The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-14
DOLE'S REPLY.
The Provisional Governments Rea-
sons for Defying Cleveland.


President Dole's reply to the United States
Minister'S demand is as follows. is addressed
to Willis, and dated Dec. %. 1t follows:
Sir-Your Excellency's communication OF
Dec. 10, announcing the conclusion which
the President of the United States Of Amer
lea has finally arrived at respecting the ap-
plication of this government for a treaty
of political union with that country. and
referring also to the domestic affairs of
these islands, has had the consideration Of
the government.
While it is with deep disappointment that
We learn that the important proposition
which We have submitted to the government
of the United States. and which was at first
favorably considered by it, has at length
been rejected, we have experienced a sense
of relief that we are now favored with the
first official information on the subject that
has been received through period OF over
nine months.
While we accept the decision OF the Pres
ident of the United States declining fur
ther to consider the annexation proposition
as the nnal conclusion of the present adj
ministration we do not feel inclined to re-
gard it as the last word of the American
government on this subject, for the history
of the mutual relations Of the two coun-
tries, of American effort and influence in
building up the Christian civilization which
has so conspicuously aided in giving this
country an honorable place among indie
pendent nations, the geographical position
both e Countries, pfofitable reciprocai '' COM. n
mercial interests which have long existed,
together with our weakness as a sovereign
nation, all point with convincing force TO
political union between the two countries
as the necessary logical result from the
is emphasized by the favorable expression
of American statesmen over a long period
whom are the names of " T. Marcv
William a Seward, Hamilton Fish and
State, and especially SO by the action of
your last administration in negotiating
treaty of annexation with this government
and sending it TO the Senate with a view
continue the project of political union with
the United States as a conspicuous feature
that. sooner or later, it will be crowned
with success to the lasting benefit of both
countries.
NO RIGHT To NEEDLE
The additional portion of your communi-
cation, referring to our domestic affairs,
with view of interfering therein, is a new
departure in the relations of the two gov
ernments. Your information that the Presi-
dent of the United States expects this gov
ernment ito promptly relinquish to her
(meaning the ex-Queen), her constitutional
authority with the question, 'are you will
ing to abide by the decision of the tPresi-
dent?' might we'll be dismissed in a single
word but for the circumstances that your
communication contains, as 1t appears to
me, misstatements and erroneous conclu-
sions based thereon that are SO prejudicial
TO this government that 1 cannot permit
them to pass unchallenged. Moreover, the
Importance and menacing character OF this
proposition make il appropriate for me to
| discuss somewhat fully the questions raised
by it
President of the United States to interfere
| in our domestic affairs. Such right could
be conferred upon him by the act of this
government, and by that alone, or 1t could
| be acquired by conquest. This, L un/er-
| stand, to be the American doctrine conspicu-
nrrCixr
authorities of your government. President
Jackson said in his message to Congress in
| 1886: The uniform policy and practice of
the United States Is TO avoid all interference
| in disputes which mostly relate to the inter-
| nal government of other nations, and even
| tually. to recognize the authority of the
prevailing party, without reference to the
merits or the original controversy"
This principle of international law has
been consistently recognized during the
whole past intercourse OF the two countries,
and was recently reconfirmed in the in
| structions given by Secretary Gresham to
Commissioner Blount, on March IL, 1893,
| and by the latter. published in the news
| papers in Honolulu in letter of his own
| TO the Hawaiian republic. The words of
| follows: THE United States claim no right
| to interfere in the political domestic
| affairs, or in the internal conflicts Of the
| Hawaiian Islands, other than as herein
stated (referring to the protection of Amer
| lean citizens), or for the purpose of MAIN
| tanning any treaty or other rights which
| they possess
| The treaties between the two countries
4 confer no right of interference. Upon what
| then, Mr.. Minister, does the President OF
| the United States base his right of inter
| ference? Your communication is without
| information on this point, excepting such
| as may be contained in the following brief
| and vague sentences: 'She (the ex-Queen)
| was advised and reassured by her ministers
and leaders OF the movement for the over
| throW of her government that If she sur
| rendered under protest her case would
afterwards be fairly considered by the
| President of the United States. The Queen
| finally yielded to the armed forces Of the
| United States then quartered in Honolulu
| relying on the good faith and honor of the
| President, when Informed of what had oc~
CURED, TO undo the action of the minister
| and reinstate her and the authority which
she claimed as the constitutional sovereign
| of tn Hawaiian Islands Also il becomes
| my further duty TO advise you, sir, the
| executive of the provisional government and
your ministers, RS OF lne Presidents hin deter
| ton and that of the Queen devolved upon
| him, and you are expected TO promptly re-
| linquish to her constitutional authority"
| 1 understand that the first quotation is re-
| ferred to in the following words of the
| second: Which your action and that of
| the Queen devolved upon him. the Pres
| ident of the United States). and that the
| President has arrived at his conclusions
| from Commissioner Blount's report we
| have had. as yet, no opportunity of ex-
| amining this document. but from extracts
| published in the papers and for reasons
| set forth hereafter We are not disposed to
submit the fate Of Hawaii 10 its state
| ments and conclusions. As matter of
| fact, no member of the executive of the
| provisional government has conferred with
| the eX-Queen either verbally or otherwise
| 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
| which the government first allowed her.
and perhaps others Of like nature
DAMON SPOKE FOR HIMSELF.
L infer that a conversation which Mr.
| Damon, a member of the advisory council
! is reported by Mr.. Blount TO have had
with the ex-Queen on Jan. II, and which
has been quoted in the newspapers. is the
basis of this astounding claim of the Pres
| ident of the United States of his authority
TO adjudicate our right as a government "a
exist. Mr.. Damon, on the occason men
toned, was allowed to accompany the Cab
met of the former government who had
been in conference with us. What Mr. Da.
mon said to the eX-Oueen he said on his
! individual authority, and did not report /,
10 us. Mr. BlOunts report of his remarks
on that occasion furnishes the government
its first information OF the nature OF those
remarks. Admitting. for arguments sake
assurances, what was her case that was
afterwards 10 ''be fairly considered hy the
President of the United States@' Was A
the question OF her right 10 subVert the
Hawaiian Constitution and 10 proclaim a
new one herself or was II her claim "a
be restored 10 the sovereignty, was II
her claim against the United States for
I. IL.