The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-03-20

Senator Morgan's full report on
the Hawaiian question appears be-
low. 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-
tion 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 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
matters that are, or have been, the
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 governments, 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 inn,riru fO irraOII "a riiiac thaf
may 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 its civil and
military officers while they were en-
gagged in the discharge of their public
duties and functions.
AS Government dealing with Ha-
waii and with any form of govern
ment in that country, whether de
fdcto or de .jure, the United States
can have no separation or break in its
line of policy corresponding to any
change in the eincumbency of the office
of President. 1t is in all respects as
much the same Government in every
right and responsibility as if it had
been under the same President during
the entire period covered by the re-
cent revolution in 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 it has been
such that it can be safely drawn into
precedent in any future questions that
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 a course of
correspondence with for
eign government is no more to be
questioned than his right to institute !
such correspondence; and it cannot |
be assumed that the opinions of one !
differing from those OF his |
predecessor, has any other effect upon !
the attitude of the Government than |
would follow a change of opinion in |
the mind of the same person il there |
had been no change in the incnmbency |
of the Office. This is q view of the |
situation in which all foreign nations |
may have an interest, under the us |
ages of independent powers and the /
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 a separate and Independent
power in respect of all its relations
with the United States, yet the acts
)f successive Presidents Of the United
States which affect it must be regard
I'd as the acts of one President. But
here are many good reasons and
ong and consistent course of dealing
the United States and Ha-
vail that materially affect, if they