No. 28.
Interview with Chief Justice A.
F. Judd, Honolulu, May 16, 1893.
Q. Please state where you were born.
A. In Honolulu, January 7, 1838.
Q. Has this always been your home?
A. With the exception of four years in the United States, two at Yale and the other two at Harvard law school, and on occasional visits to the States and a trip to Europe. I entered the practice of law in this country in 1864, and was elected twice to the Legislature—in 1868 from South Kona, Hawaii, and again for Honolulu in 1870, and in 1873 I was appointed attorney-general by Lunalilo, and on his death in 1874, on the election of Kalakaua, I went onto the bench as associate justice of the supreme court. I continued on the bench until now, having held different positions. I took the position of first associate justice in 1877, and was appointed chief justice in 1881. I have been in judicial life since my first appointment as judge in February, 1874, and have had my office in the Government building during all that time, and am somewhat familiar with political changes that have taken place.
[Page 829]Q. How were your judges selected prior to the constitution of 1887?
A. They were appointed.
Q. How selected prior to 1887?
A. They were appointed by the King. The supreme judges have always been appointed in that way, and, whatever has happened to this country, I think the sovereigns have always aimed to give us good men as judges.
Q. Who did Kalakaua appoint first as judges?
A. Judge Allen was chief justice under a former appointment—he being in the United States at the time of Kalakaua’s election, of course was merely continued in office. The other judges were Hartwell and Widemann. Hartwell was appointed attorney-general and Widemann as minister of the interior. Judge Harris was then made first associate justice and I second associate justice.
Q. None of these were men of native blood?
A. None.
Q. Were they men of substantial character?
A. Yes; all of them. We have had two judges of native blood on the bench.
Q. Appointed by whom?
A. By Kamehameha III and Kamehameha V. The first was Judge Ii. He was a pure native. The other judge of native blood was R. G. Davis. He was half-white.
Q. How was your Legislature made up prior to the constitution of 1887?
A. It consisted of one body—nobles appointed by the Crown and representatives elected by the people.
Q. How many nobles?
A. Twenty.
Q. How many representatives?
A. It seems to me twenty four—perhaps twenty-six—I do not know positively.
Q. The number of representatives exceeded the number of nobles prior to 1887?
A. I do not remember, but I think so.
Q. How were nobles selected?
A. Appointed by the King on nomination by the cabinet.
Q. And the representatives were—
A. Elected by the people.
Q. What suffrage qualification had you?
A. Under the constitution of 1852 there was no property qualification. The Legislature consisted of two houses that sat separately. King Kamehameha V refused to take the oath to that constitution when he took the throne in the fall of 1863, and he called a convention of delegates to revise the constitution, with the purpose of limiting the power of the people and strengthening his own prerogatives. I was secretary in that convention, and after a very warm discussion the King was unable to agree with the delegates as to the measure of that property qualification. He then dismissed the convention and proclaimed the constitution of 1864, which prescribed a small property qualification for voters.
Q. What was the amount of that property qualification?
A. Two hundred and fifty dollars a year, I think.
Q. Was that property qualification for voters the main point on which the King and the convention disagreed?
A. It was.
[Page 830]Q. Prior to that there was no property qualification?
A. No.
Q. This constitution of 1864 then came by virtue of a proclamation of the King?
A. It did. The people acquiesced in it after awhile, and, although there was a good deal of dissatisfaction felt, the people voted under it and agreed to it, and a good many believed that it was wise—that is, making the Legislature of one house and not of two.
Q. Prior to the constitution of 1864 how were nobles appointed?
A. By the King.
Q. What support had the King in reducing the franchise of the native population of the islands?
A. He had the support of his cabinet, and I think that is about all.
Q. What was the disposition of the more intelligent people here?
A. They considered it very arbitrary. The King at that time was very much opposed to the growth of American influence and republican ideas. He was very bitterly opposed to the influence of the Americans, and especially American missionaries. His aim was to strengthen the royal prerogatives.
Q. But if he cut off the number of native votes by property qualifications would he accomplish any addition to his strength?
A. He had one house then only, and there could be no negative action on any affirmative action of his. It was not necessary for him to have a majority of each house.
Q. Were the bodies equal in number?
A. I think not; I think the representative body was larger. It was proportioned according to the population of the districts.
Q. Under the constitution of 1864 did you have a property qualification?
A. We did for a while.
Q. How long?
A. For several elections. It was finally eradicated by amendments to the constitution.
Q. In what year?
A. I can only speak from memory, but certainly before 1870, but I certainly can not say without reference to books.
Q. How was that brought about? What state of opinion brought that about?
A. It was mainly the feeling that this was an encroachment. Public sentiment did not feel the necessity for it. Demagogism was then not prevalent. I think the Hawaiians voted better then than they do now. That is, demoralizing influences had not set in.
Q. At that time, I suppose, it was somewhat of a struggle between the King and the people?
A. Yes, precisely.
Q. And they were attempting to recover a part of the power they had lost under that constitution?
A. Yes.
Q. I see in the compilation of your laws, page 220, section 780, the following:
For the island of Hawaii, eight, that is to say:
- One for the district of North Kona, beginning at and including Keahualono, and extending to and including Puuohao; one for the district of South Kona, beginning at Puuohao and extending to and including Kaheawai.
- One for the district of Kau.
- One for the district of Puna.
- Two for the district, of Hilo.
- One for the district of Hamakua.
- One for the district of Kohala.
- For the island of Maui, seven, that is to say, two for the district composed of Lahaina, Ukumehame, and Kahoolawe.
- One for the district composed of Kahakuloa and Kaanapali.
- One for the district beginning with and including Waihee and extending to and including Honuaula.
- One for the district beginning with and including Kahikinui and extending to and including Koolau.
- One for the district beginning with and including Hamakualoa and extending to and including Kula.
- Two for the districts composing the Islands of Molokai and Lanai.
- For the island of Oahu, eight, that is to say: Four for the district of Honolulu, beginning with and including Maunalua, and extending to and including Moanalua.
- And one for the district composed of Ewa and Waianae.
- One for the district of Waialua.
- One for the district of Koolauloa.
- One for the district of Koolaupoko.
- For the island of Kauai, three, that is to say: One for the district of Waimea, beginning with and including Nualolo and extending to and including Hanapepe, and also including the island of Niihau.
- One for the district of Puna, beginning with and including Wahiawa, and extending to and including Wailua.
- One for the district of Hanalei, beginning with and including Kapaa, and extending to and including Awa-awa-puhi.
Please say how may representatives you had under that?
A. Twenty-six.
Q. When was that established?
A. There have been laws of this character altered little by little, but a law of this general character has been in existence from very early times—that is from 1852. There would be occasional changes, adding one representative to one district and taking one away possibly from another district.
Q. I ask your attention to section 774 of your compilation of laws:
The house of representatives shall be composed of not less than twenty-four nor more than forty members, who shall be elected biennially.
Prior to 1887 you had in a legislative body twenty-six representatives?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it ever larger than that?
A. I think not.
Q. That gave them a popular element in the Legislature—a majority over the power of the King as represented in the nobles?
A. That is the way it was generally exercised. The King never appointed his full number.
Q. But the constitution itself provided that he might appoint thirty and that the representatives might be forty?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The fact was he generally appointed twenty, and the representatives were twenty-six?
A. Yes.
Q. So that there remained from this an excess of political power in the representatives in the legislative body as against the Crown?
A. That is true; but they rarely ever divided on that issue—nobles on one side and representatives on the other. Some of our best legislation was accomplished through the nobles. They were excellent men.
Q. What class of men generally?
A. Such men as Mr. C. R. Bishop, S. G. Wilder, and Mr. Dowsett. They were appointed by Lunalilo, who filled up the body to twenty.
Q. Were they generally appointed from the class of men who represented [Page 832] the intelligence and wealth and morality of the community or not?
A. In those days they were nominated to the King by his cabinet, and they were representative of the property of this Kingdom, combining also a fair representation of character and intelligence, until the middle of Kalakaua’s reign, when, as vacancies occurred, he would appoint natives generally who did not have these characteristics of wealth, character, and intelligence.
Q. How was a ministry appointed and removed?
A. Under every constitution prior to 1887 the ministers were appointed by the King and removed by him; but until Kalakaua’s reign it was a very rare thing that any King changed his ministry. They had a pretty long lease of political life. My father was minister for nine or ten years, and Mr. Wyllie for a longer period. It was a very rare political occurrence, and made a great sensation when a change was made. Under Kalakaua things were different; I think we had twenty-six different cabinets during his reign.
Q. How long was his reign?
A. From 1874 to 1891.
Q. What were the property qualifications of electors prior to 1887?
A. None—no property qualification.
Q. They had to be 20 years of age, and to be able to read and write?
A. If born since 1840 they had to be able to read and write, but this test was rarely applied. If born before that there was no qualification at all.
Q. Under the constitution of 1887 the same qualification of an elector for representative was continued?
A. Yes; substantially the same.
Q. Was there any very considerable change in the matter of the qualification of a voter for representative under the constitution of 1887 in the matter of allowing foreigners to vote?
A. There was.
Q. Please state it.
A. Previous to that time only citizens could vote; that is, native born or naturalized, or those who had received letters of denization. The constitution of 1887 allowed all residents, if they had those qualifications, excepting Asiatics, and they were not allowed to vote, even those who were citizens by naturalization.
Q. Did that cover the Portuguese element?
A. We allowed Portuguese to vote.
Q. Then the races that were excluded under that from the privilege of voting were the Chinese and the Japanese?
A. Yes.
Q. How about the qualifications to read and write for that class of voters—I mean the Portuguese, Americans, and Europeans who were allowed to vote? Did the qualifications as to reading and writing apply to them?
A. It did.
Q. Were there many Portuguese then voting under the constitution of 1887?
A. A good many voted. Not having the statistics before me I can not say what proportion.
Q. Under that constitution of 1887 were the number of nobles and representatives the same?
A. Exactly the same—twenty-four nobles and twenty-four representatives.
[Page 833]Q. The cabinet was appointed by the Crown?
A. Yes.
Q. And how removable?
A. Only by vote of want of confidence passed by a majority of elected members.
Q. What was the character of the increased power of the cabinet under the constitution of 1887 over that of 1864?
A. It made the ministerial responsibility clearer, I think, than it existed under the constitution of 1864.
Q. In what way was it made clearer?
A. By express provision after 1887, if I mistake not, saying that whenever any act was to be done by the sovereign it was to be done by and with the advice of the cabinet. That the supreme court has held to be the advice of a majority of the cabinet.
Q. Would that be so in the matter of the exercise of the veto power?
A. We thought not. That is, the justices of the supreme court thought not. Under the constitution, which made the legislative power consist of the King and the legislature, we felt that this act in approving or vetoing a bill was a legislative and not an executive act.
Q. What did the word signify, then, in relation to the power that the King could only do it with the advice of the cabinet?
A. We construed that power of the King which could only be exercised through the ministry as applying solely to executive and not to legislative acts.
Q. He could do nothing, then, without the sanction of a majority of the cabinet in the matter of administration?
A. No, sir.
Q. A single member of the cabinet would not answer?
A. No, sir. The Thurston ministry broke up on that principle, Ashford advising the King, contrary to the advice of the supreme court, that he was not bound to act unless all the members of the cabinet advised a certain measure. That led to a serious difference in the cabinet, which resulted in breaking it up.
Q. The court held that it required a majority?
A. Yes.
Q. Which Ashford was that?
A. C. W. Ashford. After his return from Canada he seemed to be very much changed.
Q. Your house of nobles was equal in number to the representatives. What was the qualification of an elector for nobles?
A. The property qualification was an income of $600 a year, or unincumbered real property of the value of $3,000. We held that where a man was paid wages and his board that his board was not to be included; that he must have a clear income of $600.
Q. I wish to ask you the reason for these changes—what they were intended to accomplish—and I wish to ask you because of your high official position as chief justice and because of your high character?
A. The main grievance was this: The Legislature was composed of officeholders. I mean the representatives prior to 1887. The district justice, nominated by the governor of each island, would use his judicial influence by making it very easy with the offenses of the people. The same thing was true of deputy sheriffs, tax assessors, tax collectors, and all minor officials. When once in the Legislature they could be very easily controlled either by threats of withdrawing the offices from them, or by promises of other offices. As was well expressed by Mr. Gibson, who was premier at one time, the King was the larger part of the [Page 834] Legislature. That is, his influence exerted through these agents became paramount. He could accomplish, against his ministry even, almost any measure he chose.
Q. Did he appoint all these officers to which you referred?
A. Not directly, but the governors, being appointed for four years, and being his favorites, would appoint any officials he suggested, and as a matter of fact Kalakaua nominated, directly or indirectly, the mass of the officials in this country.
Q. Do you mean to say that by the appointment of governors who were personal friends of his there came to be appointments of subordinate officers who were in sympathy with the King in his political views and his general wishes?
A. I do, and more especially to carry out the money votes which he was very eager for in order to pay his debts, the expenses of his tour abroad, of his coronation, of the military embassy to Samoa, and other extravagances which every respectable person thought very unwise. I recommended in my report to the Legislature a change in this respect, i. e., in the qualifications of candidates to the Legislature, excluding judges, etc. Another cause, hardly second in importance, was the matter of the removal of ministries. I have said that up to that time there had been twenty-six changes of cabinets. It had unsettled the community so greatly and gave opportunity for what is called “backstairs cabinets” by adventurers and others that there was very little stability in the Government. It was almost impossible for any ministry to carry out any settled policy, certainly any policy that did not please the King.
Q. You changed the constitution so as to guard against that improper mode of the appointment of inferior officers?
A. It forbade any person being appointed to office during the whole time for which he was elected, and also forbade the election of anybody who held any office under the Government.
Q. Then you cut off that power of the King in the use of his patronage?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As to the appointment of nobles, the idea was to take that away from him?
A. The nobles were elected by what was supposed to be the wealthy and influential class.
Q. That was taken away from the King and placed among the wealthy and influential classes?
A. Yes, so that they could have representation in the Legislature.
Q. Under that a minority of the natives only could vote for nobles?
A. Only a minority of them could vote; it gave them great dissatisfaction.
Q. Any other changes of consequence?
A. I think not.
Q. You say this new manner of selecting nobles gave the natives great dissatisfaction?
A. It did. The first election held under the constitution was very satisfactory. The natives voted well. Good men were elected. Then they were told that the white people had advantages, by reason of their wealth, over them, and this idea at election time, that they were put in an inferior position, was always forced upon them.
Q. Will you be kind enough to state how this new constitution was established?
A. The two events which brought this matter to a culminating point [Page 835] were (1) the opium steal of $71,000, by which a Chinaman named Aki was made by the King to pay him a bribe of $71,000 of hard coin in order to obtain the exclusive franchise for selling opium, and (2) the expense of the expedition to Samoa in the Kaimiloa. A secret league was formed all over the islands, the result of which was, the King was asked to promulgate a new constitution containing those provisions that I have before alluded to. It was very adroitly managed by the Ashfords, and more especially by V. V. Ashford, who obtained the confidence of the King and Mr. Gibson. He was the colonel of the rifles, and he assured them that if he was paid a certain sum of money and made minister to Canada that he would arrange it so that the movement would be futile.
Q. How was he to do that?
A. By preventing the use of the military I suppose. And he arranged with the military authorities and Capt. Haley that they should be called out to preserve public order, although it was this large and well-drilled force which made the King fear that if he did not yield things would be very critical for him.
Q. Was that a Government force?
A. It was organized under the laws.
Q. A volunteer organization?
A. Yes.
Q. So that the men in sympathy with the movement of this secret league went into it and constituted it under form of law?
A. Of course I do not know what was told the King privately, but I know that he felt it would be very dangerous to refuse to promulgate the new constitution. I have no doubt that a great many things were circulated which came to his ears in the way of threats that were unfounded.
Q. What was the outside manifestation?
A. One great feature of it was its secrecy. The King was frightened at this secrecy. It was very well managed. The judges of the supreme court were not told of it until just before the event took place. I think it was the 2d or 3d of July, 1887.
Q. Was there then a mass meeting?
A. There was a large mass meeting held, and a set of resolutions was presented to the King, requiring that a new ministry be formed, by Mr. W. L. Green and one other person whose name I have forgotten.
Q. Was there any display of force?
A. The Honolulu Rifles were in detachments marched about in different portions of the town, having been called out by the legal military authorities.
Q. Who were the legal military authorities?
A. The governor of the island, Dominis, and Capt H. Burrill-Haley, the adjutant-general.
Q. Were they in sympathy with the movement?
A. No, sir; the officers of the corps were in sympathy with the movement.
Q. Who were they?
A. Ashford and Hebbard; I do not remember all.
Q. Did the governor order them out, not knowing of this state of things?
A. I think he did. I think he knew it; but it was to prevent as I believe, something worse happening. As I said, there were threats made.
Q. Of what sort?
[Page 836]A. I understood that at one time there was a very strong feeling that the King should be forced to abdicate altogether, and it was only the more conservative men born here who said that the King and the Hawaiians should have another opportunity.
Q. Were there not two elements in that movement, one for a republic and the other for restraining the power of the King?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there hot two forces in this movement coöperating together up to a certain point, to wit: those who were in favor of restraining the King by virtue of the provisions of the constitution of 1887, and those who were in favor of dethroning the King and establishing a republic?
A. I understand that there were, and that the more conservative view prevailed.
Q. And the men who were in favor of a republic were discontented at the outcome?
A. They were, and they didn’t want the Hawaiians to vote at all; and the reason that the Portuguese were allowed to vote was to balance the native vote.
Q. Whose idea was that, was that the idea of the men who made the new constitution?
A. Of the men who made the new constitution.
Q. It was to balance the native vote with the Portuguese vote?
A. That was the idea.
Q. And that would throw the political power into the hands of the intelligence and wealth of the country?
A. That was the aim.
Q. How was this military used?
A. It was put about in squads over the city.
Q. The officers of the corps were really in favor of the movement for the new constitution, and were called out by Governor Dominis to preserve order?
A. Yes. After the affair was over he was thanked by a military order from headquarters.
Q. Do you suppose he was gratified with thanks, under the circumstances?
A. Haley said to me when he showed me the order, “It is a little funny to thank a man who kicked you out, but I suppose I’ve got to do it.”
Q. The King acceded to the demand for a new constitution and of a cabinet of given character?
A. In the first place he acceded to the proposition to make a new cabinet named by Mr. Green. The former cabinet, consisting of Mr. Gibson and three Hawaiians, had just resigned a day or two before. In three or four days the cabinet waited upon him with the constitution.
Q. What cabinet?
A. The cabinet, consisting of Mr. Green, minister of foreign affairs; Mr. Thurston, minister of the interior; Mr. C. W. Ashford, attorney-general, and Mr. Godfrey Brown, minister of finance. I was sent for in the afternoon of July 5, to swear the King to the constitution. When I reached the palace they were all there, and the King asked me in Hawaiian whether he had better sign it or not. I said “You must follow the advice of your responsible ministers.” He signed it.
Q. This ministry had been appointed as the result of the demand of the mass meeting?
A. Yes, sir.
[Page 837]Q. And then, having been appointed, they presented him with the constitution of 1887?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he signed it?
A. He did.
Q. Was that constitution ever submitted to a popular vote for ratification?
A. No; it was not. There was no direct vote ratifying the constitution, but its provisions requiring that no one should vote unless he had taken an oath to support it, and a large number voted at that first election, was considered a virtual ratification of the constitution.
Q. If they voted at all they were considered as accepting it?
A. Yes, sir. I do not think any large number refused to take the oath to it.
Q. It was not contemplated by the mass meeting, nor the cabinet, nor anybody in power, to submit the matter of ratification at all?
A. No; it was not. It was considered a revolution. It was a successful revolutionary act.
Q. And therefore was not submitted to a popular vote for ratification?
A. Yes, sir. It had mischievous effects in encouraging the Wilcox revolution of 1889, which was unsuccessful. I think it was a bad precedent, only the exigencies of the occasion seemed to demand it.
Q. Was there discontent with that constitution on the part of Kalakaua? Was he ever satisfied with it?
A. He was very skillful in concealing his views. I do not think he was satisfied with it.
Q. Was the ex-Queen ever satisfied with it?
A. I think much less satisfied with it than he was, and commenced movements against it even before her brother died—while she was princess. From my intimate acquaintance with her, I knew that she ran away with the idea that she was Queen only of the native Hawaiians and not of the whites, even though born here.
Q. Have the natives as a race been discontented with these changes?
A. As shown in their public utterances in the Legislature, at election times, and through their native newspapers, I should say yes; but from my acquaintance with them personally, I am unable to see that it has worked to their injury, and I do not see evidences of their dissatisfaction.
Q. Were they in this secret league to which you had made reference?
A. I think there was only one person of mixed blood in the league.
Q. Did your politics take on anything of a racial form at any time; if so, when?
A. Occasionally a native in the Legislature would lose his head and say severe things against the whites as a class. It is generally frowned down upon by the most respectable of the natives and the foreigners. It has, however, been made a much more prominent feature in politics of late.
Q. Did Gibson use that race feeling to obtain power, and to maintain himself in it?
A. He did; and he also used flattery to the King to exalt his position. He fostered in the King’s mind the idea of proclaiming himself emperor of the Pacific in connection with the Samoan affair.
Q. But in dealing with the natives in the matter of suffrage did he play on the matter of race feeling?
[Page 838]A. Somewhat. His emissaries generally looked to other means-gin among them.
Q. Was he in the habit of abusing the whites, those who are called missionaries?
A. Yes; the first mischief he did was in thwarting the treaty of reciprocity.
Q. In what year was that?
A. In 1873.
Q. Before Kalakaua was King?
A. Yes; and the ministry of which I was a member, Mr. Bishop being leader, owing to the fact that King Lunalilo was in consumption, felt that it was prudent to abandon it.
Q. You were going to speak of race feeling in regard to politics?
A. It has been almost impossible to elect any kind of a decent white man in Honolulu for many years.
Q. Why?
A. I once had a conversation with a very prominent native and asked him why they never succeeded in electing a good white man in Honolulu. He said:
The man whom you regard as the best man the natives oppose just because you want him elected.
Q. I suppose you were not with the committee of safety during the late revolution?
A. I was not informed of any of their proceedings. They kept me out.
Q. Did you know that a constitution was going to be proclaimed in 1893 before it was done?
A. I had heard hints during some years before that the Queen was anxious to proclaim a new constitution, but I did not hear of her present intention until the morning of Saturday. Shortly before the prorogation, at 10 o’clock in the morning, a gentleman told me that immediately after the prorogation Mr. William White, the lottery advocate in the Legislature, was going to the palace with a large number of people and that the Queen was going to proclaim a new constitution. I mentioned it to my associates on the bench. They didn’t credit it. I mentioned it to a few others, among them the French consul. It disturbed me very much. Immediately the Legislature was prorogued I looked out from the balcony and saw a large number of natives dressed in black and wearing beaver hats marching over to the palace with banners and carrying a parcel.
I said to myself that is the new constitution. Being invited by the chamberlain to go over there, which is customary after prorogation, I urged my associates to accompany me. Judge Dole had an engagement and could not go. Judge Bickerton and I ment over. We stayed until 4 o’clock and saw the whole thing, except we were not in the private room with the Queen when she had her ministry there. The speech that she made, when she said she had designed to promulgate a new constitution but had met with obstacles and was prevented for the present, I wrote from memory. She said it in Hawaiian. I went home that evening, wrote it down from memory, and furnished it to the press.
Q. What was the point of it?
A. She was under great emotion. I never saw her in such a state of agitation. At the same time she controlled herself. It was really a magnificent spectacle. She said she had listened to thousands of voices demanding a change in the constitution—demanding a new constitution—and [Page 839] she thought the opportune moment had come. The constitution was very defective, and she turned around to defer to me as her witness, because I had had occasion so often to construe it. She had prepared a new constitution which she thought would meet the purposes required and would please the people; but she said with great sorrow: “I am obliged to tell you that I can not do it now. I have met with obstacles, but I ask you to go home; continue to love me, and I will continue to love you, and in a few days you will have your wishes gratified.” Immediately a member of the Legislature, the throne room being full of the Hui Kalaiainas, turned around and said: “What shall we do with these men who prevent the gratification of our wishes?” meaning the ministry. We hushed him up; told him to keep quiet, and I left the palace.
Q. What do you suppose she meant that in a few days they would be gratified?
A. She hoped to overcome the objections of her cabinet. Parker told me that the reason he stayed by her without leaving her all that afternoon was that he was afraid she would break away from the cabinet, go out on the balcony, and say to the people: “The ministers won’t approve it, and my chief justice won’t swear me to it. Here is your constitution. Now look out for these men.” We stayed there not under any physical compulsion. I sent in two messages by the chamberlain asking to be excused, but she sent word asking me to remain. Evidently she expected that thing done then and there. Mr. Wilson, the marshal, was in a great state of excitement, and told me that he had been fighting the battle alone all the morning with her, and wanted me to go in and use my influence to prevent her from doing it. I said that if the Queen asked me to come into her council I should be glad to do it, but I could not swear her to the new constitution.
Q. Have you any personal knowledge of improper relations between Wilson and the ex-Queen?
A. I know this as a fact, that when the supreme court decided that on the death of Kalakaua she could require the resignation of the cabinet appointed by him and could appoint her own cabinet, that she made three conditions with the new cabinet, and one of these conditions was such that Mr. Peterson would not consent to resume office under her. The three conditions were these: That Wilson was to be marshal, a native boy named Joe Aea was to be made turnkey of the prison, and that Wundenberg was to be dismissed as postmaster-general. Wundenberg had dismissed Henry Poor from a clerkship in the post-office, whose mother, living on Emma street, was a very strong friend of the Queen.
They were schoolmates together with me, and she, Mrs. Poor, is in charge of two boys. One of the boys is Dominis’s own son by a woman named Mary Purdy. She is married to the messenger of the foreign office, named Kamiki, and the other child is a son of Joe Aea, and rumor says it is the Queen’s own child. I do not know whether it is the Queen’s child or a child of Aea’s wife. I got it from Kamiki, who was deprived of the service of his wife from being Dominis’s mistress. When Dominis died he died with one hand in the hands of the Queen and the other in Mary Purdy’s hands. On one occasion I went to her about the morality of the palace, and she professed to me to be in favor of religion and morality I went to her on account of a great deal of scandal in regard to the character of the palace invitations.
Q. Did Wilson live in the bungalow?
A. Yes.
[Page 840]Q. And when she went back to Washington Place he always had a cottage there?
A. Yes.
Q. He was marshal?
A. Yes; he had been clerk of the waterworks before that.
Q. Judge, you have a good many races of people here. Could you establish stable government here on the basis of a qualification that they should read and write the English language?
A. That would limit the number qualified to vote very much. It would exclude nearly all the old Hawaiians. It would exclude the Portuguese, except the younger class that have been to school here, and, of course, the younger Hawaiians, who are now taught English exclusively.
Q. What would be the proportion between the white and native vote, putting the English test?
A. I can not say.
Q. Would it leave the native vote in excess or not?
A. I think it would.
Q. Now, on the basis of reading and writing English, could you establish a permanent form of government?
A. I doubt it very much.
Q. Could it maintain a government such as obtains in the States of the United States—New York, for instance?
A. It depends upon the character of the imperial government over it.
Q. What do you mean?
A. I mean that a republic of our own would not be at all successful.
Q. Why?
A. Because our natives are so likely to be influenced by demagogues, and more especially such influences as obtained in the last Legislature, such as the lottery—such schemes as that. The natives joined with the lower class of whites. They have not sufficient character to resist.
Q. Could you establish one that would make life and property safe and preserve order?
A. I doubt it very much.
Q. Would you be willing to take your chances on that sort of government?
A. No sir. As a property-holder and a man of family I would not like to take my chances.
Q. Could you maintain a good government here as a State in the Federal Union, like the State of New York?
A. I have not thought that was possible, because I do not suppose the United States would ever consent to have two Senators from a place like this.
Q. I am not talking about what they would consent to, but as to what you consider the qualifications of the Hawaiians to vote. I do not want to imply that the Government of the United States means to do anything.
A. Yes, I believe we could.
Q. What is the character of the Hawaiian as a voter? Is he an intelligent voter?
A. That is a matter of comparison, of course. He is easily influenced.
Q. In what way?
A. When his prejudices are excited, and when he is told the usual election stories; that something is going to happen unless they vote for such and such a man.
Q. Is he in the habit of selling his vote?
[Page 841]A. I believe there has been a good deal of bribery in this way, paying a man’s taxes for him—there being a qualification that a man shall have paid his taxes.
Q. Are they influenced much in elections by liquor?
A. Until the Australian ballot went into effect. The election of 1886 was largely managed by gin.
Q. What is their character as to honesty?
A. So far as they are concerned, they are not especially addicted to larceny.
Q. Not more than the white race?
A. No; I have lived in my present residence twenty-one years; have never had a theft; we live with our houses very loosely fastened.
Q. What is the moral character of the race?
A. The seafaring class are very much addicted to the use of liquor.
Q. What is the character of the Hawaiian women for chastity?
A. They are not chaste. At the same time they do not expose their immorality to public view. I think strangers would see scarcely anything of it. There is an outward observance of the laws of decency and morality.
Q. Why do they observe it outwardly and not practice it in secrecy?
A. I think it is the influence of their religious teaching. It is a source of profit to them.
Q. How?
A. Sailors and mechanics visit them, and that is what supports their families very largely in the low part of the town.
Q. Is that the character of the Hawaiian women generally?
A. I must except many very good, virtuous women.
Q. I do not mean exceptions.
A. They are accessible.
Q. As a race they are not chaste?
A. Their instincts are toward the sexual desire.
Q. Then the domestic circle is not marked by chaste conversation and life?
A. They are very careless in their conversation before their children.
Q. There is a good deal of intermarriage between the whites and natives here. What is the result of that? Is it a better type?
A. It is a more intelligent type.
Q. Are they not better morally?
A. As a class, no.
Q. Are the half castes generally the result of matrimonial alliances?
A. There are a large number that are not.
Q. What social recognition have these half-castes?
A. They have always received social recognition. They have always been sought after by strangers.
Q. How in social life here; are they received among the whites?
A. Those of good character are. There are several large families received on terms of perfect equality.
Q. The Portuguese population here, is that leaving much?
A. Yes.
Q. To what extent; rapidly, would you say?
A. Yes. On account of their inability to obtain land.
Q. Why can not they obtain land?
A. A great many lands have been tied up by long leases, although the Government has commenced the system of throwing open lands to homesteaders.
Q. But still the tendency is to leave?
[Page 842]A. Yes; they want to go to California—to America.
Q. Then is it the land only?
A. No; it is the desire to go to America; it is their El Dorado.
Q. The Japanese population is probably your future reliance for labor?
A. Yes; but I think the Chinese make the best laborers.
Q. But the authorities who have been controlling the Islands have taken the view that it was best not to allow the Chinamen to come in in large numbers?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. And the action of the Government has been toward restricting that, and looking to Japan for laborers?
A. Yes; that has been the policy of the country for a long time.
Q. Are these Japanese beginning to get the desire for suffrage.
A. I only hear it through the newspapers.
Q. What do you hear?
A. I hear that they will in time demand suffrage.
Q. What do you think of them as voters?
A. I think they would vote as the consul wanted them to vote. They are an inferior class, brought up with the idea that they must obey their superiors.
Q. They belong to the lowest class of the Japanese population?
A. Yes; they have very great deference for their superiors.
Q. Are they learning to read and write the English language to any extent?
A. Those who remain in the field do not have the opportunity. Their children go to school and learn English.
Q. Your native population—do they understand generally how to read and write the native tongue?
A. Lately they are losing the ability to speak Hawaiian well, by reason of their minds being directed in school to English.
Q. What books have they in the Hawaiian language?
A. Very few books outside of school books and religious books, and a few trashy novels.
Q. They have the Bible and the Pilgrim’s Progress?
A. Yes.
Q. You indicated a desire to make a statement in reference to certain occurrences in the legislature of 1892.
A. The body of Kalakaua arrived here on the 29th of January, 1891. At 2 o’clock that day Liliuokalani took the oath to support the constitution of 1887, which I administered. Kalakaua’s cabinet consisted then of Cummins, C. N. Spencer, Godfrey Brown, and A. P. Peterson. There was a great deal of discussion and wire pulling as to whether that cabinet should have the right to continue. Finally the opinion of the court was asked and it was held that she had liberty to ask for their resignation. They resigned and she appointed Parker, minister of foreign affairs; Widemann, finance; Spencer, interior, and Whiting, attorney-general.
At the general election which took place in 1892 all the representatives of the island of Oahu were elected from the Liberal party, of which Robert W. Wilcox was the leader (with one exception, W. R. Wilder), who was elected for one of the districts of Honolulu. The Legislature was opened on the 20th of May. On the 6th of June a vote was taken to expunge MacFarlane’s resolution, which was directed against Minister Stevens, which was carried by 33 to 13. On the 30th of August the Parker ministry was voted out by 31 to 10. There [Page 843] was no new cabinet appointed until the 12th of September. That was E. C. MacFarlane, minister of finance; Parker, foreign affairs; Gulick, interior, and Neumann, attorney-general. On the 15th of September there was another vote of want of confidence in this MacFarlane cabinet. It received 24 votes against 21. The question as to whether that was a sufficient constitutional number to pass it was referred to the judges of the supreme court, who decided that 25 votes were necessary.
Meanwhile, on the 4th of October, there was a special election held on this island, and Maile, a native from the fish market, and Hopkins, a half-white, were elected as nobles, by a very large majority, over two very respectable men, M. P. Robinson and H. Waterhouse, by the so-called lottery faction; that is, people who were bound to carry the lottery bill through.
On the 17th of October there was another vote of want of confidence introduced in the MacFarlane ministry, and it passed 32 to 15. On the 1st of November, at 10 o’clock in the morning, the Queen appointed Corn well minister of finance, Gulick minister of the interior, Nawahi minister of foreign affairs, and Creighton, attorney-general. At half-past 12 they were voted out—26 to 15, the same day. The 4th of November, rumors prevailed that the Queen would agree to appoint G. N. Wilcox minister of the interior, Cecil Brown attorney-general, P. C. Jones minister of finance, and M. C. Robinson minister of foreign affairs.
On the 8th of November this cabinet was appointed and sworn in. Then the country felt easy. The next important event was on the 6th of December, when the Legislature sent a request for an opinion to the justices of the supreme court upon the question whether an amendment to the constitution which had passed two successive Legislatures required the approval of the Queen. We answered that it did not.
Q. What was the constitutional provision?
A. It was something with reference to allowing legislation restricting the residence of Chinese here. The idea was that any laws that might be passed restricting terms of residence or rights of Chinese here would not be held unconstitutional.
Q. At that time was there any restriction on Chinese immigration?
A. Oh, yes; there were restrictions that had passed the Legislature with reference to their entering the Kingdom, but when once in the Kingdom they had the rights of all residents under Hawaiian law, and by our constitution no class legislation would be permissible under the constitution. The object of this amendment was to allow legislation of that character.
Q. Do you have reference to legislation providing that the Chinese should not reside here after the contract term had expired?
A. Yes; I think also as to the character of the employment they should engage in. It was the desire to pass that law which gave rise to this submission to the court. The constitution of 1887 left out all the provisions which had previously existed as to the sovereign signing an amendment to the constitution. The only popular reference was that any amendment that had passed one Legislature would have to be published three months previous to the election, and then if it passed the second Legislature it became a law.
Q. Was there no direct submission to the people?
A. Only in that way. On the 21st of December this ministry, which had the confidence of the people, began to have difficulty with the Queen with reference to the appointment of circuit judges under the new act.
[Page 844]Q. In what way?
A. They nominated Mr. Whiting and Mr. Frear.
Q. And she was not willing?
A. At first she was. The appointment of circuit judges was not to go into effect until the 1st of January, but it was deemed advisable that these gentlemen, who were in the practice of law, should be notified beforehand to arrange their business, as terms of the circuit court would begin with the new year. She first agreed that she would make these appointments. Then she said she did not care to appoint Mr. Frear, but wanted Mr. Rosa. I had a long talk with her. I told her that Mr. Rosa’s habits would make him unfit; that he got drunk. She finally on the 3d of January appointed those two judges. On the 29th of December there was talk all over town and in the lobby of the Legislature that there would be a vote of want of confidence against the Wilcox ministry, and on the 4th of January Mr. Bush introduced one. It failed, 19 to 22. On the 10th of January the lottery bill, which everyone supposed was dead, was moved up by C. L. Hopkins, who had just been elected by the lottery people.
Q. What is he doing now?
A. He is in the fishing business. I can not say he is in the opium business. It passed on the second reading to the astonishment of everybody by 20 to 17. It was hurried right along and passed its third reading on the 11th of January, 23 to 20. Six of the members of the house had gone home. On the 12th at half past 1 Kapahu introduced a vote of want of confidence in the Wilcox cabinet, and it passed, 25 to 16. Noble C. O. Beyer being the twenty-fifth man and he voted that way because Mr. Widemann was promised by the Queen that he should form a new cabinet. On the 13th of January there was no quorum in the morning. At half past 2 the cabinet came in—Parker, Corn well, Peterson, and Colburn. That was Friday. That night quite a number of members tried to get their forces together to introduce a vote of want of confidence in that ministry. People said no, it it is no use. Saturday morning Mr. Peterson announced to the Legislature that the Queen had signed two bills that had interested the community for a long time—the bill licensing the sale of opium and the establishing of smoking joints, and the lottery bill, giving an exclusive franchise to these individuals for a term of twenty-five years to establish a national lottery, for which they were to give the Government $500,000 a year.
Q. Did the bill provide how it should be used?
A. It provided that a certain sum should be used for the laying of a cable between here and San Francisco.
Q. Any other public work?
A. I do not now remember.
Q. Did you participate in the meetings of the committee of safety on 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th of January?
A. I did not, being a judge.
I have carefully read the foregoing and pronounce it an accurate report of my interview with Mr. Blount.