Huntsville gazette., 1894-01-20


with the ex-queen on January IL, and which
has 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
Mr. Damon on the occasion mentioned, was
allowed to accompany the cabinet OF the for
former government, which had been in confer
ence with us What Dir. Damon said to the
ex-queen he said on his individual authority,
and did not report the matter to us.
Mr. Blount'S report of his remarks on that
occasion furnishes this government its first in
formation of the nature of those remarks Adj
mitting fof arguments sskei that the govern
ment had authorized such assurances. what
was her case" that was afterwards to "be
fairly considered by the president of the United
States?" Was it the question OF her right to
Subyert the Hawaiian constitution and 10 pro-
claim new one herself, or was 1t her claim to
be restored to the sovereignty or was it her
claim against the United States for the al
legged unwarraftable 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, 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 il with
out qualification or received its two success
lveiy accredited enyOyS extraordinary and
minister plenpotentiafy. the eX-queen In the
meantime being represented IN Washington by
her agent, who had full access to the depart
lnent 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
mentS and the acts and statements of the
minister Of this government at Washington
and the annexation commissioners accredited
to il. III we have submitted our right TO exist
to the United States, the fact will appear in
the correspondence and the acts OF our minis
ters and commissioners. Such agreeme n t
must be shown as the foundation OF the right
OF your government to interfere, for an arbi-
traitor can be created only by the acts of the
two parties
The ex-dueen sent her attorney TO washing
tn or nj for inC Ct q afrfa mt in
power and failing In that. for 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
days after the new government was declared,
and was made promptly upon receiving the re-
quest therefor either on the day the govern
ment was declared or on the next.
The Question of Arbitration Never En-
tertainsd by the Provisional
Government.
II an intention to submit the question OF the
reinstatement of the exqueen had existed.
why should her attorney have been refused
passage on this boat? The ex-queens letter to
Mr.. Harrison dated January IS, two days after
the new government was proclaimed, makes
no allusion to any understanding between her
and the government for arbitration.
President Dole here quotes the ex-
queens letter, which has been hereto
fore published. He then proceeds:
II any understanding had existed at that
time between her and the government to sub
nit the question Of her restoration to the
United States, some reference to some such
understanding would naturally have appeared
IN this letter. as every reason would have ex-
Isl ed for calling the attention Of the president
to the fact, and especially she then knew
that her attorney would be seriously DELAYED in
reaching Washington
But there is not word upon which such
an understanding cau be ,predicated. The gov
ernnhent sent its commissioners to Washing
ton for the sole purpose Of securing the con-
firmation of the recognition by Minister Stew
ems of the new government and to enter into
negotiations for political union with the
The Queens Protest and Appeal.
The protest OF the ex-queen made on Jan
uary II is equally, with the letter, devoid of
evidence of any mutual understanding for a
submission of her claim TO the throne to the
United States. 1t is very evidently protest
against the alleged action Of Minister Stevens
as well as the new government and contains a
notice OF her appeal to the United States.
The document was received exactly as it would
have been received if it had come through the
mail. The Endorsement Of its receipt upon the
paper was made at the request of the indi-
vidual who brought it, as evidence of its safe
delivery,
AS to the ex-queen's notice of her appeal to
the United States it was matter OF indiffer-
ence to US. Such an appeal could not have
been prevented, as the mail service was in
operation as usual That such notice and
our receipt of it without comment should be
made foundation OF a claim that we have sub
mitted our right to exist as a-government to
the United States had never occurred to US un-
til suggested to us by your government.
The protest of the eX-queen, already
published, is here quoted, and Mr.. Dole
then proceeds:
You may not be aware but such is the fact,
that at no time until the present notification of
the claim OF the president of the United States
of his right to interfere In the internal affairs
of this country, by you on December 10. has
this government been officially informed by
the United States government that any such
course was contemplated, and not Until the
publication of Mr.. Gresham's letter to the
president of the United states on the Hawaiian
question had we any intimation of such a
policy.
Royalists Talk of Interference Not Rs
garded Seriously.
The adherents of the exqueen have, indeed,
claimed from time to time. that such was the
case but we have never been able TO attach
serious Importance to their rumors. feeling
your country and relying upon the friendship
and fairness Of a government whose dealings
with us have ever shown full recognition of
our Independence as sovereign power. with
out any tendency to take advantage OF the dis
parity of strength between the two countries.
If your contention that President Cleveland
believes that this government and the ex-
queen have submitted their respective claims
to the sovereignty of the country, TO the
adjudication of the United States is cor
rect then may | ask. when and where has
the president held this court Of arbitration?
This government has had no notice OF the sit
ting of such tribunal and no opportunity OF
presenting evidence of its claims If Mr..
Blount's investigations were part of the pro
ceedings of such court the government
did not know it. and was never informed OF
it, indeed as l have mentioned above we
never knew until the publication OF Secretary
Gresham's letter to President Cleveland, few
weeks ago. that the American executive had a
policy of interference under contemplation.
Blount's Methods Denounced.
Even II we had known that Mr.. Blount was
authortatively acting as a commissioner 10
take evidence upon the question of the restora-
tion of the cx-queen. the methods adopted by
him in making his investigations we're sub
init unsuitable TO such an examination or any
examination upon which human interests were
to be adjudicated
AS | am reliably informed, he selected his
witnesses and examined them in secret, fire.
ouently using leading questions, giving no op-
portunity for cross-examination, and often not
permitting the explanations by witnesses
themselves which they desired to make OF EVIL
dence which he had drawn from them Ii IS
hardly necessary for me to suggest that under
such mode some witnesses would be almost
helpless in the hands of astute lawyer, and
might be drawn into saying things which
would be only half truths. and standing alone
would he misleading or even false in effect
Is it likely that an investigation conducted
in this manner could result in fair. full and
truthful statement of the case in point Surely