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

Mr. Stevens to Mr. Blaine.

No. 26.]

United States Legation,
Honolulu, June 9, 1890.

Sir: I improve the first mail opportunity to forward two copies of the speech of Hon. L. A. Thurston, Minister of Interior, just delivered in the Hawaiian Legislature. It is a clear, strong statement of facts, as I had previously ascertained them by careful investigation, and these plainly indicate the actual political situation here, showing that in my former dispatches I had not been mistaken as to my general views of the condition of affairs.

Mr. Thurston is a gentleman of marked ability, of tried integrity, and of real courage. He is a native of the islands, as were his father and mother, both of his grand parents being of sturdy Connecticut stock, having come here as missionaries nearly seventy years ago. He has been, from its beginning, a bold and earnest leader in the reform party, and has the entire confidence of the best men of the islands. He can always be relied on as a friend of the country of his ancestry. His speech has made so decided an impression that it is possible that the heterogeneous majority of the opposition party in the Legislature may become a minority and not be able to force out the present ministry.

I have, etc.,

John L. Stevens.

[Inclosure.]

[From the Honolulu Commercial Advertiser of June 7, 1890.]

The Minister of the Interior: I am ready to speak to the question of privilege in regard to the reply of the attorney-general to the questions of Nobles Crabbe and Muller. The answer of the attorney-general amounted to a general charge against the cabinet of interfering with him in the discharge of his duties and of acting in a manner derogatory to the interests of the community, in maintaining last April an armed guard at the police station. The charges of the attorney-general resolve themselves into three, which I shall take up in turn.

1. That the marshal maintained, during April last, an armed guard in the police station, with the approval of the majority of the cabinet, and against the approval of the attorney-general.

2. That such action was unwise, unnecessary, and groundless.

3. That if there was any reason to apprehend a disturbance the action taken was such as to precipitate the very disorders it was intended to prevent.

Mr. President, I admit the first charge. I admit that the majority of the cabinet maintained a guard at the station house not only without the consent of the attorney-general, but that he did everything in his power to prevent it. The thing that he did not do was to go down and find out what was actually going on. I think that instead of censuring the marshal, he deserves the thanks of the community that in spite of the resistance of his superior officer he had the principle and the courage to take measures which, I think, prevented the recurrence of happenings similar to those of the’ 30th of July last.

Having admitted the first charge, that the marshal defied his superior officer and the cabinet approved it and advised it, only a strong reason can exculpate the cabinet, and if I do not give sufficient reason for their action, I ask that they be condemned as they should be.

Our defense is that at that time the majority of the cabinet had good reason to believe that Volney V. Ashford and Robert W. Wilcox were contemplating violence, and that the attorney-general, if not actually assisting, was conniving at it. Now I maintain that I have not got to furnish legal proof of this, such as would be needed to procure a conviction before a jury; but if I show that we had good reason to believe it we were justified in the action which we took. I don’t propose to indulge in rhetoric or adjectives, but to make plain statement of facts and of the information which I received, and then let the gentlemen here draw their own conclusion. The reasons which actuated us involve a considerable amount of the secret history of this country during the last three years. I do not propose to state any facts which are not essential. There are a large number which bear on the subject which I have stricken out, but I think that I have retained enough to convince the house.

I will show first why we had cause to distrust R. W. Wilcox and to believe that he was intending to disturb the peace.

As you all know, Mr. Wilcox was several years a ward of this country studying abroad, until his return in 1887. A fact not so generally known is that he organized at that time a conspiracy to dethrone the King, overthrow the ministry, and proclaim a new constitution. One of those who assisted him in drawing up the constitution is now present in this house. They went so far as to actually have the constitution engrossed, and Wilcox, with others, went into the palace and demanded of the King that he abdicate and declare his sister Queen. They even had the form of abdication written out for him to sign. If it had not been for the faithful service of Robt. Parker, the matter which came to a head in July, 1889, might have come to a head in the early part of 1888. The tactics which Wilcox pursued were almost identical with those which he employed in last July, except that he went into it so subtly that he managed to draw in a great many innocent persons, who did not understand it until they were so deep in that they could not withdraw. One of these became frightened and came and told us, and that is how we came to know about it. As soon as I learned about it, I sent for several of the prominent conspirators, one after another, and charged them with it, and they confessed. I put their statements in writing and they signed them, and I have those statements to-day. The object was, straight and simple, to compel the King to abdicate. They had the abdication all written out and they tried to compel him to sign it. Within a day or two after the matter came to my knowledge, they all knew that I knew it. The wife of R. W. Wilcox came to me (as she said, at the request of her husband) and begged me with tears that they might be allowed to go away. She said they would go back to Italy and that would be the last of it. It may be said that the cabinet ought to be condemned for not bringing it all out at that time, and so preventing the trouble of July 30.

Perhaps we were right and perhaps we were wrong. The reason we did not was that the country had been disturbed and we did not wish to again arouse alarm. Nobody knew of the affair, and they promised to reform. Robt. Wilcox came to me himself and admitted the whole affair; said that he had been wrong, that he saw his mistake, but had been desperate, living as he was on charity. That he was angry with the King for not giving him an office which he had expected and been promised. He said he would go back to Italy and take service in the Italian army where they were fighting in Arabia, and that perhaps he would obtain promotion there. It seemed to us best, after mature deliberation, not to prosecute, and so no arrests were made, no publicity was given to it. Wilcox was allowed to go and he went. After this there were no disturbances, no rumors—everybody went about his business with the unconsciousness that everything was all right and that the country was secure.

This state of things continued until Wilcox came back in 1889. He had scarcely arrived before we began to receive information that he was trying to bring about the same thing again. There is no need of my repeating the events of July last, as it has all been before the courts. Now, after all that had happened in 1888, after his exposure and failure, his repentence and promises, he came back and repeated his attempt, and to-day he has the blood of 7 poor Kanakas on his head. The results of his second attempt you all know. He was tried and acquitted. You know what has happened since. He made a triumphal tour through the country, not only expressing no regret and repentence for what he had done, but glorifying in it, representing himself as a patriot and saying that if he had a chance he would do the same thing again. So things went on until some time before the election. Then rumors again began to go around, and I received direct information that he was again discussing schemes of violence and that as a first step he intended to take the station house; that he had been discussing that with V. V. Ashford, and with his assistance was devising plans as to how it might be accomplished. R. W. Wilcox stated to several of his friends the substance of his conversation with V. V. Ashford. Two of them gave me their statements in writing. They are persons who were politically opposed to me. It is unnecessary for me to state that one of them was Antone Rosa, since he has stated the same thing over his own signature in the public press.

I went immediately to Mr. Rosa, upon hearing that he knew of the matter, and said: “You and I are not politically in accord, but we both know that there is nothing will so damage the country as a repetition of July 30. We can sink our political differences in the attempt to prevent anything of this kind. I shall certainly do all that I can, and I think it is your duty to do all you can to prevent anything of the kind.” He said that he took the same view, and would do what he could to ferret out what was going on, and he did. I think Mr. Rosa deserves the thanks of this house and of the community for sinking his political differences and doing what he could to prevent what would have injured the country.

Mr. V. V. Ashford soon heard of the rumors with regard to his conversation with Wilcox and sent for him and asked him if he had made any such statement. Mr. Wilcox said he had not. Mr. Ashford asked him if he would put that in writing, and Wilcox said he would. Mr. Ashford prepared a written statement which Robert Wilcox signed, and that statement is now in Mr. V. V. Ashford’s possession. Then Wilcox went after Rosa for having told of it. Mr. Rosa said: “Didn’t you tell me what I say that you did.” Wilcox replied: “Yes; but I told you in confidence, and not to tell anyone else.”

This put a quietus on Mr. Wilcox for some time. After the election Mr. Wilcox felt jubilant. He said that he had made the party successful and was entitled to the leadership of it, and would be made minister. Upon this some of the respectable members of his party began to grow restive, and expressed themselves in very decided language to the contrary. Then Mr. Wilcox told some of his friends that he was beginning to suspect the good faith of his haole associates, and that they would not help him to become minister and that he must look out for himself. He accordingly consulted with some of those who had been associated with him in July last, and asked them if they would be willing to help him again, if necessary. Some of them said yes, some were kanalua, and some said that they had had enough. Feelers were sent out and various persons were asked if they would assist in turning the Government out if matters came to a head. I have information from a gentleman in whom every member of this house has confidence, who was asked in front of the post-office by one of Wilcox’s intimate friends if he would help take the station house; that they wore going to have a meeting that night to discuss it.

Several of my informants were then, and still are, members of the opposition party. One actively expressed himself during the election for the express purpose of getting the cabinet out of office.

This brings the matter to the 17th of April, which the attorney-general considers the culminating iniquity of the cabinet.

The second question which I shall consider is why the cabinet distrusted V. V. Ashford and believed that he was favorable to creating a disturbance. I will not go back to the 30th of July last, although there are a number of earlier instances which I might mention. Shortly after July 30 rumors and statements began to be circulated that V. V. Ashford, although he commanded the force against Wilcox, yet knew more than he ought to about that movement, and that his heart was not entirely in the action which he took that day. At first I did not take much stock in these rumors, for people talk as much here as they do anywhere; but as time passed on I received intimations that there were facts at the bottom of these reports, and I thought that I ought to investigate. I did not consult C. W. Ashford. Blood is thicker than water. Although I will state that I had at that time implicit confidence in the attorney-general. As a result of my investigations I have statements in writing from friends of the Government, from enemies, and from neutrals, and I state unhesitatingly that V. V. Ashford knew of and counseled and advised the disturbance of last July; that he sent messengers to Wilcox saying that the King and the cabinet were at loggerheads, and that now was the time to act.

Matters were quiet after the 30th of July, so far as his action was concerned, excep that his conduct was characterized by the most violent denunciations of the cabit net, publicly and without stint, to such an extent that a member of the diplomatic corps came to a member of the cabinet, and although as he said he was acting beyond the scope of his official duty, warned them not to have confidence in a man talking as V. V. Ashford was.

V. V. Ashford became a frequent contributor to opposition newspapers, declaiming against the Government in the bitterest terms, giving out false statements with regard to the cabinet, and stating that he got them from his brother, although I did not believe anything of the sort. As an illustration, one of the members of this house lately told me that at about that time Mr. Ashford told him that he was so anxious to have this ministry turned out that he would rather have the country go back to the old régime than see it go on with them in office, and would rather see the country reduced to ashes than have them remain.

So matters continued, Mr. President, until two or three weeks before the election. That was a time of a good deal of uncertainty; Both parties were confident, and neither was sure. At that time V. V. Ashford had a quarrel with his political friends. Although in a position, as commander of the volunteer forces, of high responsibility and trust under the Government, he had been an active political worker against the Government. Then he sent word to me and asked for a truce between himself and the Government, and asked that I make an appointment with him (which for reasons was not kept), a second, which also was not kept, and finally a third was made, which was kept in my office. In the presence of a mutual friend the interview was held, and he made this statement. He said that he wished to be perfectly frank. He said that he had worked against the Government, admitted that he had been writing for the Elele to a large extent, but was sick of his associates, they were a mean lot generally and he wanted to be done with them. He offered either to retain his position as colonel and work secretly for us or to resign altogether and take the stump openly. He made, however, one condition. He said, “My reason for opposition to you has been my belief that you and the other members of the cabinet were engaged in a conspiracy against my brother. But if you and the others will promise to stand by him in the next Legislature, I will do all that I can for you.”

I heard all that he had to say, and then replied what we wanted is votes. Votes are what counts, and that we should be glad of your assistance and vote and the votes that you control. As for promises, I have stood by you straight through and have done nothing for you that I ever agreed to do, and the only result has been that you have constantly villified me. I consider myself discharged of any obligations to you and will make no promises and no agreements with you. As far as the relations of the cabinet to C. W. Ashford are concerned your course will have nothing to do with it. C. W. Ashford has stood by us so far as I know and we propose to stand by him, and if we go down we will go down together.

Shortly after the election of the colonel came up, and V. V. Ashford was elected. The election was certified up to the cabinet and it became our duty to decide whether to approve or reject it, and it was not until after consideration of all the facts that I have mentioned, that we came to the conclusion that it was our duty not to indorse the election, and that we would be faithless to the interests of the community if we again allowed that man to go in as the head of the military. I don’t say that Ave had evidence to warrant his arrest and trial. We did not feel justified in taking that action, but we did feel justified in refusing to ratify his election, as we knew that he was a man in whom we could not confide in case of another 30th of July.

We therefore did not recommend him to the King, and the matter was referred back to the officers again. Mr. V. V. Ashford asked for our reasons. We refused to give them orally, but said that if he would make application in writing we would state them in writing. He stated that he would apply in writing, but later he sent a letter to the minister of foreign affairs stating that he would make no written application, as it was contrary to military principles and ettiquette.

The next step was his reëlection by a majority of the officers. Before we took action on the reëlection the attorney-general returned.

This brings me to the third branch of my statement, viz, the reason why we have distrusted C. W. Ashford, and this brings me to one of the most painful experiences of my life, because C. W. Ashford has not only been my official companion for three years, but because ever since he came here, seven years ago, he has been my intimate friend, and in this world intimate friends are not many., I have worked with him, trusted him, have passed through trying periods with him, shoulder to shoulder, have stood by him. When prominent members proposed to put him out of the cabinet last Legislature and go on with a new minister, I said no, if we go out we go out together. And I wish to say here that I believe, and know from previous experiences many years, that we have never had an attorney-general who has worked harder and more faithfully in the conduct of the business of his office than he has.

The relations of the cabinet with the attorney-general continued most cordial up to the time of his departure for the United States. He has mentioned a point of difference of opinion with regard to the treaty. It did not interfere with our cordial relations and was solely a matter of discussion, and was adjusted by the cabinet. As evidence of this and against the published statements made by C. W. Ashford, over his own signature, and before the finance committee I will read from the reply on October 4 last to the committee which waited on the cabinet concerning the treaty.

This reply was constructed in the following manner: After full discussion of the whole topic, each member of the cabinet made a draft of a reply. Then sections were taken from each and embodied in the final draft, so that the three replies, including Mr. Ashford’s, are there. The beginning shows that it is the reply of the whole cabinet, and the title so states. The ministers take pleasure in informing you, etc. It is signed by the minister of foreign affairs because it was a matter of his department. I will read a passage, showing that there was no difference of opinion at that time:

“Animated as we are by the desire to strengthen and extend the commercial ties which have done so much for our national prosperity, and to secure the safety and perpetuation of our institutions by an alliance whereby we shall have the positive and efficacious guarantee of a strong friend against interference by itself or others with our perfect autonomy, independence, and sovereignty, we have instructed our representative at Washington to ascertain if the United States would be willing to negotiate with us a convention whereby the following objects may be secured.” *

“The cabinet for more than a year has studied carefully many reasons for and against the points submitted for negotiation, and has taken counsel with others, both connected and unconnected with the Government, and has considered various propositions and suggestions, some of which have been approved and some disapproved.

“Any statements of objects or intentions, and any purported draft of a treaty stating more or other than is above indicated which may have been published, are unfounded and incorrect.

“The ministers are strongly and unanimously of the opinion that the accomplishment of the objects above indicated will tend to greatly increase the material prosperity of the country, and perpetuate the independence of Hawaii and the sovereignty of His Majesty and his successors over all his dominions.”

Mr. Ashford left on November 16, 1889, with the utmost cordiality of feeling between the cabinet. He left, as he stated, on account of his health, expecting to stay over one steamer. Two personal notes were all we had from him until his return on March 8, 1890. We had otherwise no direct communication with him, but saw numerous interviews in the papers in which he discussed all sorts of subjects, treaties, steamship and telegraph communication from Canada, all vital matters which should have been dealt with by one in his office only with the advice and consent of the cabinet. What he did in Canada we do not know. He gave us the barest outline of what he did. He did state that he had an interview with the Canadian prime minister, that he traveled as a guest of the Canadian Pacific Railroad in a private car—[Attorney General, No]. Then some one else told me about the private car; and to this day we don’t know what his objects were or what he did. The first question which came up after his return was the colonelcy.

The attorney-general having returned just before the second election, when the question came up he immediately called upon the cabinet to reverse its decision on the matter, to nominate Mr. V. V. Ashford to the King, and to appoint him. It is unnecessary to say that the cabinet pursued no such stultifying course, but followed its previous decision. The attorney-general stated that he considered this action against his brother as simply an attack upon the Ashford family, and ne was not going to stand it. The question had to be settled, and the attorney-general was requested to state whether he intended to carry his opposition so far as to advise the King not to confirm the nominee of the cabinet. Mr. Ashford refused to state what he would advise the King. I said it is an anomalous thing, something unheard of in this or any other cabinet, to go to the King divided. He admitted it was anomalous and regretted it, but said that he could not change his course on that account, but would take the matter into consideration. He considered for a few days and then stated that he declined to inform us what his course would be, as he did not choose to abridge any of his legal rights, and should reserve to himself the right to advise the King as he saw fit when the time came, We accordingly held a cabinet council with His Majesty, March 21, in which three members of the cabinet stated that they did not consider Mr. V. V. Ashford a fit man for the place and recommended H. F. Hebbard. The attorney-general then advised His Majesty not to concur in this advice and not to appoint Hebbard, because, first, there was no reason why V. V. Ashford should not be appointed, and, second, on the technical ground that the period of incumbency of the present colonel had not expired. His Majesty stated that he wished to do what was proper, and asked each party for an opinion in writing, which was given. He answered in writing laying down the broad principle that he should take no action in any matter requiring by law the advice of the cabinet unless he chose, unless he had the advise of the whole cabinet. As this raised a vital principle, striking at the very roots of constitutional government, it seemed proper to submit the matter to the supreme court, and we did so, after first submitting our statement of the case to the attorney-general, which he admitted contained a correct statement of the facts. The supreme court gave a decision upholding the position of the majority of the cabinet, that the majority should govern, as the majority of the legislature and of every other body governs. On April 10 we met His Majesty again. There were two subjects for discussion, first, the appointment of colonel, and, second, the commissioning of Mr. Carter to negotiate the treaty. The majority of the cabinet advised His Majesty to appoint Mr. Hebbard, and presented him with the opinion of the supreme court, stating that it was his duty to follow the advise of the majority of the cabinet. The attorney-general then advised His Majesty as follows (the exact words were taken down at the time): “The opinion of the supreme court is not in the slightest degree binding and is of no more effect than that of any other three men of equal ability. I advise Your Majesty to decline to follow the advise of the majority of the cabinet and that of the supreme court.”

This brings us down to the time when an armed force was being maintained at the station house.

Now as to the special charge that the guard was kept in such a manner as to excite disturbance. The attorney-general has in unmeasured terms denounced it, here and elsewhere, and has declared that it was in a high degree improper and unwise, and detrimental to the public good, for from five to eight men, citizens, to guard the police station, arms being in the station, available for volunteers and regular forces if necessary. This at a time when R. W. Wilcox was at liberty; when, as he states in his reply, street rumors connected V. V. Ashford with disturbance; when the town was so disturbed that the heads of business houses were consulting as to what should be done to protect life and property; and this, although his words in August last, when the country was roused, when Wilcox and his confederates were in jail, locked up in prison, were what I shall now quote.

On the 28th of August, 1889, the attorney-general wrote the following letter to the marshal:

“Department of Attorney-General,
“Honolulu, H. I., August 28, 1889.

‘J. H. Soper, esq., marshal:

“Sir: In regard to the protection of the arms and munitions of war now under your charge at the police station in this city, the subject has been discussed by the cabinet, whose ideas I here put upon paper, in the form of instructions to you, in order that none of the misapprehensions to which verbal instructions are liable may in any way interfere with a full mutual understanding of the situation.

“The cabinet regard it as of the highest importance that those munitions shall be vigilantly and effectively guarded, and that all other matters in your department, existing or reasonably to be apprehended, shall be made subordinate to the due protection of the police-station building, its inmates, and contents.

“I understand you have now in operation a system of guarding that building with six foreign policemen (two from each watch), in addition to those who are necessarily or incidentally on the premises as officers of the respective watches, turnkeys, etc. This, in addition to D. H. Hitchcock, jr., whom I understand is still retained as special night watchman in your own office, will make a special guard of seven foreigners, which; if its members are intelligent and vigilant, should be sufficient, supported, as it ever is, by the prevailing facilities for defense and the opportunity to secure prompt reinforcements by telephone.

“But in order to its highest effectiveness, such guard should be under the immediate charge and command of some particular officer, and a definite system should be observed as to the place and character of the vigils of the different members. In addition to this, there should be adopted a definite rule as to admissions to the building during the night, and such rule should and must be strictly enforced.

The necessity in this latter direction is best illustrated by a recital of circumstances actually witnessed during the present month, during the day as well as at times during the evening hours, I having been the witness as to some of them myself. Thus there are certain foreigners in town whose fidelity to the present conditions is at least questionable and their sympathy with the late insurrection at least suspected. In addition to these are some native and half-white members of the bar, whose hostility upon this point is hardly a matter of doubt. And yet it is no uncommon thing for the parties referred to, sometimes several at once, to enter the police building and walk unchallenged through any part of at least the ground floor thereof. For instance, they have been seen to go, as a matter of course, into the back recesses of your office, whence the route to the armory is through a door unsecured, as a general rule, by either lock or guard. The key to the armory, moreover, has very recently been accessible to any one from that recess.

I recite these facts, not in a spirit of complaint, but as tending to show how easy it might be for half a dozen armed and determined men, gaining the advantage of such an entrance, either day or night, to spring upon and overpower, shoot down, or intimidate the unsuspecting officer in charge and thus capture the building. If it be thought that such an event is not probable, the answer is that our aim must be to guard against possible and not alone probable attacks.

I have, therefore, to request your careful attention to the following system of guarding that building, which may, of course, be supplemented by any details you may think necessary to add, viz:

That the main door and all other means of access to said building, except the door to the receiving station, be closed and bolted (unless upon special occasions) not later than 8 o’clock in the evening, and I think an even earlier hour preferable. That the special guard shall always have among their own number a leader whose orders they will be obliged to obey, and who shall be responsible for the due execution by the guard of their stipulated duties, and who, in the absence of the captain of the watch or other superior officer, shall have full command of the building and all the officers therein and thereabout. From the fact of his being on watch during the entire night and not changing with the different watches, I should suppose Mr. Hitchcock (if satisfactory in other respects) an eligible man for this position.

The guard should be armed with clubs and pistols, and should have, each man, his rifle and filled cartridge belt conveniently at hand, elsewhere than in the receiving station. At least one of the guard (I think two preferable) should be kept constantly on patrol in Merchant street between Nuuanu and Kaahumanu, to observe movements in the three streets named, as well as Bethel street. These patrolmen should be relieved, say, every two hours, by other members of the guard, and should be kept diligently on the move and observant of events. Half-hourly circuits of the block in which the building stands should be made by one of such patrolmen, i. e., around to and along Queen street. The rest of the guard should be on the alert, so disposed throughout the building as to be able to rally on any point immediately upon call, and at least one of them should be in the receiving station all the time, whence the means of access to the yard and ground cells is very easy.

The patrols will of course give the earliest possible notice of any persons or events in the locality out of the natural order, and thus the entire guard will be ever ready to meet any exigency or repel any attack. In this connection let me caution you that nothing short of a tragedy within plain sight, or orders from the marshal, should tempt any member of the guard away from the building or his beat.

In case of an attack they should meet it upon the sidewalk, at the doors, or retreat within the building, secure the doors and defend the premises from the windows, as the force and direction of the attacking party might suggest to the one in command, and telephone at once to the marshal or his deputies. Seven resolute men, well armed, should be able to hold that building for hours against any force that could be brought against it from the front.

I understand that the hours of special guard are now from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. While I do not now think it necessary to extend these hours, yet captains of watches coming on duty at 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., respectively, should be especially instructed to give particular attention to the guarding of the building prior to the advent and after the departure of the special guard evening and morning. This, I think, during one hour of each of those watches, should take the form of a small detail of their foreign patrols for this service.

Now as to the indiscriminate admission of all comers to the different offices of the building. This should be guarded against during the day by some practicable yet reasonable rule, that will at once permit the despatch of business and secure the privacy of portions of the premises. After office hours in the evening no one except members of the force, regular or special, or other officers of the Government, and attorneys and others upon legitimate business, to be stated to the officer in charge, should be admitted to the building. Let this principle be enforced.

In particular I would call your attention to the oft-recurring absence of “all hands” from your own office during business hours, which of course leaves open opportunities such as should not exist for any venture such as herein discussed. I have frequently (and several times during the present month) tried in vain to ring up some occupant of your office. A trial of both telephones convinced me that no one was present. I need not assure you that this should not be, particularly at the present juncture, and I shall expect to see it remedied.

Not wishing to handicap you by the enumeration of details to be observed in the carrying into effect of the foregoing instructions, I leave them chiefly for your own device and application. The main purpose, and in fact the only purpose, of my writing thus at length is to secure the ample protection to that building which its present importance demands.

I repeat, that nothing herein is penned in a spirit of complaint but of caution and admonition only. I shall expect the main object of these instructions to be scrupulously observed and lived up to. I purpose to myself test the efficiency and vigilance of the guard in question from time to time, and recommend the same course to you. While I desire that they should have a general notice to this effect, for the purpose of keeping them on their mettle, I shall give no special notice of the hours of my visits.

Yours faithfully,

C. W. Ashford,
Attorney-General.

That was the opinion of the attorney-general in August last, when he thought that we ought to guard against possible, not merely probable, danger; when he thought that it was necessary to have men armed to the teeth with clubs, pistols, rifles, and cartridge belts. Now, when we have a volunteer guard at night only, with no weapons on them, he complains and sees a threat and a menace to the community.

The statement that there was unnecessary ostentation and display is without foundation. As a matter of fact, the guard was there two weeks before the public knew anything of it.

At this time garbled accounts of what was being done by the cabinet appeared in both English and native, which could only have come from the attorney-general. Arguments which the attorney-general made in the cabinet, down even to the underscoring, came out next day in the newspapers with those very points in italics. If anyone wants to know what it is to be in hell without waiting for eternity, let him be in a divided cabinet, knowing that every word and act is being reported and misconstrued by a traitor, with the knowledge that a man is among you whom you can not trust and the possibility of another 30th of July hanging over your head.

That was the situation. What was to be done? The attorney-general was giving demoralizing and revolutionary advice to the King. Never before has the King refused, to follow the advice of the supreme court. That was the bulwark of the country, and the King never dreamed of refusing to follow their advice, until the attorney-general advised him to do so. I say the action of the attorney-general was revolutionary, and it has brought the King into a revolutionary position, which he has maintained ever since. The chairman of the foreign affairs committee has referred to my “brutal statements” to the King. Mr. President, I am no courtier; I never was and never shall be one; I believe in speaking the truth, and I have done it. I have made no brutal statements to the King. I have treated him with perfect respect, but with perfect candor. When he was taking a course contrary to the law and the constitution, I did not tell him that he was doing right, but that he was taking a course that would bring disaster upon himself and upon the country.

In this situation, with the history of Robert Wilcox before us, with the facts in regard to V. V. Ashford before us, with the attorney-general in open hostility to the cabinet, refusing to resign and saying that he would stay to paralyze all action, in this situation I say that even if there had been no truth in the report which came to us there would still have been ample ground for taking the precautions urged by the attorney-general in August last. The marshal came to me to consult. He had received information from a different source from mine of a similar character. He felt that he could not consistently with his duty to the community and to himself go to the attorney-general and tell him what he knew. After talking it over with the other members of the cabinet, the marshal stated that he could get volunteers, and stated who they were, men of the most respectable standing, clerks, bookkeepers, etc., as well as a few Government employés, who took steps, and the station house was guarded for several weeks before it was known at all.

Now in regard to the night of the 17th of April, when the minister of the interior “was there,” the Gatling gun run out, and the 40 armed men on hand.

A 1 a.m. I was rung up with the statement that a policeman had seen a body of armed men. I thought it sufficient to put us on our guard. I went down, found 5 men on guard, and we telephoned for 3 or 4 more. No one else was there. The statement as to 40 men is entirely without foundation. We stayed till daybreak. The guns were not put out into the street; there was no unnecessary exhibition of force; there was no guard sent out to the Rifle’s armory, unless you consider one lame prisoner such a guard. One or two men patroled. I took the statement of the policemanin writing. He stated that there was a passer who could confirm it, and the next day he brought the man who stated that he had seen some armed men in that neighborhood. Whether there were any armed men there, you know as well as I. At anyrate there was the information, and I considered it was my duty to be on hand, and for the marshal to be on his guard. Suppose no precaution had been taken, and the station had been captured, then what?

The fact is it was the duty of the attorney-general to inquire into the situation and guard the peace. He did nothing whatever, and the rest of the cabinet had to take the responsibility of guarding, not merely against “probable,” but “possible” dangers.

As to the statement that these precautions were calculated to create a disturbance, this strikes me as one of the thinest, flimsiest and most ridiculous propositions that I ever heard. Precautions of this kind are the first thing to prevent a disturbance. Look at Berlin on the 1st of May, labor day; it was a garrison. Look at London a few years ago at the Hyde Park riots, and citizens were sworn in as special police by the thousand. And yet it is claimed that the precautions taken here tended to excite a disturbance; that the presence of a few men at the police station, probably playing cards when not on duty, must so tend to excite Mr Wilcox’s nerve centers as to lead him to shoulder a musket and try to capture the police station, just because there were a few men there who had a perfect right to be there.

Mr. President, on this statement I am, ready to leave it to the house whether the inaction of the attorney-general is to be commended, or the positive course of the majority of the remainder of the cabinet. Taking into consideration what happened on the 30th of July, would we not have been responsibe for any loss of life or property, if we had neglected these precautions and a disturbance had occurred. I am willing to leave it to the house, but if every man votes against me, I would still, in a similar situation, when I thought the country was threatened with a possibility of danger, act as I have, whether the attorney-general approved it or not.

Representative Bush moves to amend by referring to printing committee to have both replies printed in English and Hawaiian.

Representative Brown seconded the amendment.

The motion as amended was carried.

House adjourned at 1:10 p.m. until Monday.

Diplomatic reception—Brilliant entertainment at the United States legation.

His excellency J. L. Stevens, United States minister resident, and Mrs. Stevens, held a reception at the legation, Nuuanu avenue, from 3 to 6 o’clock yesterday afternoon. It was an event both brilliant and pleasant. Flags almost covering the house showed their bright colors to the street through interstices of the luxuriant foliage. Lovely boquets, clusters of gorgeous lilies, and other floral designs, with profuse traceries of vines, made the interior a delight to the eye, while filling the air with fragrance. An elegant collation was spread in the dining room, and no guest was permitted to depart without receiving an invitation to be refreshed.

His excellency and amiable lady gave a cordial greeting to all. Mrs. Stevens was assisted in receiving and in dispensing the hospitalities of the legation by the Misses Stevens, Mrs. Severance and Miss Severance, Mrs. J. O. Carter and the Misses Carter, Mrs. W. Foster, the Misses Winter, and Miss Waterhouse.

The band of the United States flagship Charleston, sixteen pieces, under Bandmaster Carlo, played on the grounds alternately with the Royal Hawaiian Band. The playing of the naval band was very much admired. The programme of the concert was the following:

Overture—Masaniello	Auber.
Chorus—Tanhäuser	Wagner.
Gavotte—Festival	Latann.
Reminiscences of Verdi	Godfrey.
Fantasia—Recollections of the War	Beyer.
Waltz—1,001 Nights	Strauss.
Patrol—Guard Mount	Eclenberg.
Medley—Ye Olden Times	Catlin.
The Star Spangled Banner.
Hawaii Ponol

Their majesties and the heir apparent were among the callers. The King was attended by Mr. Jas. W. Robertson, vice-chamberlain, and His Majesty’s staff. Mrs. Robertson was lady-in-waiting to the Queen. Hon. A. S. Cleghorn was present with Princess Liliuokalani. Visitors were coming and going during the three hours, the following being some of them:

Their excellencies Jona. Austin, minister of foreign affairs and C. W. Ashford attorney-general; Hon. C. R. Bishop, Hon. and Mrs. W. F. Allen, Hon. and Mrs. J. B. Atherton, Miss Atherton, Hon. and Mrs. W. G. Irwin and Mrs. Ivers, Hon. and Mrs. W. D. Alexander, Mrs. J. I. Dowsett and the Misses Dowsett; Major J. H. Wodehouse, British commissioner, Mrs. and Miss Wodehouse: Mr. G. C. B. d’Anglade, French commissioner; Mr. A. de Souza Canavarro, Portuguese commissioner, and Mrs. Canavarro; Mr. Masaki, Japanese diplomatic agent, and members of his legation; Rear-Admiral Brown, U. S. N.; Mr. H. W. Severance, United States consul-general, Mrs. and the Misses Severance; Mr. F. A. Schaefer, consul for Italy and dean of consular corps; Mr. H. W. Schmidt, Swedish consul, and Mrs. Schmidt; Mr. C. Afong, Chinese commercial agent, and Miss Afong; Mr. A. W. Richardson, United States vice-consul-general; Mr. T. R. Walker, British vice-consul; Capt. Remey and staff, U. S. flagship Charleston; Capt. Green and staff, U. S. S. Adams; Capt. McCurley and staff, U. S. S. Nipsic; Lieut. Dyer, Lieut. Blow, and Mr. Cole (of the admiral’s staff); Lieut. Qualtrough, Fleet Surgeon Woods, Dr. Weiber, Fleet Paymaster Arthur Burtis, with Mrs. Burtis; Fleet Engineer Inch, and Mr. Hollis, with Mrs. Hollis, U. S. flagship Charleston; Chief Engineer Webster, U. S. S. Nipsic; Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Honolulu and Mrs. Willis, Rev. and Mrs. H. Bingham, Rev. and Mrs. S. E. Bishop, Rev. and Mrs. W. C. Merritt, Rev. and Mrs. A. Mackintosh and Miss Von Holt, Mrs. R. F. Bickerton, Mrs. W. Foster, Dr. and Mrs. A. B. Lyons, Dr. and Mrs. C. T. Rogers, Dr. Lindley of Kentucky, Dr. and Mrs. J. S. McGrew, Dr. J. S. Emerson, Dr. Kimball, Col. V. V. Ashford, Capt. Mist, R. N., and Miss Mist, Prof, and Mrs. M. M. Scott, Prof, and Mrs. G. Sauvlet, Maj. and Mrs. C. T. Gulick, Hon. Jas. Anderson, Mr. and Mrs. J. O. Carter and the Misses Carter; Hon. and Mrs. B. F. Dunning, Misses Dunning and Clarke, Mrs. Helen Mather, New York; Mr. and Mrs. George Fritch, Mrs. Eugene B. Rail, Mr. and Mrs. Layton, San Francisco; Mrs. S. C. Allen, Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Hall, Mrs. G. E. Boardman, Mrs. Robt. Lewers and Miss Lewers, Mr. and Mrs. T. F. Lansing, Mrs. W. W. Dimond, Mr. and Mrs. W. C. Wilder, Mr. G. K. Wilder, Mr. and Mrs. B. F. Dillingham, Mr. and Mrs. J. G. Spencer, Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Carter, Mr. and Mrs. E. A. Jones, Mr. and Mrs. H. H. Renjes, Mr. and Mrs. H. F. Wichman, Mrs. S. B. Rose and Miss Rose, Misses Chamberlain, Waterhouse, Winter, Payson, Atkinson, Brewer, and Snow; Messrs. H. Waterhouse, W. C. Parke, W. H. Baird, J. Dyer, T. M. Starkey, G. C. Potter, and Paul Hamill.