most helpless in the hands of an astute
| lawyer and might be drawn into saying
| things which would be only half truths
| and, standing alone, would be misleading
or even false in effect Is IL likely that an
| investigation conducted i'm this manner
could result i'm fair. full and truthful
| statement of the case in point? Surely the
| destinies of a friendly government, admit
| ting by way of argument. that the right of
| arbitration exists may not be disposed OF
| upon an parte and secret investiga ton.
| without the knowledge of such government
| or an opportunity by IL TO be heard or
| even to know who the witnesses were
Mr.. Blount came here a stranger and
| at once entered upon his duties He de-
| voted himself to the work OF collecting
| information, both by the examination OF
| witnesses and the collection of statistics
| and other documentary matter, with great
| energy and industry giving up substan-
| TALLY his whole time to it's prosecution He
| was here but few months. and during
] that time so occupied with his work
that he had little opportunity left for re-
| ceiving those impressions OF state affairs
| tsentally through a wide social intercourse
| with the people of the country and per
| sonal acquaintance with it's various COM
! munities and industrial enterprises. He saw
| the country from his cottage in the center
of Honolulu mainly through the eyes OF
witnesses whom he examined. Under these
| circumstances ii is probable that the most
| earnest of men would not be able To form a
statement that could safely be relied upon
as the basis of decision upon the question
of the standing form of government.
NO WARRANT FOR INTERFERENCE
In view, therefore. OF all the facts in re-
lation to the question of the President
authority To interfere and concerning which
the members OF the executive were actors
and eyewitnesses, ! am able TO assure youl
excellency that action OF this govern
ment on the 18th of January last. or sine,
|