The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-01-18

,
American citizens) or for purposes of
which they possess Treaties between
interference. Upon what, then, Mr..
Minister, does the president of the
United States base his right of inter
ference Your communication is
without information upon this point
excepting such as may be contained in
the following brief and vague
sentences: 'She (the ex.queen) was ad-
vised and assured by her ministers
and leaders of the movement for the
overthrow of her government that if
she surrendered under protest her case
would afterwards be fairly consider
ed by the president of the UAited
States. The queen finally yielded to
the armed forces of the United States
quartered in Honolulu, relying on the
good faith aud honor OF the president
when Informed of what had occurred
to undo the acJion of the minister and
reinstate her in authority which she
claimed as the constitutional sovereign
OF Hawaii Also, 1t becomes my fur
ther duty TO advise you, sir, executive
of the provisional government, and
your ministers of the presidents de-
termination of the question which
your action and that of the queen de-
volved upon him, and you are expected
TO promptly reliuquish to her her con-
stitutional authority
Il understand that the first quota
tion is referred to in the following
words of the second: Which your
action and that of the queen devolved
upon him (the president of the United
States), and that the president had ar.
rived at his conclusions from Mr..
Blount's report. We have had, as yet,
no opportunity of examining this doc
ument, but from extracts published in
the papers and for reasons set forth
hereafter, we are not disposed to sub
NIT the fate of Hawaii to
its statements and its conclusions.
AS matter of fact, no member of the
executive branch of the provision
lonal government has conferred with
the ex-queen, either verbally or other
wise, from the time the new govern
ment was proclaimed until now, with
the exception of one or two notices
which We're sent to her by myself in
regard to her removal from the palace
and relating to guards which the gov
ernment first allowed her and perhaps
Others of a like nature.
81 infer that the conversation which
MIR. Damon, memper 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 as
founding claim of the president of the
United States of his authority to adiu.
dictate upon our right asia government
to exist. MIR. Damon on the occasion
mentioned was allowed to accompany
the cabinent of the former govern
ment, who had been in conference
with us. What Mr.. Damon said to
the ex-queep he said on his individual
authority and did not report it to us.
Mr.. Blount's report of his remarks on
that occasion furnishes this govern
ment its first information of the nature
of those remarks. Admitting, for ar
gument's sake, that the government
had authorized such assurances, which
was that her case was afterwards to be
fairly considered by the president of
the United States, was it the question
of her right TO subvert the Hawaiian
and to proclaim a
new one herself, or was it
her claim to be restored to the sover.
eighty, or was it her claim against the
United States for alleged unwarrant-
able acts of Minister Stevens, or was
it all those in aggregate? Who can
say? But if it had been all of these or
any OF them, it could not have been
more clearly and finally decided by the
president of the United States in favor
Of the provisional government than
when he recognized it without quail.
ication aud received it's accredited
successfully chosen two envoy extra
ordinary and ministers plenipoten-
tiary 70 it, the ex-queen in the
meantime being represented in
by her agent, who had
,ull access to the department of state?
The whole business of this government
with the president of the United States
IS set forth iu the correspondence be-
jweeu the two governments and the |
acts and statements of the minister of
his government at Washington and
he annexation commissioners accred-
ted to it.
IF we have submitted our right t. |
Exist to the United States that fact
will appear in that correspondence and |
he acts of our ministers and COM
nissioners. Such agreement must be !
shown as to the foundation of the |
light of your government to interfere |
Is an arbitrator, as such can be cre-
lted only by the act of two parties
The ex-queen sent her at |
jorney 10 Washington to plead |
Ter claim for reinstatement |
n power, or failing in that for money
allowance or damages. This attorney
was refused passage on the govern
nent dispatch boat which was sent to |
San Francisco with the annexation |
and their message. The |
departure of this vessel Was less than |
5wo days after the new governments |
declaration was read aud the refusal |
was made promptly upon receiving the |
'equest therefor, either on the day
government was declared, or on the |
next day. If an intention to submit |
jhe question of reinstatement of the |
* queen had existed, why should her
attorney have been refused passage on |
his boat ?
THE eX-queeu's letter to Mr.. Harri- !
ION, dated Jan. Is. two days after the |
lew government was proclaimed, |
makes no allusion to any understand
ng between her and this government |