No. 32.
Interview with John Lot
Kaulukou.
Mr. Blount. Where do you live?
A. In Honolulu.
Q. Were you in the city on the 14th of January last?
A. I was.
Q. Will you please give me a statement of the causes of the revolution which resulted in the dethronement of the Queen?
A. I will tell you what I know. On the 14th of January, the Queen dismissed the Legislature—discharged every member of the house at 12 o’clock. The Queen went into the palace with several people. On that day it was the first time I heard of the Queen’s intention to declare a new constitution. Since 1887, after the decree of that constitution, the people were asking and filing petitions to the legislatures of 1890 and also 1892. There were many names on the petitions to his late Majesty Kalakaua, and when he died his sister came on the throne. The people sent petitions to the legislature and to Her Majesty the Queen to make a new constitution, because the people wanted to have a new constitution—a constitution for equal rights between everyone in this community.
Q. You mean by equal rights everybody to have the privilege to vote who were twenty?
A. Yes. The constitution of 1887 is to take away the rights of the natives to vote for the nobles. For instance, if I had property of $2,999.99 I had no right to vote for nobles under that constitution, but a man who had an income of $600, without property, he had that right. In these islands there were nine nobles and that man with an income of $600 had a right to vote for nine nobles, and a man of property of $2,999.99, he had no right to vote for noble, except one representative in the ward where he lived.
Q. You mean to vote for a member of the house of representatives instead of nobles.
A. Yes; and this man, with an income of $600, he had a right to vote for nine nobles in these islands and also a representative in the ward where he lived. He voted for ten men. For that reason the people claim it is not right.
Q. These petitions to the legislature and to the Queen, what did they ask for in the matter of the election of nobles? Did they ask that the Crown should appoint them or the people be allowed to elect them?
A. That the people be allowed to vote for all—to give everyone an equal vote for both noble and representative. That was the intention of the petitions.
[Page 849]Q. Do you know what this constitution the Queen intended to proclaim contained in that connection?
A. No one in this community knows.
Q. You do know that the demand from the people was for the election of nobles by all classes of the people?
A. Yes; without any qualification.
Q. Well, please go on with your statement.
A. Many people went into the palace to see the Queen and also Kalakaua, and they sent a petition to the Queen and also to the legislature, and called a mass meeting, and that is the only reason Wilcox is elected; also Mr. Bush and Antone Rosa, and also the reason why they were elected in 1890.
Q. On the idea of making a new constitution on the ground these petitions asked for?
A. Yes; and also in 1892.
Q. In the elections of 1890 and 1892 the line of division amongst the people was upon that question of a new constitution, giving everybody the right to vote for nobles and representatives?
A. Yes; for any candidates running to oppose that view it was impossible for that man to go to the legislature in 1890 and 1892. They did not want the idea of taking all the power from the Queen. Under this constitution they took every power from the Queen.
Q. What power did they want to give the Queen?
A. In regard to veto. They wanted to give some power to the Queen. A bill goes to Her Majesty. They want to give that privilege to the Queen; if she thinks a bill not proper, not right, she should have the right to veto it.
Q. She did have that power and exercised it, didn’t she?
A. After the case came before the court, the court decided in favor of her power to veto.
Q. When was that decision made?
A. I think about 1888 or 1889. It was after 1887.
Q. If that was settled by the court in 1888 or 1889, it would hardly be in the campaign in 1890 and 1892?
A. The real object of the people was for the constitution. They did not care about the veto question. They claimed the constitution was forced on Kalakaua. The people wanted a new constitution.
Q. You say the constitution was forced on Kalakaua. How was it forced on him?
A. He did not like this constitution.
Q. Why did he proclaim it?
A. People told him “if you don’t sign this constitution we will overthrow you.”
Q. What people?
A. White men—foreigners.
Q. Where did they live?
A. Here.
Q. And in the other islands?
A. In this island and in the other islands. I saw some from other islands.
Q. How many?
A. Saw only one that I remember.
Q. Any natives in the meeting which demanded the new constitution of Kalakaua?
A. Very few. About three or four natives went there.
Q. The native population is in the majority. Why didn’t they stand [Page 850] by him—by Kalakaua? He did not expect them to help him or he would not have yielded to the whites.
A. The Government had many soldiers and also volunteers. Volunteers supported the view of the new constitution in 1887. Many Portuguese. The officers had commissions from King Kalakaua. Government furnished guns and ammunition for them. Those people are the very people to oppose the King and go in favor of the new constitution. The Portuguese officers and men were opposed to the King.
Q. Do I understand you to mean that the desertion of these Portuguese officers and troops left him without the military power to oppose this movement of the whites?
A. The Portuguese officers and Portuguese soldiers went together with the volunteers that time. There were two kinds of volunteers, white men, really white men, and the Portuguese joined together with the Thurston crowd and opposed the King.
Q. Were they volunteers?
A. Yes.
Q. How many soldiers had the Thurston crowd?
A. Including Portuguese, about 300.
Q. How many had the King?
A. I think the King had 700 or 800.
Q. Was the King with 800 troops afraid of Thurston with 300?
A. He was not afraid. His Majesty wanted to go and fight, but so many of his friends would go back on him.
Q. Why did they go back on him?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Who were they?
A. Haley was one of them. He was an Englishman, I understand. The King did not want to have bloodshed, so be signed his name on that constitution. I have no doubt in my mind that if the King had opposed this crowd we would have no more town of Honolulu. There would have been property lost and lives lost—great many.
Q. You mean in 1887?
A. Yes.
Q. But he did not want to see that?
A. No; he didn’t.
Q. Well, please go on where I interrupted you.
A. After that we got a new constitution, and every one of us took oath to support it. I myself do not like the constitution—the way of getting it—but the regulation issued from the interior office if any one of the natives did not take the oath to support that constitution he had no right to vote. For that reason I myself and all the rest of my native friends took oath to support the constitution. So we lived under that constitution, and the people did not like it; I mean the natives. They did not like it, not because everything in the constitution is bad but they did not like the way of getting it. They were disgusted by the way of getting it. Part of that constitution is really part of the constitution of Kamehameha V.
In the election of 1890 Wilcox was a leader, and Bush and several others. Their platform to go before the people is that they want a new constitution. Part of their crowd came in and joined the natives and said they must have a new constitution. At that time, if I remember right, McCarty—Charlie McCarty (he was one of the volunteers against the King in 1887)—was one of the candidates for noble in 1890 to oppose the constitution, and by uniting of foreigners and natives [Page 851] the whole island on that principle elected members of the House of Nobles and Representatives.
Q. How did they manage to elect nobles with the property qualification?
A. As I told you, whoever had an income of $600 had a right to vote for nobles.
Q. Were a majority of the nobles elected in 1892 for or against the constitution?
A. They did not want this constitution.
Q. You do not understand my question. In 1892 you elected nobles. Now, were a majority of the nobles elected in 1892 for or against the constitution?
A. They were against the constitution of 1887. They wanted to have a new constitution. Some of them say, all I want is amendments, but a majority of the people wanted a new constitution. So you see a majority of the people wanted a new constitution. I suppose that is the reason the Queen wanted to have a new constitution.
Q. Now, a majority of the nobles and representatives being in favor of a new constitution, why didn’t they pursue the plan laid down in the constitution?
A. The trouble was at that time, before the election they came forward to the people with the idea of a new constitution, but when they go inside, the house some of the people go back on their constituents and they turn around. Some of them, like Wilcox. He was strongly in favor of a new constitution, but he never did anything in the house to get a new constitution. Some of them introduced a bill to make a new constitution, and some people say that is against the constitution. But yet people talk outside “new constitution! new constitution!” When we go before the house we never get constitution. They never did anything. That is the reason we did not get a new constitution. The people wanted to have a constitution for equal rights.
On the 14th of January I was in the palace myself, and before I went into the palace I heard the Queen intended to proclaim a new constitution. I went in to see if it was true or not. While there I saw Chief Justice Judd. He asked me, what is all this? I said I didn’t know. I heard the Queen was going to proclaim a new constitution. He asked me what sort of a constitution? I said I didn’t know. He said he would give $50 for a copy of that constitution. We stayed there about an, hour, perhaps two hours, and then the Queen came from the blue room.
Q. What you call the throne room?
A. Yes. She said:
My people, I am sorry to say I can not proclaim a new constitution to-day, because of the advice from my cabinet not to do so. Therefore, my people, I want you to go home. Behave yourselves and keep quiet. Do not make any disturbance.
The people went home.
Q. Was that speech made in the throne room?
A. Yes; so the people went home quietly. On Sunday morning the first I knew there were some posters on the street, the committee of safety calling for a mass meeting on Monday. There were no names on it; just committee of safety calling mass meeting at the armory on Beretania street. Sunday was a very quiet day—no disturbance, no riot; no reason to make anyone believe a revolution had come on Saturday and Sunday—and Monday morning I saw another poster to have another mass meeting for natives on Palace square at 2 o’lock. I was at this meeting on Palace square.
[Page 852]Q. How many people were there?
A. I think, including foreigners and natives, about 5,000. There were many foreigners there.
Q. How many foreigners?
A. I think more than 500, between 500 and 1,000, the rest were natives. They made speeches and thanked Her Majesty, the Queen, for her intention to proclaim a new constitution. She could not do anything now because her cabinet had advised her not; but the meeting thanked her for her idea to proclaim a new constitution. They adopted resolutions as follows:
Resolved. That the assurance of Her Majesty, the Queen, contained in this day’s proclamation, is accepted by the people as a satisfactory guaranty that the Government does not and will not seek any modification of the constitution by any other means than those provided in the organic law.
Resolved, That accepting this assurance, the citizens here assembled will give their cordial support to the administration and indorse them in sustaining that policy.
The meeting adjourned and the people went home. They made no disturbance. Saturday the Queen ordered the people to go home quietly. The natives always listen. They always obey. On this day, Monday, Bush and Nawahi told the people to go home quietly and calmly. They did so. I went home. Several others went home without any idea of any revolution to come after that. About 5 o’clock in the afternoon was the first time we had news of the landing of the Boston’s troops on shore—on the same landing you came the other day. We went down to see. Heard that some marines and blue jackets were there.
If you were here at that time you could hear foreigners and natives asking this question: “What does this mean? For what reason do these people come ashore?” From there they marched on Fort street, turned their right on Fort street and came up to the consul-general’s office—Mr. Severance. I suppose there were twenty of them formed there. There were perhaps twenty or twenty-tour went over to the minister’s; the rest of them marched over to King street, the front of the palace. They went over with guns, Gatling guns.
Q. The soldiers had Gatling guns?
A. Yes; they had everything ready to meet their enemies.
Q. How long did they stop in front of the palace?
A. I think they stopped in front of the opera house about three or four minutes, and from there they went over to the front of the palace. When they got there they saluted the flag.
Q. What flag?
A. The Queen’s flag. The Queen generally had the flag up when she was in the palace. From there they went over to the corner of the palace. They remained there.
Q. How long?
A. About five minutes. From there they went over to Atherton, the place where the consul-general lives. I was there myself. I saw them sitting down smoking. After that I came to the Government house. While I was there, I think they came from King street and took charge of Arion Hall for that night.
Q. Who did the building belong to?
A. Mr. Gilbert J. Waller.
Q. They got it from him for occupation that night?
A. I do not know. I heard they went in without permission. They remained there for the night.
[Page 853]Q. How long altogether were the troops about the palace; how much time did they stay there?
A. They stayed in front of the Opera House about five minutes and went over to the end of the palace gate and stayed another five minutes.
Q. Did they show any signs of being mad in any way—of wanting to fight?
A, What I understand is this: I saw their guns like this (holding his hands in a position to show that the weapons were ready for use), facing them towards the palace. Their intention I do not know. That evening everything around the town was very quiet. If I am not mistaken there was a band playing at the hotel that evening. Avery important question in the minds of the people was: “Did you see the troops of the Boston come? What does this all mean?”
Q. Who were talking in this way, whites or natives?
A. Whites and natives too. I said nobody knows. Perhaps they have come to support the Queen’s Government. I do not know. I will go back a little. On Monday the white men held their meeting at the armory. I was not there myself. There was nobody there except foreigners and some Portuguese.
Q. When you say foreigners, do you mean whites?
A. Yes, Germans, Americans and different nationalities. I think, from what I heard, there were only five natives there—Kanakas.
Q. Who were they?
A. One of them, I understand, is the editor of a newspaper under the control of the Serano E. Bishop—J. U. Kawainui. I heard there were five others.
Q. Was Wilcox there?
A. No, he was one of the speakers at the Palace square.
Q. Is he the man who headed the Wilcox revolution?
A. Yes. Wilcox says like this: “Any man who insults a lady is nothing but a pig and a hog, and more especially a man who insults the dignity of his Queen. He is nothing but a pig and a hog.” At that time Wilcox had nothing to do with foreigners. He was strongly opposed against them. Tuesday morning the town is very quiet. The only question is this: What is all this? We never had any idea of a revolution or disturbance. About afternoon the only excitement I know we heard the news of the shooting of a man by Capt. Good, captain of the guard now at the barracks. He was sent to carry an order from the station house to stop the man to carry guns and ammunition that day. So Good shot him. People then saw there was some trouble coming up. Before that I saw some of these people here. I mean Thurston, C. L. Carter, W. L. Castle going around the streets. What they did I do not know. I saw Charlie Carter before 12 o’clock go over to Arion Hall and meet with one of the officers of the Boston’s troop. The conversation I do not know. That evening, about half past 2, we heard the news of the proclamation of the Provisional Government and the overthrow of the Queen.
Q. What time was that?
A. About half past 2, I think. I did not look at my watch. I was there myself. A gentleman, now a judge on the bench, Mr. Cooper, he read the proclamation with his hand shaking.
Q. What day was this?
A. Tuesday the 17th. The marines of the Boston were lying between the fence of the Government house. They were lying there when the new government was proclaimed. Lying between the Government house and Arion Hall.
[Page 854]Q. How far is Arion Hall from the Government house?
A. About 50 or 60 feet.
Q. When that mass meeting was in session on the 16th where were the troops? Were there any troops on shore?
A. No. After that, about 5 o’clock of the same day, the troops landed.
Q. What did that mass meeting determine on that day?
A. The day the troops landed?
Q. Yes.
A. I can not tell you positively what was the object of their meeting. As I heard it, they wanted to overthrow the Queen because she was against her oath by her intention to proclaim a new constitution. Before Cooper read his proclamation for a new government, the marines of the Boston were lying at the same place. I was at the station house at that time with plenty of foreigners and also natives—plenty of white men and also natives ready to support Her Majesty the Queen’s Government. We could have gone up there and cleaned those soldiers of the Provisional Government out in fifteen or twenty minutes. We had everything ready to go and fight. We could have cleaned up every one of them in fifteen or twenty minutes.
The barracks were in the hands of someone for Her Majesty the Queen. The station house was in the hands of foreigners and natives under control of the Queen’s Government. So you see the Government building was the only place taken by the Provisional Government at that time. The barracks, the Queen’s palace, and the station house were in the hands of the Queen’s friends. I was one of the soldiers ready to support the Queen’s Government. I think about 500 of us were there that day. Sam Damon came down there. He went out to Bill Corn well, minister of finance; I saw him with Sam Damon.
Sam Parker was down at the station house. Peterson, the attorney-general, was there; Antone Rosa was there; in fact, the whole cabinet was there. The marshal was there; Deputy Marshal Martin was there, and a large crowd ready to go up to the Government house against the Provisional Government. While I was there I saw C. L. Hopkins in a carriage with a letter, and he went up to his excellency Mr. Stevens’s residence. About half an hour afterwards Hopkins returned to the station house again with his answer to that letter.
The answer was, I understand, I am not positive, “I recognize the Provisional Government at this time.” That is my understanding. I do not want you to think I saw the letter. We thought before Hopkins went up there that his excellency Mr. Stevens was in favor of Her Majesty’s Government. When Hopkins arrived at the station house and some of the members of the cabinet read the letter they told us his excellency Mr. Stevens was in favor of the Provisional Government. He would not support Her Majesty’s Government. For that reason we could not do anything, because we did not want to fight with the United States Government.
Q. When this man came back from the American minister with the letter recognizing the Provisional Government was the Queen then in possession of the barracks and the palace and the station house?
A. She was in control of the palace, in control of the barracks, and the station house. She was ready to meet the Provisional party. I assure you if Mr. Stevens had never sent any letter of that kind that evening I have no doubt the people in the Government building would have to clean out.
Q. How many were there?
[Page 855]A. About 50.
Q. Who knows how many troops the white people had there then—who else besides yourself knows about it?
A. Antone Rosa knows it; Henry Poor, he is three-fourths white; Charles Hopkins, and several others. At the time that man returned from Minister Stevens’s house the station house, the barracks, and the palace were in control of the Queen.
Q. Was the Queen in possession of the barracks, station house, and palace when the proclamation was read?
A: Yes; I am sure. When we had news from Mr. Stevens in favor of the Provisional Government, then some of our friends said:
It is no use for us to go and fight the Americans. There are few soldiers here hut there are 65,000,000 of people behind. It is no use to fight.
If Mr. Stevens had never sent that letter to recognize the Provisional Government I say Her Majesty would have remained on the throne to-day.
Next morning I read a letter from Minister Stevens in the newspaper. He said:
I recognize the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, because it takes the palace, the station house, and the barracks. That is my reason why I recognize the Provisional Government.
Now he had recognized the Provisional Government before they had taken charge of the station house, the palace, or the barracks. There was only the Government house in the hands of the Provisional Government. We could not fight the United States. If Mr. Stevens had never sent any word of that kind, if he had never interfered, you would see these people cleaned out in fifteen or twenty minutes, and the Queen remain on her throne till to-day.
Q. How do you know what was in the letter which Mr. Hopkins carried to Mr. Stevens?
A. I do not know. I saw Antone Rosa write a letter and Hopkins took it to give to his excellency, Mr. Stevens.
Q. The letter Mr. Rosa wrote in the station house?
A. Yes.
Q. When Hopkins came back he brought an answer. To whom?
A. To the members of the cabinet, because they remained in the station house.
Q. Where is the letter?
A. I suppose Sam Parker or the Queen has it.
Q. Will you find out and furnish me with the letters?
A. I will try.
Q. I want the letter taken by Mr. Hopkins and given to Mr. Stevens and the reply.
A. Yes.
Q. Well, please continue your narrative.
A. Her Majesty the Queen did not surrender her Government to the Provisional Government, but to the United States Government.
Q. How do a majority of the people feel towards the Provisional Government?
A. They are against it.
Q. By what majority, if there was a vote on the Australian ballot system?
A. I do not think the Provisional Government would get one-tenth of the native people from the Island of Hawaii to Niihau.
Q. That is the native people?
[Page 856]A. Yes.
Q. How about the whites?
A. I say I think nearly a majority of the white men in town is against the Provisional Government, or perhaps half and half.
Q. I have heard a good many natives were signing papers here and in other islands in favor of annexation. If that is true, how do you account for it?
A. I think some of them have signed their names in favor of annexation. I will give you the reason: Because their horses run in pasture of very people in favor of annexation. Some of them work under them on plantations. So they have control of them. Some natives sign because they are afraid of being turned out from their work. They say they will have no bread and butter; but if you declare an election like the Australian law, when their master or boss would have no control of them, it would differ.
I have carefully read the foregoing and pronounce it an accurate report of my interview with Col. Blount.