No. 399.
Mr. Comly
to Mr. Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Honolulu, October 24, 1881.
(Received November 9.)
No. 194.]
Sir: Referring to my No. 189 and to former
communications on the subject of the British claims, I have the honor to
report further as to the attempt to create distrust in the mind of the
regent in regard to the intentions of the United States.
There is no doubt in my mind that the British commissioner excited sufficient
alarm in the mind of the princess regent to cause her to correspond directly
with him, and without submitting her notes to the inspection of the cabinet
or privy council; and it is believed that she accepted some sort of
assurance from him that Great Britain would protect the independence of the
islands against alleged anticipated violent proceedings on the part of the
United States.
It is for this reason that I took occasion of my separate
and confidential” note, informing the minister (as directed by the
Secretary of State) of the approval of his position on the British claims,
to refer also to the effort to sow distrust in the mind of the princess, and
the real reason for such action.
I have received no written reply to this note, and it has been intimated
pretty clearly in a confidential way that there are things with reference to
the action of the regent which it is not pleasant or easy for his excellency
to put upon paper. I respectfully invite the attention of the Secretary of
State to my note above cited.
Having at a later date forwarded the answer of Captain Gillis, showing that
the failure of the Lackawanna to salute was the result of neglect on the
part of the governor of Oahu (husband of the regent), I was surprised to
find how active their alarm had been, and what a load was taken off the mind
of the regent and others, as will more dimly appear in the formal reply of
the minister of foreign affairs.
I believe confidence is now fully restored.
I have, &c.,
[Page 631]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 194.]
Mr. Comly to Mr.
Green.
Legation of the United States,
Honolulu, September 7,
1881.
Separate and confidential.
Sir: The Secretary of State has acknowledged
the receipt of a “separate and confidential” dispatch from this
legation, transmitting a copy of the inclosure with your “private” note
of June 28, 1881.
The honorable Secretary of State expresses confidence that the Hawaiian
Government desires and intends to strictly carry out the provisions of
the reciprocity treaty in perfect good faith; and concurs in the opinion
that the extension of the privileges of this treaty to other nations,
under the “most favored nation” clause in existing treaties, would be as
flagrant a violation of the stipulations of Article IV, as a specific
treaty making the concession, and is wholly inadmissible.
I am instructed to say that the Government of the United States considers
this stipulation as of the very essence of the treaty, and cannot
consent to its abrogation or modification, directly or indirectly.
I am instructed to add that if any other power should deem it proper to
employ undue influence upon the Hawaiian Government to persuade or
compel action in derogation of this treaty, the Government of the United
States will not be unobservant of its rights and interests, and will be
neither unwilling nor unprepared to support the Hawaiian Government in
the faithful discharge of its treaty obligations.
Having promptly informed the minister of the interior (ad interim for the foreign office during your exeellency’s
absence with the princess regent) of the substance of the foregoing,
verbally, and having verbally repeated the same to your excellency on
your return, I have carefully considered the important dispatches from
the honorable Secretary of State, in order to accurately render my
instructions in writing.
There is another matter, your excellency, which has been brought through
irregular channels to my attention, and which I suspect to have an
intimate relation to the enforcement of the British claims.
Your excellency must be aware that an effort has been made to awaken
distrust and fear as to the intentions of the United States in the mind
of the princess regent, and that assurances of British protection were
tendered to the princess regent in view of an alleged aggressive and
aggrandizing temper in the United States.
It is a little irregular to refer your excellency to newspaper
publications, but men of affairs in these days often consult these
sources for the first public intimations of important matters. I will,
therefore, ask your excellency to read in a supplement to this day’s
Hawaiian Gazette, a dispatch dated Victoria, August 19, in which the
colonist newspaper is quoted as saying that “the cause which led to the
quick dispatch of H. M. S. Gannet for the Sandwich Islands on Monday,
arose from the fact that telegraphic information was received of the
intention of the United States to gobble up Kalakaua’s kingdom. It is
added that the flag-ship is hastening towards Honolulu.
The unmitigated absurdity of the report as to the United States is
equaled only by the spectacle of my revered British colleague,
“protecting” the independence of the Sandwich Islands from the grasping
embrace of the United States of America with a third class gunboat
(gallantly manned, unquestionably). It is beyond the stretch of
credulity itself to believe that there is any real alarm on the score of
the United States and it becomes necessary to seek the real pretext for
these existing facts and rumors.
The publications in the American newspapers as to the alleged offering of
the kingdom for sale have been harped upon assiduously. Now, if your
excellency please, it seems to be overlooked that the first publication
of this rumor was in a London dispatch to the New York World. The London
correspondent of the World is Mr. Louis J. Jennings, an Englishman, a
well-known contributor to the London Times, an intimate personal friend
of its late editor, and of its present proprietor. Mr. Jennings is in
the closest relations with the government circles in London. What reason
he may have had for sending such a dispatch I leave to your conjecture.
Mr. Jennings had been at one time managing editor of the New York Times,
and he knew enough of American newspapers to know how a certain class of
sensation-mongers would enlarge upon his hint. As the government does
not edit the newspapers in the United States, it should not be held
responsible for them.
One more fact, the first authoritative denial of the absurd rumor that
the King was peddling his kingdom came from a London dispatch to the New
York Herald. Excuse the unavoidable personality, but the gentleman in
charge of the Herald’s European correspondence and in personal
supervision of the London bureau, is a connection of my family, a fact
of no great interest or significance, otherwise than as the reverse of
Mr. Jennings’s obverse.
[Page 632]
I am sensible, as I have said before, that these matters are being
brought before your excellency (as they were to me) a little out of the
regular official channels; but they are of interest, and may not seem
out of place in a “separate and confidential” note.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 194.]
Mr. Comly to Mr.
Green.
Legation of the United States,
Honolulu, October 11,
1881.
No. 212.]
Sir: Referring to our conversation of some
months ago, with reference to the omission of the U. S. S. Lackawanna to
salute her royal highness, the princess regent, upon her departure for
the island of Hawaii, I now have the honor to address you.
Your excellency may remember that I stated, on the occasion of our former
conversation, that I was confined to my room by illness the day the
regent left, and consequently had not been aware, until after the
Lackawanna left port, that the salute had not been fired, as no one
happened to speak of it in my hearing. I also stated my firm conviction
that the omission could not have occurred through any disrespect on the
part of Captain Gillis, who expressed warmly his sentiments for the
regent, and her husband and family, whom he had long known. I also
volunteered to write to Captain Gillis, asking him to explain through
what inadvertence the salute had failed. 1 wrote by the first mail, and
I now have Captain Gillis’s reply, from which I extract the following,
covering all that is said on this point.
“U. S. S. Lackawanna,
“Mare Island, California, September 8, 1881.
“My Dear General: Your favor of the 27th
ultimo reached me last evening, and I lose no time in replying to
same.
“If you remember, Governor Dominis mentioned to me, at the reception
accorded by her royal highness, that it was expected that her royal highness would leave on the
following day, and the governor said he would inform me, by note, at what time she would leave. I told
him that if he would send the note to the care of the United States
consul, it would be forwarded to me without delay. No such note was
received, and I did not know that the princess was positively to
leave until I heard the salute being fired, and, at that time, I was
on shore, and it was then too late to show her that respect which it
would have afforded me great pleasure to have paid her, and, I
really think, that if there was cause of complaint from any one,
there was more reason for my finding fault with the neglect to
inform me of the intended departure of her royal highness, in
accordance with the promise of Governor Dominis. But I did not for a
moment attribute any such neglect on the part of the governor to an
intentional discourtesy on his part.
* * * * * * *
“Sincerely and truly yours,
“J. H. GILLIS.”
It affords me considerable gratification to find my anticipations so
fully met by the reply of Captain Gillis.
I am glad to take the opportunity to renew, &c.,
[Inclosure 3 in No. 194.]
Mr. Green to Mr.
Comly.
Department of Foreign Affairs,
Honolulu, October 14,
1881.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your
dispatch No. 212, dated 11th instant, with reference to the omission of
the U. S. S. Lackawanna to salute her royal highness, the princess
regent, upon her departure for the island of Hawaii. I take due note of
the copy of the extract of the letter from Captain Gillis to your
excellency by which it appears that Captain Gillis expected to receive a
written notification from Governor Dominis as, to the exact time when
her royal highness was to depart, and his not having received this was
the reason that the salute was not fired.
[Page 633]
I have shown your dispatch to her royal highness and the governor, and it
affords them great pleasure to find that the omission to fire the salute
was through an inadvertence only, arising perhaps in some measure from
the omission of his excellency the governor to send the said
notification, but the governor was under the impression that the
notification was to be sent to Captain Gillis, only in case of any
change in the time of her royal highness’s departure. He regrets that
there should have been any misunderstanding on his part, and has to
thank Captain Gillis for his kind expressions toward the regent and
himself.
I need hardly say that I am also much pleased to find that the omission
of this salute was, as indeed I expected to learn, accidental, and I
have to thank you for the trouble you have taken in clearing the matter
up.
I take this opportunity to renew the assurances of my highest respect and
consideration.
I have, &c.,
W. L. GREEN,
Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
