Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1901-12-24
MRS. De FRIES ASKED
SOME PLAIN QUESTIONS

Mrs. Emma De Fries: In the Pa.
cific Commercial Advertiser of the
18th instant you make an extreme ef-
fort, but vague and evasive reply to
the articles referred to by you, which
appeared in the Evening Bulletin of
the 18th and 18th instants, contradict.
ing an article that appeared in the
p. C. A. of the 9Th instant, of which
you were suspected and accused of be.
ing the author.
As to the articles mentioned of the
18th and 13th instants, | am only re-
sponsibe for the one of the 18th, which
claim to be the truth. and shall en-
deavor to convince you and the public
by certain facts in as few words as
possible, ard leave the matter to the
public as sole Judge in the premises,
letting the controversy here end, as
far as I am concerned, as | do not be.
lieve that the subject Is Of much In.
terest to the English.reading public.
A subject of this kind should have
been published in the Hawaiian papers
to be read by the people whom 1t most
interests. At the same time this ex'
posure may be the means Of saving
some foreigners who did not tnow the
difference, and also the travelling pub.
lic--tourists. historians and the like
from being gulled and victimized by
such bogus and fraudulent literature
as has been published in the columns
OF some of our local papers of late and
furnished by an irresponsible pretend
er.
My statement relative to Mrs. Kau.
mana Kapoll Widemann's genealogy
has been borne out ana corroborated
by A. X. Palekaluhi, in an article over
his name, In the p. c. A. of the 10th
instant. He is a well.known, recogniz.
ed authority in the genealogy Of the
aliis and chiefs of the Islands Of ka
uai and Niihau, the home of Mrs.
Widemann. he being very high
chief himself of the Island OF Kauai.
| am also supported by others in the
article which appeared in the Bulletin
of the 18th and over the names Of
| responsible people who are well known
to all informed Hawaiians as high
chiefs.
AS to your being charged as the
author of the genealogy in question,
1t was SO inferred by me in the last
paragraph Of the said article. with
which you take issue, and you only
attempt to deny the inference by stat
ing 1t lis not true" You take UNI.
bragg at this paragraph and quote
from II cIause wnich may seem SO,
we're, put Is hever,neiess true, anu
am very sorry tnat IL Is 100 true. For
the peter lnlormation Oh tne reaoers
VIII reproduce ,ne paragraph;
nave learned from gOou authority
that MIS-. ne FRIES was the author OF
.ne pupilsneu Wiuenlann sehealoss II, ~
tne AuNertiseI Oh une oth instant; ~
.nis .hs.ahce 'ne Niuehlahns at leas'
ousnt 10 nave more common sense
oeins eouca,eu; man 10 ha'e ns'eneu
70 sueh ruoplsh' tne plouuc' ., 'he
oiaIhs vi s'neins Monlan WHY, as
means VI eN.ol .'ns "ohe. i,on
mos WHY van VIC 81 war III niinu aS
W ,o Oh po" ~, ..a s oe
~ ,.,a,a,',a ~, ~ W, .i a"u az -. Ill IL
w,i,am ~ W ~ ,.uou.' ' VI '"' ''
IT, s,,hs,o ,,,a,o III o,,
,oi,o5 w ,,a,. III, .ns go. gu I'm I'm
rerninp IL witch would he bet,er ner
hans left unsaiS hut mnder tho circ,n,
, stances must he said n i, will mt
sion To the wor, of sucb fraudulen
schemers
First. Is II not n fact tnat durin,
the month of October. 1eOO, vol
brought 10 the Widemann home IN
original copy of that noted genealogy
las was pubIisbed in the Advertiser q
the 9Th Instant. which I recognized I,
be the same with the execution q
only two slight changes in the name
OF Punapapaeka TO OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
and Kaluajpihano to Kaluaipihana
otherwise II was the same. And i,
comparing your conv with tho one nre