Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1894-01-20
Mr.. Dole's Reply to Minister Willis d
mnnd for Snrrandar-

mand for Surrender.
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
HONOLULU, Ii. l., Dec, y, 1893.
SIR: Your excellency's communication OF
December lq, announcing the conclusion which
the president OF the United States of America
has finally arrived at, respecting the applica
tion Of this government for a treaty of political
union with that country, and referring also 10
the domestic affairs OF these Islands, has had
the consideration OF the government.
While il is with deep disappointment mat
We learn that the important proposition which
we have submitted to the government OF inc
United States, and which was at first favor
ably considered by IL, has at Length been re-
jectcd, we have experienced a scnse of relief
that we are now favored with the first official
information upon the subject that has been re-
ceived through a period OF over nine months,
Accept the Presidents Decision Against
Annexation.
While we accept the decision OF the presi'
dent of the United States, declining further TO
consider the annexation proposition, as the
final conclusion OF the present administration
we do not feel incline TO regard it rs the last
word OF the American government upon this
subject, for the history OF the mutual relations
OF the two countries. OF American effort and
influence in building up the Christian
civilization which has so conspicuously
aided In giving this country an honorable place
among Independent nations, the geographical
position of these islands and the important,
md to both countries, profitable, reciprocal
commercial interests, which have long existed,
together with our weakness as a sovereign ma
ton, all point with convincing force to polit-
zeal union between the two countries as the
necessary logical result from the circum-
stances mentioned, This conviction Is
emphasized by the favorable express
sion OF American statesmen over u long
period in favor of annexation, conspicuous
among whom are the names OF W. /. Marcy,
William II, Seward, Hamilton Fish and James
G.. Blaine, all former secretaries of state, and
especially so by the action OF your last ad-
miniStration in negotiating a treaty OF annexa'
tion with this government and sending 1t TO
the senate with u view to its ratification.
win Appeal to Future Administrations.
We shall. therefore, continue the project OF
political union with the United States
as a conspicuous feature OF our foreign
policy, confidently hoping that sooner or
later ii will be crowned with success, to the
lasting benefit OF both countries. The add
tlonal portion OF your communication referring
to our domestic affairs with a view of interior
ing therein, is a new departure in the relations
OF the two governments. Your information
that the president of the United States expects
this government to promptly rclinquish
to her tmeaning the ex'queenl, her con.
stitutional authority with the question:
Are you willing to abide by the de-
cision OF the PRESIDENT might well be
dismissed In a single word, but for the cir.
cumstance that your communication contains,
as II appears to me, misstatements and er.
roneous conclusions based thereon, that are so
preludicial to this government that | can not
permit them to pass unchallenged, Moreover,
the importance and menactng character OF
this proposition make II appropriate for me
to discuss somewhat fully the questions
raised Ivy IL, We do not recognize the right OF
the president Of the United States to interfere
in our domestic affairs. Such right could be
conferred upon him by the act OF this govern
ment, aud by that alone, or it could be acquired
by conquest, This | understand to bo the
American doctrine conspicuously announced
from time to time by the authorities of your
President Jackson said in his message to
congress in 1895: The uniform policy and
practice of the United States is to avoid all
interference in disputes which mostly relate to
the internal government of other nations and
eventually to recognize the authority of the
prevailing party with reference to the meritso
controversy
This principle of International law has been
consistently recognized during the whole past
intercourse OF the two countries, and was re.
Gently rocontrmed in the instructions given
secretary Gresham to Commissioner
Blount OF March II, 1898, and by the latter pub.
liShed in the newspapers in Honolulu in o
letter of his W to the Hawaiian public, The
words of these instructions which | refer to
are as follows:
The United States Had No Right to In
terfere.
"1he United States claim no right to inter.
in the political or domestic affairs or in
the internal conflicts OF the Hawaiian islands
other than as herein stated referring to tine
OF American citizens, or for the
purpose OF maintaining any treaty or other
rights which they possess
The treaties between the i've countries con
Ter no right of Interference. Upon what then.
Miuigtpr docs tho rrp.iJpnt pf tha ITnItal
states base his right of Interference? Your
communication il without information upon
his point, excepting such as may be contained
N the following brief and vague sentences:
She tthc eX'queenl was advised and assured
" her ministers and leaders of the movement
'or the overthrow of her government that il
The surrendered under protest, her case
you'd afterwards be fairly considered
" the president OF the United States.
The queen finally yielded to the armed
orce OF the United States, then quartered in
Honolulu, relying on the good faith and honor
IF the president when informed OF what had
to undo the action of the minister
ma reinstate her and the authority which she
'laimS as the constitutional sovereign OF
Hawaiian islands
Also, "ltbecomes my further duty to advise
you, sir, the executive OF the provisional gov.
and your ministers, OF the presi.
lent's determination of the question which
your action and that OF the queen deyolvcd
lpon lllil, HHu mat you are expected TO prompt
y relihqnish TO her constitutional authority"
| understand that the first quotation is re.
erred to In the following words OF the seconds;
Which your action and that OF the queen de-
solved upon him 1.-THE president of the
unlted States, and that the president
laS arrived at his conclusions from Commits.
'ioner Blounts report. We have had as yet
40 opportunity OF examining this document,
out from extracts published in the papers. and
'or reasons set forth hereafter, we are not dis
posed to submit the fate OF Hawaii to It's state.
nents and conclusions.
As q matter Of fact, no member OF the execu.
i've of the provisional government has con.
erred with the eX-queen, either verbally or
from the time the new government
was proclaimed till now, with the exception of
one or two notices which were sent to her by
myself in regard to her removal from the pal
and relating to the guards which the gov
ornment first allowed her, and perhaps Others
II u like nature. | infer that . conversation
which MIR. Damon, u member of the advisory
is reported by Mr.. Blount to have had
with the ex-queen on January II, and which
mas been quoted in the newspapers, is the basis
Of this astounding claim OF the president OF
The United States OF his authority to adjudi.
cate upon our right as a government to exist.
MI Damon, on the occasion mentioned, was
lllowed to accompany the cabinet OF the for
former government, which had been in confer
cnce with us. What Mr.. Damon said to the
ex-queen he said on his individual authority,
ana uld not report the matter to us,
Mr.. Blounts report of his remarks on that
occasion furnishes this government its first In
OF the nature of those remarks. Ad-
for arguments sake, that the govern.
nent had authorized such assurances. what
was her case that was afterwards to "be
falrly considered by the president of the United
States?' Was ii the question of her right to
Subvert the Hawaiian constitution and to pro.
claim a new one herself, or was it her claim TO
be restored to the sovereignty, or was it her
claim against the United States for the al.
Ieged nnwarrantable acts Of Minister Ste
vens, or was it all these in the alternative;
who can say? But II 1t had been all of these,
or any OF them, 1t could not have been more
and finally decided by the president OF
The United states in favor OF the provisional
than when he recognized il with
out qualification or received its two success.
Ively accredited ENJOYS extraordinary and
plenpotentiary. the ex-queen in the
being represented in Washington by
her agent, who had full access to the depart.
mcnt OF state.
The whole business OF the government with
The president of the United States is set forth
IN the correspondence between the two govern.
ana the acts and statements of the
OF this government at Washington
ana the annexation commissioners accredited
TO II. II we have submitted our tight to exist
to the United States, the fact will appear in
me correspondence and the acts OF our minis
lers and commissioners. Such agreement
must be shown Us the foundation of the right
Oh your government to interfere, for an arbi-
traitor can be created only by the acts OF the
we parties.
The ex.queen sent her attorney TO Washing.
ton to plead her claim for reinstatement In
power, and failing In that. for n money allow
ance or damages. This attorney was refused
passage on the government dispatch boat
which was sent to San Francisco with the
annexation commissioners and their message.
The departure OF this vessel was less than two
lays after the new government WAS declared,
and was made promptly upon receiving the TO.
luest therefor. either on the day the govern.
ment was declared or on the next.
The QUESTION OF Arbitration Never En-
tertained by the Provisional
Government.