No. 199.
Mr. Daggett to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Honolulu , January 15, 1884. (Received January 29.)
Sir: In relation to the Hawaiian coinage and bond question, to which reference was made in my dispatches Nos. 106 and 110, I have the honor to inform you that a full bench of the supreme court has decided that a mandamus was not a proper writ to restrain the minister of finance from exchanging Hawaiian 6 per cent, bonds for Hawaiian silver currency. Thereupon, to the same end, an injunction was applied for; but it was denied, for the reason that the minister of finance, in his answer, disclaimed any intention to issue the bonds for the consideration objected to by the petitioners. The position of the petitioners has been substantially sustained, however, in the assumption by the court that the face value of the new Hawaiian silver coins does not represent the “par value,” for which the bonds can alone be exchanged. In the mean time an additional $180,000 in Hawaiian subsidiary silver coins arrived here on the 8th instant, making $300,000 in all. Mr. Claus Spreckels also arrived from San Francisco at the same time. Reasonably, Mr. Spreckels is by no means disconcerted at the judgment of the supreme court. As the privy council has given to the coinage a legal-tender value, he can use the million dollars he is authorized to coin more advantageously in the payment of plantation expenditure than in exchanging the coin for Hawaiian bonds, especially since the large seigniorage of the coinage accrues to Mr. Spreckels alone.
Should the Government find itself unable to purchase these coins, they may readily be put in circulation by a branch of the Anglo-Cali-fornia Bank of San Francisco which is about to be established hereunder the firm-name of Spreckels & Co.
Very respectfully, &c.,