The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-03-17

Senator Morgan's full report on
the Hawaiian question appears be-
low. It will be continued on Mon
day. 1t is now made public for the
first time, either here or abroad:
Mr.. MORGAN submitted the following
report from the Committee on For
eign Relations
The following resolution of the Sen
ate defines the limits of the authority
of the committee in the investigation
and report it is required to make:
ResoLUed, That the Committee on
Foreign Relations shall inquire and
report whether any, and, If SO, what
irregularities have occurred in the dip
lomatic or other intercourse between
the United States and Hawaii in rela-
ton to the recent political revolution
in Hawaii, and to this end said COM
mittee is authorized to send for persons
and papers and to administer oaths
to witnesses"
The witnesses were examined under
oath when it was possible to secure
their appearance before the commit
tee, though in some instances affida-
Wits were taken in Hawaii and other
places. and papers of a scientific and
historic character will be appended to
this report and presented to the Sen
ate for its consideration.
The committee did not call the Sec
retary of State, or any person con-
nected with the Hawaiian Legation,
to give testimony. 1t was not thought
to be proper to question the diplomatic
authorities of either government on
hat haPn.
subject of negotiation between them,
and no power exists to authorize the
examination of the minister of for
eign government in any proceeding
without his consent.
The resolutions include an inquiry
| only Into the intercourse between the
| two go> ernmentS, and REGARD the con-
| duct of the officers of the United States
| as a matter for domestic consideration
! in which Hawaii is not concerned, un-
| less it be that their conduct had some
unjust and improper influence upon
| the action of the people or Govern
! ment of that country in relation to
| the revolution.
The future policy of the two govern
| ments as to annexation, or in respect
of any other matter, is excluded by
| the resolutions from the consideration
| of the committee, and such matters
are alluded to only as being incidental
to the investigation which was or
dered by the Senate.
The INQUIRY as to irregularities that
| NAV have occurred in our diplomatic
| or other intercourse with Hawaii
| must relate, first, to the conduct OF
the Government as shown in its Off
cial acts and correspondence and,
| second. the conduct of it's civil and
| military officers while they were ell
gagged in the discharge OF their pubic
duties and functions.
AS n Government dealing with Ha-
waii and with any form of govern
| ment in that country, whether de
| fnctO or de .jure, the United States
can have no separation or break IN It's
line of policy corresponding to any
| change in the ipcumbency of the office
of President. It is in all respects as
| much the same Government in every
right and responsibility as If 1T had
| been under the same President during
the entire period covered by the re-
| cent revolution i'm Hawaii and the
| succeeding events.
This view of the situation Will en-
able us to examine more dispassion~
ately the conduct of our Government,
and to ascertain whether 1T has beeh
such that it can be safely drawn into
|
| may arise in our intercourse with this
or other American governments.
The right of the President of the
| United states to change his opinions
and conduct respecting course oi
diplomatic correspondence with tor
! pis,n government is no more to be
questioned than his right TO institute
such correspondence and IL cannot
he assumed that the opinions of one
| President, differing from those Of his
predecessor, has any other effect upon
the attitude OF the Government than
would follow change of opinion IN
the mind of the same person II there
/ had been 40 change in the incumbency
of the Office This is n view OF the
situation in which all foreign nations
may have an interest, under the us
ages of independent powers ana the
international laws. But the question
now under consideration is regarded
as being peculiar to what we may
term the American system. 1t may
be true that Hawaii can not be con-
sidered as q separate and independent
power in respect of all its relations