No. 10.
Interview with William Blaisdell
of Kealia and Kapaa Kauai, Wednesday, April 19,
1893.
Mr. Blount. Mr. Blaisdell, please tell me your occupation?
Mr. Blaisdell. I am a plantation manager.
Q. What plantation?
A. The McKee Sugar Company.
Q. What is the amount of capital involved?
[Page 704]A. About $1,000,000.
Q. How many bands employed?
A. An average of 700.
Q. Where are they from—what race?
A. Principally Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, Hawaiians, and a few South Sea Islanders.
Q. How many Japanese?
A. About 400.
Q. About how many Chinese?
A. About 100.
Q. About how many Portugese?
A. Something like 120.
Q. How many natives?
A. Not more than about 75 or 80 at present.
Q. You are here representing an annexation organization?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a delegate?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were the gentlemen who came up with you representing the annexation organization on the island?
A. H. P. Baldwin, George N. Wilcox, George Mundon, and J. Konoho.
Q. What is the occupation of Mr. Baldwin?
A. He is a sugar planter.
Q. Ho you know anything of the capital he represents?
A. He represents from that island a capital stock of something like $2,000,000.
Q. Does he represent any interest on any other island?
A. Yes; he is the principal owner of several plantations on Maui.
Q. Is he from the State of Maine?
A. I do not know. His father was one of the original missionaries.
Q. Well, Mr. Wilcox, is he interested in sugar?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is his business?
A. He is a planter,
Q. How much capital does he represent?
A. Well, in the sugar business he is estimated at being worth something like $1,000,000, and his plantation business I should think is something like half a million.
Q. Do you mean in addition to his sugar interest?
A. No, sir; his sugar interest would amount to about half a million dollars. He has other interests besides. He is a principal shareholder in the Inter-Island Steam Navigation Company. In fact, he has interests all over the islands. He has a great deal of sugar stock outside of his own plantation.
Q. You are speaking of Mr. Wilcox?
A. Yes.
Q. He is the principal owner of the steamship line also?
A. I don’t know that he is the principal owner. I know he owns considerable stock.
Q. Is he the Wilcox known in connection with the phrase, “Wilcox Cabinet?”
A. Yes. His father was one of the early missionaries.
Q. What is the business of those two natives who came with you?
A. George Mundon does a little business in the way of hauling wood, cutting wood, and supplying wood to the plantations.
Q. What plantations?
[Page 705]A. Ours principally.
Q. Is he in your employ?
A. Not directly—well, I suppose he is.
Q. The other native. His business?
A. He is a minister of the Gospel.
Q. You all came in together yesterday evening. Did you represent the same organization?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you represent the same locality?
A. No, sir; we represent about the whole of the island.
Q. Will you tell me the causes which led to the dethronement of the Queen?
A. Well, poor government.
Q. Could you not be more specific? Poor government is a very loose phrase, and won’t carry much information with it.
A. Of course it was something that has been coming for some time, but what decided the question was the Queen’s wishing to put a new constitution on the people—force a new constitution on the people.
Q. What do you mean by the phrase, “has been coming for some time?”
A. Things had been drifting into disorder and corruptness in government matters.
Q. What sort of disorder?
A. Mismanagement.
Q. Well, was life and property safe?
A. No, sir; well, I won’t say that altogether, but things were drifting that way. We felt that property at least was not safe.
Q. Was there a looking forward to a change of government on account of the discontent with the political condition in the islands?
A. Well, I do not think so. Of course we are not as well posted on the other islands, away from the capital here.
Q. You were not here during the scenes immediately preceding and during the dethronement of the Queen?
A. No, sir.
Q. Then, on that question you can not answer?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have already said you are representing annexionists?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your opinion as to the feeling in favor of the existing Government with a view towards annexation?
A. When the Queen was first overthrown there were very few in favor of annexation, very few of the planters especially. I was one that did not see that we could be improved, especially in view of the contract-labor system which is our mainstay.
Q. You mean mainstay for sugar interests or for the islands?
A. Well for the islands, because it is the main industry of the islands; but as things developed, and after looking over the matter carefully and talking over the matter with other interested parties—that is, planters principally—we came to the conclusion that we would rather take our chances on the labor question than to take the chances of an independent government. We were in hopes that if annexation was secured that the United States would take our labor question into consideration and allow us some privileges in that way.
Q. In what way?
A. In bringing in Asiatic labor or not interfering with our present system of labor. We feel, of course, that good government is the [Page 706] foundation of prosperity, and that without good government we have no use for labor. I think if we could have been assured of a good independent government we should have preferred it.
Q. What sort of an independent government?
A. A thoroughly reliable home government.
Q. Without annexation?
A. Yes, sir; because the benefits we might get are very obscure. We didn’t feel that we could depend on that at all.
Q. What would be a reliable government here do you think?
A. I do not think it is possible to have good government and free suffrage.
Q. Just there I would be glad if you would give me your views with precision.
A. Knowing the native race as well as I do—have worked them for years, was raised among them and had them in responsible positions—I know their character and know they can not be relied upon. They are not educated to it.
Q. They are not educated to what?
A. To manage themselves—to govern themselves.
Q. You mean for participation in governmental affairs?
A. Yes; a native can never conduct any business for himself. In no instance that I know of has a native attempted to go into business for himself and made a success of it—that is, any business of any extent. He has always been associated with some foreigner and the foreigner at the head always. It is very hard for them to understand business. They have not got the knack of acquiring, and what they do acquire they can not hold on to. They are very weak in this matter.
Q. Well, now, when it comes to voting, how are they?
A. Very easily led, one way or the other. Up to within the last three or four sessions of the legislature they were very indifferent about it, but since then there has been a little race prejudice.
Q. For ten or twelve years?
A. I won’t go back as far as that. I will say six years. Of course it was anything to beat the Howle (the white man). Very often now in elections, especially outside of Honolulu, you ask them how they expect to vote, they say, “Oh, it makes no difference to us. As long as the plantations are running of course we can always expect employment, and we look to the plantations for support.”
Q. How long is it since the Australian ballot law was enacted?
A. Only the last election.
Q. In your legislature you have nobles and representatives. Now I want to speak as to representatives. Were a majority of the representatives elected to the last legislature in sympathy with the reform party or against them?
A. Against them.
Q. What was the effect of the Australian ballot system on the native? Was he more or less easily influenced under this system as compared with the former?
A. I think that if the candidate was a Hawaiian; that is, if there were two candidates, a white man and a Hawaiian, he would, of course, vote for the Hawaiian.
Q. Under the secret ballot system?
A. Yes, sir; that is, speaking of the majority.
Q. Suppose the question was left to the native population to determine by ballot under the Australian system whether they desired to return to royal ty or annexation, what do you think that vote would show?
[Page 707]A. I think it would show a return to royalty—that is at the present time. In talking with natives I found a great many were in favor of annexation, but they are afraid that they would lose their civil rights, that is, they think they would have to forfeit that.
Q. Let me ask you if this is the situation. That when they are approached by their employers, desiring to be in accord with them, they declare themselves willing for annexation subject to an expression of fear that they will lose the right of suffrage?
A. I do not quite get your question.
(Question repeated.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words you think you can influence a considerable native vote by reason of the relations existing between you, but for the fear that they would lose the right of suffrage under annexation?
A. I can hardly answer that. Of course there is their regard for their Queen on the one hand. They feel that annexation is inevitable—a good many of them—and they would express themselves as in favor of annexation provided they were allowed their free suffrage. But I think under any circumstances if it was put to a vote and no financial interests involved, if they were not dependent upon others for support, they would vote against annexation.
Q. Do you think they are in favor of the restoration of the Queen?
A. A majority of them? No, sir. You cannot depend upon the Hawaiians. They say one thing to day and another to-morrow.
Q. Now, the class of men they elect to the legislature—are they intelligent, reliable people?
A. Not always; no, sir.
Q. Your constitution provides that a voter for nobles shall have unincumbered property of the value of $3,000 or an income of $600?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If the nobles were elected by persons having the same qualifications as those who elect representatives, would that place the control of the nobles in the hands of the native voters?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have said that they elect a majority of the representatives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The same thing then would obtain as to the nobles?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then that body would likely sustain a ministry in accord with native ideas?
A. Yes, sir, decidedly.
Q. And that would leave the property of the Kingdom and the rights of foreigners to the disposition of native voters?
A. Yes, sir, entirely. Property would not be secure.
Q. Property would not be secure?
A. No, sir.
Q. Please tell me why?
A. I would have to answer that in a general way—that no property can be secured under bad government.
Q. You think a body elected in the way last indicated would be a corrupt body of men?
A. I do.
Q. You think it would be an ignorant body of men?
A. Yes, sir; as regards the science of government.
Q. You think the business conditions of the islands would be disregarded in legislation?
[Page 708]A. Yes, sir; I think the natives would be controlled by unscrupulous people. The natives are very easily influenced, one way or another.
Q. Do you think the animosity towards the white people would continue?
A. I have no doubt of it.
Q. Please tell me this—do you think that it is necessary to the preservation of order and the making and enforcement of good laws that the foreign element should give direction to political affairs on these islands?
A. Yes, sir; I do. Of course, in speaking of the Hawaiians, I speak of the majority, There are exceptions, of course. There are some very good Hawaiians that I have a great deal of respect for, but their not being interested to any extent financially—having nothing to lose in that way and being dependent upon others for support—they are not careful, they are easily influenced.
Q. Are they easily influenced with liquor in elections?
A. Since the Australian ballot system was adopted, not so much so. Previous to that and previous to the formation of the Reform Party, it was a custom for the candidates outside of the polling places to have feasts—laaus—and the native would get a free feed and a free glass of gin provided he would vote for a certain representative. His ballot would be handed to him and he would go to the polls and put it in. There was a great deal of that. I think that was one of the main reasons for the formation of the Reform Party.
Q. Were there a majority of them subject to this influence you have just spoken of?
A. Yes, sir. I have seen it open and aboveboard.
Q. That thing, then, often determined the election of a representative?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that generally the case in elections for representatives prior to the Australian ballot law?
A. I think it was a good deal so.
Q. Well, is there anything else you want to add?
A. We have been charged as sugar men with being at the bottom of this movement. I want to contradict that emphatically.
Q. Was it not really a Honolulu movement?
A. Yes, sir. Although of course we felt that something of the kind might happen. In talking over matters with our president, Colonel Spaulding, I told him I thought something might be done to oust the Wilcox cabinet. He said he didn’t think the Queen would dare to do it.
Q. Well, if she did oust them did you expect any trouble to come out of it?
A. I did. Things had gone so far and we had had so much of it, that I felt sure something would come of it. At the same time I was surprised that she did do it.
Q. That she did remove the Cabinet?
A. Yes, sir; and that she signed the lottery bill and the opium bill.
Q. You think the peace of the islands depends on the power of the white element to direct this government?
A. Yes, sir; I think so, I feel so—decidedly so. Of course, we are at a little disadvantage, as property holders with large interests away from Honolulu. We feel at a disadvantage compared with the Honolulu people. There we are pretty much at the mercy of the people at large, that is, the natives, and our property being scattered over thousands of acres, and being very easily destroyed by fire, of course we [Page 709] fee concerned. We can not call for protection from any force—naval force or anything of that kind. A few natives with a match could destroy thousands and thousands of dollars’ worth of property in a short time. Fire in the sugar cane is very hard to fight. A great deal of property would be destroyed in a short time. Therefore, of course, we feel justified in asking for annexation or for protection against civil disorder.
Q. Is there anything else you want to add?
A. I want to deny again the charges made, that the planters are at the bottom of this movement. You can easily see how annexation would affect us. It would undoubtedly do away with our contract system of labor.
Q. What would be the effect on you of laws prohibiting contract labor?
A. It would require 25 per cent more labor to keep up the supply.
Q. Suppose the United States should prohibit contracts being made by corporations with people in Asiatic countries, what would be the effect of that?
A. It would raise the price of labor.
Q. What would the effect be on crop products?
A. It would increase the cost of a ton of sugar.
Q. Can you get any European labor of any amount here; could you look to Europe as a source for labor?
A. No, sir. We have tried that. It was a failure. We got some German families, but we had to give it up. They did not seem suitable. They could not stand working in the sugar cane.
I have carefully read through the foregoing and pronounce it a correct report.