Historical Documents - Office of the Historian

Americas unfailing friendship to Hawaii, and to all nationalities within our borders, reaffirmed.—Hawaiian history and its application to present issues.

[The Times, Saturday, February 1, 1890.]

[A reply by L. A. Thurston to the National Herald.]

The Herald does me the honor of devoting practically its whole English issue of the 31st of January to a criticism of my remarks at the armory on Thursday evening. If the subject-matter related to me personally, only, I should not think of intruding upon the public at this juncture, when important issues demand the undivided attention of the reading-public. But the subject-matter is so involved with an issue of vital import to the country, which issue awaits decision on the 5th of this month, that I make no further excuse for this statement.

I would first call attention to the circumstances under which, and the reasons for the allusion to the history of this country in connection with France, England, and the United States.

It has been publicly stated by the cabinet that they have initiated negotiations with the United States for the purpose of extending and rendering more permanent our present treaty relations with the United States.

The points concerning which the cabinet proposes negotiations, and the reasons therefor, have been publicly stated in all detail. It has also been publicly and officially [Page 304] stated that negotiations are preliminary in their character, of a nature necessary to bring the question up for discussion and action by the legislature, and that no final action is to be taken without full submission to and the approval of the legislature.

The published statement of the objects sought is a full enumeration of all that the cabinet has in view. The treaty sought is, we believe, a like preservative of the honor, dignity, and independence of the two countries, and conducive to their mutual commercial prosperity.

Without foundation therefor, regardless of the grave consequences of interference with the cordial relations existing between the two countries and solely for partisan influence upon the coming election, the gentlemen constituting the opposition to the present administration have for months filled the ears of the public, more particularly the native Hawaiians, with, violent appeals and false statements concerning the intentions of the cabinet and of the United States. This has been the keynote of their whole campaign. They have placed their whale reliance upon the ignorance of the people of the facts and the prejudice which their misrepresentations have produced. They have worked up and are still working up, by every disingenuous method, a strong distrust, prejudice, and antagonism in the minds of many of the native people toward the United States upon a wholly false basis and by an entire perversion of facts and history.

Under these circumstances it was due the United States and essential to the welfare of Hawaii that the long-tried, continued, and more than generous friendship of the United States toward Hawaii should be stated, and the most signal and complete illustration of it, heretofore secret history, made public.

In order to do this intelligently it was necessary to state the historical facts which in logical sequence led up to it. For this purpose, and thus far only, was reference made to early history and the relations of Hawaii with other countries.

The Herald charges that I have “purposely and knowingly garbled and misstated Hawaiian history for political purposes,” and that the demands of the French in 1849 and 1851 were based upon the differences existing between the two countries in 1839. In proof, and as sole proof, of these charges and statements, it prints a letter, dated 1839, signed by the “Hon. J. C. Jones, then American consul,” and five other foreign residents, laudatory of Laplace and his actions in 1839.

The reference to the occurrences of 1839 in my argument at the armory was simply incidental in its nature, those events chronologically preceding the events of ’49 and ’51, and being illustrative of the arbitrary methods employed in those days in settling differences with this country in its weakness, the approved method being to submit peremptory demands and require immediate compliance therewith, with the alternative of the loss of independence. Otherwise the occurrences of 1839 are entirely unconnected with the events of ’49 and ’51, which led up to and were the direct cause of the treaty of cession to the United States of 1851.

I again affirm, and the evidence hereafter cited proves, that the events of 1839 were not the moving causes of the action of any of the parties in ’49 and ’51, and that the incidents and moving causes of the former are unessential to an understanding of the events of the latter period, except to illustrate the fact that redress for real or imaginary wrongs was obtained in those days by force.

The religious intolerance displayed by the Hawaiian Government during its early history toward the Catholic faith and its believers is a portion of the history of this country which every lover of the good fame of the nation and of religious liberty regrets. It is no more and no less excusable than have been much more serious acts of religious intolerance perpetrated at different periods of their history by enlightened England, France, and New England.

Suffice it to say that the letter published by the Herald is a mere chip upon the stream of literature concerning the subject, which occupies hundreds of pages of diplomatic correspondence and volumes of contemporaneous history, written by the immediate parties interested upon both sides. Had my object been to discuss the religious differences of the time, there is far stronger documentary evidence on both sides concerning the subject than the letter referred to by the Herald.

In proof of the fact that the difficulties with France in 1849 and 1851, which caused the execution of the treaty of cession to the United States, I cite the following facts:

1.

The further merits or demerits of the Laplace controversy are not germain to this issue. It is sufficient to say that, whatever the feelings of the Hawaiians on the subject, the French were satisfied and Laplace sailed away, which the Herald itself cites a letter to prove.

2.

In 1839, a month before the arrival of Laplace, the Government had discontinued the policy of intolerance towards the Catholics, and in 1840 the King promulgated a constitution, guaranteeing religious liberty to all.

3.

In 1843, England and France executed the famous “recognition” treaty, which, was distinctly looked upon as a mark of friendly approval of the Hawaiian Government by those two countries.

4.

In 1844, France voluntarily returned to the Hawaiian Government the $20,000 which had been exacted by Laplace in 1839, the original packages of money being sent back in a French warship, specially detailed for that purpose; the return being accompanied with considerable ceremonial and mutual expressions of friendship and regard.

5.

In 1845, the late Bishop Maigret, who, during his long life here, held the confidence and respect of all classes and nationalities, irrespective of religious faith, wrote to Capt. Le Compt, of the French ship L’Heroine, as follows:

“Honolulu, Aug. 7, 1845.

“M. Commandant:

“I am happy to be able to inform you that we enjoy, at this moment, perfect tranquility, that all our old subjects of complaint have entirely disappeared, and that it is, in a great part, to the conduct, prudent and full of sagacity, of our estimable consul, that we owe this happy result.

“The number of our neophytes amounts to-day to 14,000. We have a hundred schools and nearly 3,000 children who attend them; sites for our churches have been granted to us. Our schoolmasters have been licensed, and have even received encouragement. The marriages of our Christians are no longer thwarted. We can not, then, do otherwise than give our praises of the Government in respect to us, and we pray you instantly ‘to be pleased to instruct the Admiral.’

“Be pleased to receive the assurance of the perfect consideration, with which I have the honor to be M. Commandant,

“Your very humble and obedient servant,

“L. D. Maigret.

“Monsier Le Compt,
“Commandant of the French Corvette L’Heroine.”

6.

In 1846 Bishop Maigret wrote a precisely similar letter.

7.

In 1846 a new treaty was concluded with France, eliminating the harsh terms of the treaty of Laplace of 1839. This produced an exceedingly friendly feeling toward France, which continued unbroken until, unhappily for both parties, M. Dudoit retired in 1848 from the French consulship and M. Dillon was appointed in his place.

M. Dillon immediately initiated a systematic and irritating interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom, arising largely out of personal hostility to R. C. Wyllie, minister of foreign affairs, picking flaws and making matters of extended diplomatic correspondence over circumstances of trifling importance. This continued until 1849, when the French Admiral Tromelin arrived, and after a short conference with M. Dillon the celebrated “ten demands “were formulated and presented to the Hawaiian Government with the peremptory request for immediate action. None of these demands referred to or mentioned the events of 1839.

Pending negotiations for the settlement of these demands the unprovoked spoliation of the fort, the destruction of the governor’s furniture, and the seizure and removal of the King’s private yacht took place, and Admiral Tromelin sailed away without further enforcement of the demands.

8.

In 1850 Hawaiian representatives went to France and attempted to obtain reparation for the losses and indignities sustained and to come to an understanding to prevent a repetition of them, but without results.

9.

In 1851 a new French consul, M. Perin, was appointed. Upon his arrival here he immediately, to the surprise of every one, re-presented the same “ten demands” which had been presented in 1849 by M. Dillion, although part of them had been already settled. An immediate compliance with the demands was required.

10.

In 1849 and 1851 the foreign residents of Honolulu of all factions and all nationalities were a unite in favor of the Hawaiian Government and against the demands of France. This is evidenced by the fact that one of the ten demands for payment of damages to M. Victor was immediately paid by subscription by the foreign merchants under the following circumstances, as appears by the correspondence hereunder set forth.

“Honolulu, September 1, 1849.

“Sir: I have the honor to inclose you a copy of the subscription list signed by the most respectable portion of the foreigners residing in Honolulu, unconnected with the Government, together with the copies of the account of Victor Chancerel and his receipt, of which documents (bearing testimony as to the feeling of the community towards Her Hawaiian Majesty’s Government in connection with the French claim, towards the officers and crew of Her Britannic Majesty’s ship Amphitrite) you will make such use as you may deem proper.

“I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

“H. Sea.

“His Excellency R. C. Wyllie,
“Minister of Foreign Relations.”

[Inclosure 1.]

Understanding that one of the demands of the French against the Hawaiian Government is for damages claimed by M. Victor, for disorderly conduct of some of the seamen belonging to Her Britannic Majesty’s ship Amphitrite, we, the undersigned, not wishing any stain to rest on the Amphitrite or crew, agree to liquidate said claim:

G. W. Hunter	$3.50	Dugald Mactavish	$3.50
Sea & Sumners	3.50	W. J. Robertson	2.00
W. Wond	3.50	William Gill	3.50
A. Porter	3.50	J. Macduff	2.00
H. Macfarlane	3.50	James Austin	2.00
F. Withington	3.50	R. S. Barker	2.00
James Robinson & Co	7.00	D. N. Flitner	3.50
Isaac Montgomery	3.50	Makee & Anthon	3.50
John Meek	3.50	A. B. Howe	3.50
Robert G. Davis	3.50	Swan & Clifford	3.50
J. C. Spalding	3.50	W. Phillips	2.00
Andrew Auld	1.00	Everett & Co	3.50
C. H. Marshall	1.00	S. W. Williams & Co	3.50
J. M. Stanley	3.50	A. H. Fayerweather	2.00
C. P. Robinson	3.50	A. H. Parker	2.00
Joseph Booth	3.50	T. Cummins	3.00
E. Brown	3.50	George Friel	2.00
George Pelly	3.50	Samuel Thompson	2.00

A much larger sum was subscribed, but as so many persons wished to sign, the amount of subscription was lowered as above.

H. Sea.

[Inclosure 2.]

Honolulu, August 30, 1847.

Received of Henry Sea, esq., the sum of $93.50, being amount claimed by me against H. B. M.’s Amphitrite for damages done by her crew at the French hotel, kept by me in Honolulu, and being one of the demands made by Admiral de Tromelin against the Hawaiian Government.

$93.50.

V. Chancerel.

Witness to signature,

Wm. Sumner.

A true copy of original receipt in my possession.

H. Sea.

It will be noticed that many nationalities are represented in this document, and two of the signers of the document of 1839, John Meek and George Pelly, were also signers of the above document, which they would not have been had the circumstances of the then French demand been based upon the differences of 1839. The “Hon. J. C. Jones” had left the country. Incidentally it may be stated that Mr. Jones was not United States consul in 1839, he having been removed from that office by his own Government, in 1838, on account of his disreputable character.

11. The unsubstantial nature of the French claims of 1849 and 1851 are evidenced by the fact that upon a knowledge of the situation relating to the United States coming to the French consul he withdrew the “ten demands” and substituted in place thereof a mild statement of four points which was presented for the consideration” of the Hawaiian Government, which points were thereupon referred by M. Perin to his Government for consideration, and nothing further was ever said or done about the “ten demands.”

There continued to be disconnected diplomatic correspondence with France upon various subjects until 1857, when a treaty was concluded with her much more favorable in its terms to Hawaii than any of the three previous treaties with France.

Since that date our relations with France have been without cause of complaint, and we are indebted to the French Government and people for many acts of kindness and courtesy, and are now upon the most cordial terms with France.

In view of the fact that the early religious difficulties between the Hawaiian Government and members of the Catholic faith have been practically made the basis of the charges against me, it is not inappropriate for me to here say for the last forty or fifty years the Catholic bishops and their subordinates in this country have ever been the warm friends of the Hawaiian Government during its many succeeding administrations, and the staunch supporters of peace and good order during the [Page 307] many trying periods through which the country has been called upon to pass; and that this has been largely due to the highminded and liberal character of the late Bishop Maigret and his successors, by reason of which the Catholic and Protestant faiths have flourished in the country, side by side, with little or no friction.

Concerning the personal abuse heaped upon me by the Herald, I have nothing to say.

Concerning the aspersions upon the character of my ancestors in this country, I would say that their records are too deeply engraven upon the history of this country to require any defense by me.

If I have disproved the charge of having “purposely and knowingly garbled and misstated Hawaiian history for political purposes,” I claim that, in the interest of civilized journalism, the responsible editor of the Herald should, at least, admit that he was misinformed as to the facts upon which he based his charges.

In conclusion, I here reaffirm the fact, which was the only point I sought to establish at the armory, that the United States of America has always, under all circumstances, and upon all occasions, been our true friend, and that she has ever exhibited toward, and extended to, the native Hawaiians and all residents of other nationalities dwelling within the borders of Hawaii, without discrimination of race or creed, the same unchanging kindly assistance, support, and good faith, and there is no indication of any change of such policy.

Lorrin A. Thurston.

Honolulu, February 1, 1890.

A rousing meeting.—A large gathering of citizens interested in reform at the Old Armory.

Yesterday evening a mass meeting of the fourth ward was held at the Old Armory. There was a large attendance, including many prominent citizens. The meeting throughout was of the most enthusiastic nature. It was called to order by Mr. J. H. Fisher, who nominated Mr. Theodore C. Porter as chairman amid applause. Mr. E. O. White undertook the duties of secretary, and Mr. Luther Wilcox was interpreter.

Mr. Porter said they had met to hear the views and expressions of their candidates and others. He would first call upon his excellency Mr. Thurston, minister of the interior.

Mr. L. A. Thurston, who was received with applause, said: The course of the opposition for the last few weeks reminds me of a statement recently made by Chauncey M. Depew in connection with the recent election in New York. He stated that formerly the Democratic party learned nothing and forgot nothing, that its present exponents learned nothing and forgot everything. That is just the situation, with the present opposition, although the country has a history concerning its relations with France, England, and the United States for the past fifty years they have learned nothing from it, and have forgotten all of it that they ever knew. They ignore facts and history and are running a campaign on ignorance and prejudice. They are pursuing the same course and using the same incendiary arguments and appeals to race feeling that they did prior to the 30th of July last. It led to bloodshed then and will not be their fault if it does not lead to bloodshed now.

The question of our relations with our great neighbor is a live issue with us. It affects us, our children, and our future. The only argument of the opposition ia that the Government is trying to sell out the country and that the United States is trying to gobble us up. They state that we shall have to keep a watch on the United States or else they will come and take away our independence. It shows they have learned nothing of our past history. I will state briefly what the history of this country with France and England has been. In 1839 a French man-of-war arrived and demanded $20,000 damages. The Government was very poor and had to scratch around for money, finally getting it from white people, to save bombardment. At the point of the gun the captain forced the Government to make a most unjust treaty, one claim of which was that there should not be more than 5 per cent duty charged on imports from France. In 1843 France and England entered into are treaty. They agreed not to interfere with this Government, which was not a party to it. If either country chose to take the country to-day they could; the treaty is between themselves, so far as that treaty is concerned. In 1849 another French war vessel arrived, and, trumping up a lot of charges, said if the Government did not come to terms, the King would be deposed and they would take the country. He would not weary them with all the demands, simply mentioning, four as follows:

1. That all correspondence between the two countries should be in French. 2. That the Catholic schools should have paid Catholic inspectors (the schools had an inspector for both Protestant and Catholic schools). 3. A small boy having gone into the Catholic Church, made fun of the priest and stuck his finger in the holy water, that such sacrilege should not be repeated. 4. Because certain English sailors had gone into a Frenchman’s saloon, got drunk on his brandy, and broke his glasses, a [Page 308] bill was made out for damages. This last demand was so ridiculous that the merchants subscribed $3.50 each and paid the damages. This clause was withdrawn. While the Government was trying to arrange matters, and while the prime minister was on board the French man-of-war, a squad of soldiers was sent ashore, who took possession of the fort, dismantled the guns, threw them into the harbor, went to Governor Kekuanaoa’s house, smashed the furniture, and threw it into the yard. As a finale, the French took the private yatch belonging to Kamehameha III and sailed it to Tahiti. It has never been heard of since nor has any compensation ever been made for it. They finally withdrew their claims. Next year Dr. Judd went to England and France and tried to arrive at some definite settlement with the French and see that it should not be repeated. He was put off, and returned to the islands in 1851. He had not been home long before another French vessel came in with similar demands. The Government at that time was weak, and in desperation the legislature passed the following:

joint resolution.

Be it resolved by the nobles and representatives of the Hawaiian Islands in legislative council assembled, That, in the sense of this house, the demands of France are so clearly unjust, and contrary to the laws of nations and to treaty; and the course pursued by her is so incompatible with the existence of a regular independent government in these islands. If France should persist in such a course, it will be the duty of the King to shield himself and his Kingdom from insult and oppression, by placing this Kingdom under the protection of some friendly state, and that should such emergency be so urgent as not to admit of the legislative council being convened, it shall be left to His Majesty, by and with the advice of his privy council, under such emergency, to consult the honor and safety of his Kingdom according to His Majesty’s best judgment; and that whatever he may do, will be binding upon the nation.

Passed both lionses of the Legislature, June 21, 1851.

Wm. L. Lee,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Keoni Ana,
President of the House of Nobles.

Approved by the King, August 4, 1851.

Kamehameha.

Keoni Ana.

He would state some facts which formed part of the unwritten history of this country, which were probably not known by a dozen people. The Government invited General Miller, British consul, to see them, and after telling him of France’s demands, asked him if England would protect the Islands, from France. General Miller replied, “I can not do it; we have a treaty (1843) with France.” The Government then sent for Mr. Severance, father of the present United States consul-general, who at that time was the United States representative, and asked him if the United States would protect the Islands against France. He said, “They will.” [Applause.] In accordance with the authority of the statute, a treaty was drawn up, and from this you can decide who has been the friend of this country when it needed a friend most. The treaty which is now made public for the first time is as follows:

We, Kamehameha III, by the grace of God of the Hawaiian Islands, King:

By and with the advice of our kuhina nui and counsellors of native chiefs, finding our relations with France so oppressive to my Kingdom, so inconsistent with its rights as an independent State, and so obstructive of all our endeavors to administer the government of our Islands with equal justice with all nations and equal independence of all foreign control and despairing of equity and justice from France, hereby proclaim as our royal will and pleasure that all our Islands and all our rights as sovereign over them are from the date hereof placed under the protection and safeguard of the United States of America until some arrangements can be made to place our said relations with France upon a footing compatible with my rights as an independent sovereign under the laws of nations and compatible with my treaty engagements with other foreign nations; or, if such arrangements be found impracticable, then it is our wish and pleasure that the protection aforesaid under the United States of America be perpetual.

And we further proclaim, as aforesaid, that from the date of publication hereof the flag of the United States of America shall be hoisted above the national ensign on all our forts and places and vessels navigating with Hawaiian registers.

Done at our palace at Honolulu this 10th day of March, A. D. 1851, and in the twenty-sixth year of our reign.

[l. s.]

Kamehameha

Keoni Ana.

[Page 309]

That King who signed it was the great and enlightened Kauikeaouli, who did more for his people than any other of the Hawaiian Kings, being the one who gave the people lands. He made the treaty, relying fully on the generosity and integrity of the United States, and his trust was not betrayed. [Applause.] That treaty was sent to the United States and laid there for months. The French admiral finally hearing something of the treaty withdrew his claim and left the country. [Laughter.] It may be of interest to mention that the U. S. S. Vandalia, so well known here, was in the harbor at the time and rendered assistance. Orders were given to Marshal Parke and he sewed Hawaiian and American flags together, the Tatter at the top, and sent them to all the sheriffs. He had one in the fort ready to hoist directly the French landed.

There was the situation, the country was ceded and the deed in the hands of the United States Government. The King, with the full knowledge and consent of the Legislature, of the chiefs and of his cabinet, had deliberately and formally ceded the country to the United States, and that Government had only to sit still and do nothing in order to hold the country. If they had done so this would have been United States territory to-day. The American Government on learning that this had happened under pressure and fear of the French, said it would not be fair to take advantage of the situation. The treaty, which had never been published, was returned, the flag was never hoisted, and we remain a free and independent country to-day solely through the generosity of the United States of America. [Loud applause.] The episode when the British took possession in 1843 is well known to all. For seven months the British flag floated over the islands. The King was deposed, ministers were out of office, the records of the Government show that the entire Government was carried on by Lord George Paulet and his subordinates. Another episode simply shows the feeling of the United States Government towards us. The United States frigate Constitution came into the harbor, the deposed King going on board. The royal standard was hoisted and a salute of 21 guns fired. Lord Paulet protested, saying “The islands are British territory, and you are saluting a man who has no authority.”

The American admiral replied, “I have recognized the man who is the King of the country, and if you do not like it you can lump it.” [Laughter.] England nobly atoned and has been a good friend to us ever since. Is there any question who has been our friend in the past, and who will continue to be our friend, first, last, and all the time? The United States has always been friendly towards these islands. The foreign office is full of expressions of regard and good-will from that country from the earliest records down to the last mail. A number of men in the opposition ranks were in the country and participated in these matters, but they have learned nothing from it and have forgotten it all. Now they have the cold impudence to come forward and talk about giving the United States the go-by and going to France for protection—through our distrust of the intention of the United States. They say that Thurston, Damon, and the other damned missionaries are going to sell the independence of the country; that they, the patriots, are the ones who will preserve it. Wilcox and men of his stripe are doing more to destroy the independence of this country than any other person. They are striving to produce a state of anarchy, and it will not take many more of such events of July 30 to lose our independence, and then who will we have to thank for it but the gallant leader of the opposition, R. W. Wilcox. [Loud and continued applause.]

The object of political discussion is to present arguments on principles involved, pro and con, and let the people decide at the polls. The opposition have a platform; do they discuss it? Do they discuss the Chinese question, development of the country, or the immigration question? On the contrary, we see Wilcox stigmatizing his countrymen as “traitors, murderers, thieves, and robbers,” and he proposes “to break their necks, stamp on them, and throw them in the water and let the sharks eat them.” Those are his arguments, by which he tries to show his patriotism. He went to Italy to be educated, and it has been the burden of his complaint that because the Government had supported and educated him for seven years it owed him an office and living, and that because he did not get it he was forced into despair and revolution. I have not heretofore stated that upon his return he came to me and asked me for something to do. I sent him to the superintendent of water works, who keeps in a book a record of water privileges, showing the distance from the sidewalk to the block. Mr. Wilson told Wilcox the record was two or three months behind, and he would give him $100 a month to keep it, and more if he did the work satisfactorily.

Wilcox took up the record book, and said that as the figures were in feet and inches and he had been educated in meters he did not feel competent to undertake the work. [Laughter.] He walked sadly and slowly out of the office from the $100 with unknown feet and inches to despair and revolution. [Laughter.] Wilcox’s chief grievance was that his education had been cut off in the middle. If he could only have had two years more to complete his course he would have been equipped [Page 310] for the battle of life. If he had had those two years more schooling he might then have been able to translate feet and inches into meters. [Laughter.] The Bulletin states there is no issue between the two parties; that whoever is elected, things will slide on about the same. I say there are live issues in this election and the future of this country depends a great deal on how it is decided. If Bush is to run bridge contracts and foreign diplomacy and Wilcox the engineering department, there will be a very different state of things to what the reform party has done. I leave it to you, next Wednesday, to say whether the reform Government shall go on with its work or whether you wish to see R. W. Wilcox sitting, with an Italian uniform on, in the Government building.

Wilcox’s love of liberty.

The Voice of the Nation says that R. W. Wilcox has imbibed too much of the spirit of liberty to undertake to pull this Government back to arbitrary methods and the old order of things. This is pretty good, considering that Wilcox himself testified on the stand, under oath, that his new constitution which he had prepared was like the old constitution, with but few minor changes.

It will be remembered, also, that he testified that he showed his constitution to Mr. Pahia, who told him that he had better put some check upon the power of the King to arbitrarily dismiss his cabinet, but that he (Wilcox) replied: “If you have a king, make him a king, just like the European kings.”

How much of the spirit of free institutions Mr. Wilcox has imbibed the reader can see, when he recollects that Wilcox complains continually in his speeches about the mixture of all classes in this country.

Who does not remember his hackneyed information that “there are three classes in Italy: First, royalty; second, the middle class; third, the rest of the people—farmers, traders, etc.; and that none of the third class can even get into the second class, never mind how much they improve their condition?”

an ignoble speech.

Mr. H. G. Crabbe is running as a noble for the Island of Oahu. While we are not sticklers for form or too much dignity and reserve, still we, in common with all people, recognize the fact that the position of noble is intended to represent the more conservative, dignified, and staid element in the legislative body.

Mr. Crabbe, so far from maintaining his dignity in the opposition meeting at Falama last week, indulged himself in the use of billingsgate that would have done credit to an artist in the use of such language.

Getting more and more personal, he called Mr. Achi a “little half-Chinese monkey,” and wound up finally with an out-and-out filthy epithet in Hawaiian, which raised a murmur of disapproval among the native listeners that were standing by.

For fear that the reader will hardly credit this, and will take the opposition general denial as correct, we challenge Mr. Crabbe to deny it if he can.

who is violating the law?

Mr. Macfarlane is credited, in his speech to the natives last Saturday night at the old armory, with saying that the opposition would peaceably abide the result of the election if defeated, but that it looked as if the reform party would not; that already the reform party were taking steps to challenge and shut off opposition electors from their vote.

The trouble is that it is the opposition itself and not the reform party that purposes to break the law, and has already done so. Unquestionably a large number of parties have registered as noble voters at the instigation of runners of the opposition who are not qualified to vote for nobles or anywhere near it, and perjured themselves thereby. These men should be challenged, and undoubtedly will be, and without placing the reform party open to the charge of wishing to make a disturbance or to violate the law.

[Page 311]

Mr. Macfarlane would do much better if he asserted more control over his party and urged his following not to attempt to vote the noble tickets next Wednesday, even though on the register of noble voters, if, as a matter of fact, they violate the law and their consciences in so doing.

To-morrow will be the election day in which eight men will be chosen, for better or worse, to hold power without further control on our part until the year 1896. Eight more will serve for four years, and the balance—both representatives and nobles—for two years.

The six-year men will be still in the legislature when our present treaty relations with the United States shall have expired, and all will have very important measures to pass upon before election day comes round again.

It is customary, we believe, to spring new matter on your opponents at the last minute, when it is too late for them to refute it.

We believe, however, that such a course is cowardly, and brings neither credit to the man who does it or much harm to the party against whom it is aimed, and we have refrained in this (practically) our last issue to present any new personal charges against the opposition. What charges we have made have been made openly and with full opportunity given the object of our attack to defend himself or themselves from it.

A charge kept back at the last minute is usually kept back because if put forward soon enough could be refuted. A well-founded charge should stand the test of a public sifting.

a serious charge.

Mr. John Phillips is indignant that the board of education has had the temerity to advertise for bids for the erection of schoolhouses and accept the lowest bid in all cases where they were satisfied that the bidder was responsible and able to fulfill his contract. This is indeed a serious charge! Why, it gives the poor mechanic, even though he is a native Hawaiian, an equal chance, so far as the board is concerned, with the owner of a planing mill! Those who are opposed to such a fair way of transacting business will vote for Mr. Phillips.

a denial by the cabinet.—the proposed treaty negotiations and the landing of the troops.

Some three months ago the cabinet met a committee of citizens who desired information concerning the proposed revision of our treaty relations with the United States.

Full information was verbally given at the time, and in the course of a few days a lengthy written statement was published.

The committee made no report to the meeting which appointed them, although they several times announced that they intended to report.

In yesterday’s Herald a member of the committee makes an altogether false statement in the native language of what occurred at that interview. He states that the committee were told by the cabinet that the King had rejected two sections of a proposed treaty, they being sections which allowed the landing of troops with their munitions of war.

No such statement was made.

We would further state that no proposition to allow the landing of troops and munitions of war on Hawaiian soil has been made either by the United States or the Hawaiian Government, nor will any such proposition be entertained or supported by the present administration.

Lorrin A. Thurston.
Jona Austin.
S. M. Damon.

america’s good faith and generosity

Amid all of the snarling, wrangling, and blackguarding of the opposition, and their attempts to engender bad blood and prejudice against the United States, the fact stands out bold and clear that:

Hawaii voluntarily surrendered her independence to the United States and the United States voluntarily restored it.

ten reasons for supporting the reform party.

1.: The Reform party has given us a free constitution.
2.: It has vigorously instituted and carried on a policy of public improvements.
3.: It has improved our reputation and credit abroad. (Under its administration government bonds have gone to a premium.)
4.: It has borrowed money at a lower rate than ever before.
5.: It has energetically pursued the policy of segregating the lepers.
6.: It has introduced the principle of civil-service reform.
7.: It has reduced the number of Chinese in the country by 3,000.
8.: It has opened up several hundred holdings to settlers under the homestead act.
9.: It has been economical.
10.: It has swept away a corrupt régime with all its attendant abuses, and has thereby abolished the use of the civil service for partisan purposes, the control of the Legislature by the Crown, the misappropriation of public funds, the violation of law in the conduct of office, the wasting of the public resources in discreditable enterprises, impoverishing the country at home and disgracing it abroad, and the neglect of necessary public improvements, besides a host of other things which our space forbids us to mention.

ten reasons for not supporting the “national reform party.”

1.: Because its prominent leaders are opposed to the new constitution.
2.: Because it proposes to revise the constitution in some unknown way.
3.: Because it proposes to modify or abolish altogether the property qualification.
4.: Because it proposes the election of certain public officers by the people (which is not known).
5.: Because its declared foreign policy is dangerous to the reciprocity treaty, and consequently to the commercial prosperity of the country.
6.: Because it is unwise to abandon a party which has deserved well of the country.
7.: Because a change of administration is always in itself a serious misfortune, and will be injurious to our credit abroad.
8.: Because the candidates of the party, with some honorable exceptions, are composed of men either without any record or with a bad one.
9.: Because the party has conducted the campaign by a systematic attempt to rouse race hatred and set the Hawaiian against the entire foreign element.
10.: Because this campaign is an undisguised attempt to nullify all the fruits of the revolution of 1887, and to carry out the insurrection of 1889.

Which ticket are you going to vote?

vote for permanent reciprocity. its effect on wool.

Wool, upon which a duty of ten cents a pound exists and which now barely pays the expense of putting on the market, and which we now ship across two oceans to Germany and elsewhere, would go through the Golden Gate, and the abolition of the duty would put sheep on every available spot on the mountain slopes of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea, where the single station of Humuula now tells what might be done with sheep if an impossible duty did not shut our wool out from the market which nature has ordained to be our national outlet.

vote for permanent reciprocity. its effects upon our fruit industry.

Permanent reciprocity means that every banana, lime, pineapple, orange, cocoanut, etc., that we raise goes into the United States free of duty until the crack of doom. It means that fruit orchards, which under a seven years’ treaty there is no use to create or spend any money on, will cover that home of tropical fruit, the two [Page 313] Konas, and cultivated bananas will be found in every one of the thousand gulches of the Hilo district, which, too steep for cultivation of sugar, now lie idle between the fields of cane. It means that the wood lands, running 60 miles from Hilo to Kukuihaele, too high for cane, will afford a home for the lime and coffee tree, where one can now see limes as large and coffee as healthy as ever gladdened the eye of man.

Waialua, whose orange trees, neglected and slighted as they are, still insist on bearing fruit which discount California’s best, will be as familiar an object in the hotels of the Pacific slope as Florida’s favorites are in the markets of the East.

vote for permanent reciprocity. its effect on clerks.

Clerks can remember the Hon. Charles R. Bishop, P. C. Jones, J. C. Glade, T. H. Davies, and many others, who came here and worked their way up the ladder step by step, and with the upward movement of permanent reciprocity commence to climb the stairs themselves. It looks as if the clerks of this city were now booked to remain such for good, or else be fired out by Asiatics; but new times will make a change.

Remember that a name scratched is a vote lost for the party that constitutes the backbone and enterprise of the land.

That a vote for the best man on the other side, as the issues have narrowed down, is a vote for all that that man has identified himself with.

vote for permanent reciprocity. its effect on mechanics.

Mechanics can remember that Young, and Renton, and Thomas, and Daniel Foster, and many others coming here as mechanics, worked their way to the front on the tide of prosperity which came with reciprocity, and from their example can take heart that in a newer and broader commercial dispensation they, too, will work their way to that competency which is the legitimate ambition of every honest man, but which seems shut out by the absorption of one developed industry.

Remember that your vote is essential to the sure and complete overthrow of the reactionary elements among us;

That the men on your ticket represent the spirit of progress among us, and as such should be elected to a man.

vote for permanent reciprocity. its effect on capital.

Abiding, which can not be revoked without mutual consent, means the settling of values and the restful confidence of capital. The complaint against the steady withdrawal from the country of hundreds of thousands of dollars made in it would cease, for there would be no occasion for it.

reform party. general election of 1890. platform.

1.: We pledge ourselves to maintain inviolate the autonomy and independence of this Kingdom, while securing at the same time the amplest commercial benefits in our treaty relations with the United States.
2.: To secure adequate legislation, by constitutional amendment or otherwise, whereby Asiatic immigration shall be restricted to the agricultural necessities of the country, and Chinese not now engaged in trade or the mechanical occupations shall be prohibited from hereafter engaging therein.
3.: To favor wise and liberal appropriations for internal improvements, and to sustain a progressive policy in the development of our national resources.
4.: To secure such an extension of the present homestead act as will facilitate the settlement of small landholders throughout the Kingdom.
5.: To procure for the people an honest, economic, and efficient administration in all departments of the Government.

candidates.

For Nobles—Island of Oahu.— Hon. W. C. Wilder, Hon. M. P. Robinson, Hon. W. O. Smith, six years. Hon. J. I. Dowsett, sr., Robert Lishman, R. J. Greene, four years. S. M. Kaaukal, E. S. Kunha, B. F. Dillingham, two years.

For Representatives—District of Kona, Oahu.—District 1: Hon. Cecil Brown. District 2: S. K. Kane. District 3: M. A. Gonsalves. District 4: James F. Morgan, District 5: W. C. Achi. District 6: J. L. Kaulukou. District 7:——. District 8: J. I. Dowsett, jr.

[Page 314]

For Nobles—Island of Hawaii.—J. Kauhane, J. M. Horner, six years. R. R. Hind, Hon. Dr. J. Wight, four years. Hon. Samuel Parker, Dr. C. H. Wetmore, two years.

For Represntatives—Island of Hawaii.—South Hilo: R. Rycroft. Central Hilo: Geo. Kaihenua. North Hilo: Albert Horner. Hamakua: W. H. Rickard. Kohala: J. W. Moanauli. Kona:—— Kau:——.

For Nobles—Island of Maui.—Hon. H. P. Baldwin, W. Y. Horner, six years. W. H. Cornwell, R. D. Walbridge, four years. Jas. Anderson, L. Yon Tempsky, two years.

For Representatives—Island of Maui.—Wailuku, district 1: W. K. Makakoa. Wailuku, district 2: Patrick Cockett. Makawao: W. H. Halstead. Hana: Jos. U. Kawainui. Lahaina:——. Molokai:——.

For Nobles—Island of Kauai.—Hon. Geo. N. Wilcox, six years. Hon. P. P. Kanoa, four years. Hon. P. Isenberg, sr., two years.

For Representatives—Island of Kauai.—Hanalei: Hon. A. S. Wilcox. Lihue: Hon. W. H. Rice. Waimea: V. Kuudsen.

To the readers of the Times:

When your eyes shall rest upon this last issue of the Times, election day will already have partly run its course.

At such a time above all others we would make no mad appeal for the Reform party, no loud declamation against the opposition; but wish only to address you in the language of soberness and truth.

A strong movement, like that begun on the 30th of June, by the Reform party must naturally expect some day to have to meet the reactionary wave that is always sure to follow. That wave has come to-day full-crested with the accumulated passions, prejudices, and disappointment of those who, like the Bourbon of France, “decline to forget anything or to learn anything new,” and while you are now scanning these lines those two waves are meeting in a clash and collision that will settle things one way or other before the sun goes down.

If, after the collision, the Reform party is found still moving on, then reaction is gone forever. Bush, Wilcox, and their partisans have lost their employment for good. Nothing can then revive the past.

If, however, reform goes down, the leadership of Wilcox and his following are assured, and hundreds of dubious hearts will follow in his train and hasten to enforce his mandates and back up his demands who now are waiting to see which way the tide will turn.

We believe this country will never see social or political place as long as men can run politics on race lines or consent to reap the advantages to such work when done by hirelings. Every man who is opposed to such methods should see to it that Messrs. Widemann, Macfarlane, Muller, Phillips, and others are rebuked to-day for such a course, to the end that it may be established in this land of varied races from now on, that any political party, however laudable its objects may be, which seeks to secure them at the price of stirring up ill-will and race prejudice among the people, will for that act alone be snowed under so deep that even Gabriel’s political trumpet will fail to rouse it from its slumbers.

We believe that an intelligent glance at the platform of the Opposition shows, clearly, and the tone of its campaign confirms the fact, that it will if successful inaugurate a foreign policy inimical to the United States and imminently dangerous to our present commercial relations with that country. Feeling as we do that the whole fabric of society with us, political, social, and commercial, rests on that sheet of parchment we call the treaty, we can not, as a public organ, but warn the people against the folly of provoking results which will blight and bankrupt the country, drive out mechanics, force property on the market until it becomes a drug, and compel the delivery of the country once and for all over to Asiatics as the only class that could survive the collapse and save the forty millions invested in sugar.

Let us hold to our present treaty relations with the United States as a drowning man clings to the life buoy. Let us in all honorable ways promote the good will and fellowship now existing between our neighbor and ourselves, and press for such broader and more permanent commercial relations as will give this country and all the spare capital within it a new start, and to the young men of the land fuller and increasing opportunities to make a start in life for themselves.

With these words the Times bids the public farewell, with many thanks for its kind reception. Aloha nui!

Remember! That your opponents will vote the straight party ticket.

That they will not scratch any names in favor of men on your ticket whom you like best.

That those who advise you to scratch do so in the interests of the party whom you wish to see defeated.

That if the Reform party wins the election, progressive constitutional government is assured.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1894, Appendix II, Affairs in Hawaii

Mr. Stevens to Mr. Blaine