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

No. 37.
Statement of E. C. Macfarlane.

Honolulu, May 9, 1893.

My Dear Mr. Blount:

I hand you herewith the statement you desired me to make as to the causes leading up to the dismissal of the several cabinets of the last Legislature. In this statement I have con lined myself entirely to the bare facts you ask for, without attempting to introduce any of the arguments brought out in the debates. I have copies of all the proceedings in the Legislature, if you should want to read them at any time, and I hope to have another opportunity before your departure to talk over Hawaiian affairs with you.

I leave for Hawaii to-day to attend to some important matters in connection with the Volcano House Company, returning on Wednesday of next week. All of the papers in connection with the lottery petitions, will be in proper shape upon my return. I am only waiting for the clerk of the Legislature to make his affidavits.

In haste,

Very respectfully,

E. C. Macfarlane.

Honolulu, May 6, 1893.

Hon. James H. Blount,
United States Commissioner, etc., Honolulu:

Sir: Shortly after the commencement of the last session of the Legislature, it was an open secret that the Volney-Ashford-Wilcox party were planning a revolutionary movement, which had the support of the annexationist element, and that the latter element had the sympathy of the United States minister. I was firmly of the opinion that such a conspiracy was on foot and that it had the sympathy of Mr. Stevens, and a speech made by him on Decoration Day afforded me an opportunity to bring the matter before the assembly in the following inquiry:

Sir: I am constrained to ask Her Majesty’s constitutional advisors whether they intend taking any steps to rebuke the unwarrantable action of the United States minister on a recent public occasion—an action which could only be intended to interfere with and obstruct the administration.

This was replied to by the minister of foreign affairs as follows:

Hon. J. S. Walker,
President of the Legislature:

Sir: In answer to the question propounded by the honorable noble for Honolulu, E. C. Macfarlane, I would say, that Her Majesty’s Government has given the matter careful consideration and has already taken action in the premises.

The following day I addressed the house upon a question of privilege, as follows:

Mr. President: My attention has been called to an editorial in a morning paper criticising my question asked yesterday of his excellency the minister of foreign affairs.

I do not intend to be placed in a false position by the Advertiser, hence the privilege of which I avail myself. Let it be understood that I yield to no one in admiration of the great Republic in respect for its generous, liberty-loving people; neither do I fail to appreciate the generosity covered by our treaty of reciprocity. In a sense, the American minister represents that Republic and its people, but it is only when he conducts himself within the lines laid down for diplomatic representatives.

I maintain that if this Government and people desire to retain the respect of the governments and peoples of the world they must he self-respecting and must resent all interferences with our affairs, when conducted with a proper regard for other nations, by foreign representatives. I have said that the American minister represents the American people, but I must again qualify this assertion by saying that he best does so when he refuses to interfere in our domestic affairs at the instance of a faction in this community, whose organ is the Advertiser, whose leaders are ex-ministers of Hawaii, who, like the followers of Moses, are longing for the flesh pots of Egypt, and whose purpose seems to be to rule or ruin. Against this faction every friend of the Hawaiian people must stand arrayed.

The inquiry by the minister of foreign affairs went so far as to call forth from Mr. Stevens a disclaimer of any intention to interfere with our domestic affairs. The matter was discussed with the Hawaiian members of the house in caucus, and they were made to believe that unless the objectionable matter was expunged it would embroil the country in complications with the United States, which would likely lose them the independence of their country.

Of this action in caucus I was informed by several of the Hawaiian members, and the following day Representative Kamauoha introduced a resolution to expunge from the records of the assembly all references to the matter, which resolution was carried.

In accordance with an understanding with the leaders of the Reform party, the conservative element in the National Reform party joined with the former and voted out the Parker-Widemann cabinet. The want of decision on the part of that cabinet in dealing with the Horner banking act (which proposed an unlimited issue of irredeemable paper money) was the principal reason for desiring the change. The unaccountable failure of that ministry to act vigorously and promptly in this matter created a strong opposition to the members throughout the whole business community.

On Saturday, September 3, 1892, the leaders of the Reform party called a caucus of the members of the assembly and passed the following resolution:

Be it resolved, That whereas a resolution of want of confidence in the cabinet was passed by the Legislature on August 30 last, such resolution being passed by a vote of 31 to 10; and

Whereas, by reason of the adoption of such resolution, the constitutional necessity has arisen for selecting a new cabinet;

Now, therefore, we, members of the Legislature, feeling this to be a fit occasion to more firmly establish the constitutional principles upon which our system of government is based, do hereby, regardless of previous party affiliations, declare that, under the principles of responsible representative government established in this Kingdom, Her Majesty should summon a leading member of the Legislature who voted in favor of such resolution of want of confidence, to form the new cabinet, thereby recognizing the constitutional principle that the cabinet should possess the support and confidence of, and represent the majority of, the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people;

And resolved further, That we do hereby pledge ourselves to govern our future action, as members of this Legislature, in support of this constitutional principle.

This resolution was sent to Her Majesty and called forth the following reply:

Iolani Palace, September 7, 1892.

Hons. Alexander Young, J. N. S. Williams, and Wm. O. Smith:

Gentlemen: As the bearer of a resolution passed upon by certain members of the Legislature, Her Majesty was pleased to grant you an audience and graciously promised to reply to the subject-matter of the resolution. I am now directed to say that Her Majesty is pleased to note the desire on the part of the gentlemen whom you represent “to more firmly establish the constitutional principle upon which our system of government is based, recognizing the principle that the cabinet should possess the support and confidence of, and represent the majority of, the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people.”

The opinion is expressed that Her Majesty should summon a leading member of the Legislature who voted in favor of a resolution of want of confidence to form a new cabinet.

Sincerely desiring to meet the wishes of the representatives of her subjects, it has pleased Her Majesty to summon the Hon. A. P. Peterson to assist in the formation of a cabinet.

Her Majesty trusts that the acceptance of the suggestion to call a member of the majority of the Legislature to form a cabinet will bring about the result sought for.

Her Majesty also desires to express her appreciation of the courtesies received at the hands of the gentlemen of the committee.

I have the honor to be, gentlemen, yours respectfully,

James W. Robertson,
Her Majesty’s Chamberlain.

Mr. Peterson endeavored in every way to meet the wishes of the caucus in the formation of a cabinet, but the reform faction were irreconcilable, and would not agree to anything that he suggested. The resolution above quoted is misleading. I will not say designedly, for the contention was persistently made in caucus by Mr. Thurston, the framer of the resolution, that upon the defeat of a ministry, not only should Her Majesty send for a leading member of the victorious opposition, but that the opposition should select a cabinet, and send their nominations to the Queen for her acceptance, insisting that she should recognize this course as a constitutional principle.

I and a few others objected to the establishment of such a precedent, urg ingthat under the constitution the Queen had the right to name her cabinet, which could only be removed by a want-of-confidence vote of the majority of all the elective members of the Legislature. See article 41 of the constitution, which reads:

The cabinet shall consist of the minister of foreign affairs, the minister of the interior, the minister of finance, and the attorney-general, and they shall be His Majesty’s special advisers in the executive affairs of the Kingdom; and they shall be ex officio members of His Majesty’s privy council of state. They shall be appointed and commissioned by the King and shall be removed by him only upon a vote of want of confidence passed by a majority of all the elective members of the Legislature, or upon conviction of felony, and shall be subject to impeachment. No act of the King shall have any effect unless it be countersigned by a member of the cabinet, who by that signature makes himself responsible.

I see no good reason for departing from the meaning of this clause of the constitution so plainly expressed, and there was at least one good reason for doing so—the possibility of a majority of the Legislature which contained no material from which to form a cabinet outvoting that part of the Legislature from which a cabinet would naturally be selected. And again, it implied that Her Majesty could not go outside of the house to select her ministers. I consider it a decided advantage in the community that the Sovereign should have the privilege of selecting his or her advisers from the whole country.

The meaning of the constitution is plainly that it is the Queen’s prerogative to appoint a cabinet, and that of the Legislature to dismiss it—not by any scratch vote, but by a majority of all the elective members.

Over a week passed without arriving at any settlement in the matter of forming a cabinet, during all of which time Mr. Peterson and myself met the members in caucus, from time to time, without reaching any result.

Mr. Peterson failing to form a cabinet, Her Majesty called upon me, on a Saturday, to do so, saying to me that a ministry must be formed to meet the house on the Monday morning following, as the tension upon the community was becoming too great. It would have given me satisfaction could I have arranged a cabinet to satisfy a majority of the caucus, but in the limited time given me it was impossible to do so, it being evident that Mr. Thurston and his friends did not intend to permit the house to be prorogued without having a ministry selected from their faction. Accordingly I formed a cabinet which I thought would be acceptable to a majority of the assembly and to the community.

Mr. Thurston and his friends at once attacked the cabinet and immediately brought in a resolution of want of confidence, which failed to carry. In the meantime an election was called to fill the seats made vacant by the resignations (on taking cabinet positions) of Mr. Paul Neumann and myself as nobles for the island of Oahu. The clear-cut issue in this election was to indorse or not to indorse the ministry. The result of the election was the return of Messrs. Maile and Hopkins, who went before their constituencies as supporters of the ministry, and who were elected by an overwhelming majority—the cabinet thereby receiving the indorsement of a large majority of the electors for nobles of the island of Oahu.

No better expression of approval could be asked for by members of a representative government than that thus accorded to our cabinet, immediately following the defeat of a no-confidence resolution in the house.

This expression of confidence at the polls was the more emphatic, coming from the electors of the island of Oahu, who are accorded nine noble representatives out of the twenty-four, in deference to their property-and-income qualification, and might have been expected to lessen the virulence of the opposition.

Despite this verdict of the noble voters for the island of Oahu, which certainly represents the wealth and intelligence of the Kingdom, the unreconciled minority persistently pursued their tactics to force out the ministry.

As minister of finance, I had arranged with the two local banks for the protection of the depositors in the Postal Savings Bank, and on October 12 I informed the assembly that on the following Monday I would present the appropriation bill, outlining the financial policy of the ministry, and at the same time bringing forward additional revenue measures.

On the Monday morning, October 14, before any opportunity had been given to introduce the promised bills, a vote of want of confidence was introduced. Following is a copy of the resolution which was introduced by Representative Waipuilani:

Whereas the present cabinet has not announced or given any intimation or evidence of any financial policy which will extricate the country from its present dangerous financial situation; and

Whereas it is essential to the commercial progress of the country that more favorable treaty relations with the United States be obtained, whereby our products can obtain a free market in that country; and

Whereas the present cabinet has shown no disposition to favor any such policy, and the present head of the cabinet has displayed such conspicuous hostility toward the representative of that country in this Kingdom, and the general tone of the administration has been and is one of opposition and hostility to the United States of America and American interests, thereby rendering it improbable that any changes in our treaty relations favorable to Hawaii can be negotiated by this cabinet; and

Whereas the cabinet has given no evidence of any intention to attempt to remedy existing scandals in the police department, and have otherwise failed to evince any ability to successfully guide the nation through the difficulties and dangers surrounding it: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Legislature hereby expresses its want of confidence in the present cabinet.

The debate on this resolution was almost altogether taken up with the attitude of the cabinet towards the American minister, who had a grievance against the Bulletin newspaper for publishing reflections on his not sending out the Boston in search of a missing American boat’s crew. Mr. Stevens seemed to think that the cabinet controlled the Bulletin—which it did not—and a rather lengthy correspondence took place between him and the foreign office on the subject, which ended in the attorney-general’s entering a suit for libel against the paper, after the editor’s refusal to publish an apology dictated by the American minister.

During the debate I was anxious to have this correspondence read, which would have shown that we had tried to meet Mr. Stevens’s wishes in every way, but the house would not allow the correspondence to be read. I regret that I can not here reproduce the letters, which would show a conspicuous absence of the hostility dilated on in the resolution.

I have already said that I was prepared with a financial statement; as to the other count in the indictment—alleging scandals in the police department—this resolved itself into a demand for the dismissal of the marshal; but, though much was said, nothing was proved against him. When the reform cabinet took office, the members of it seemed to forget how very scandalous the marshal was, for they retained him in office during the whole term of their incumbency.

On Tuesday, November 1, the Cornwell-Nawashi cabinet took office and was voted out the same day, no opportunity being afforded to outline a policy.

On Friday, November 4, Her Majesty called upon Cecil Brown to form a cabinet, Mr. Brown not being at the time a member of the assembly. This fact, however, did not call forth from Mr. Thurston and his friends any protest, as it was well understood that he (Mr Brown) would form a ministry that would be acceptable to the reform party; the “constitutional principle” which Mr. Thurston and his friends had contended for being easily forgotten when occasion required. They continued in office simply because they allowed the assembly to do as they pleased with the appropriation bill, the result being that the grand total of the budget alarmed the assembly and produced disaffection, leading up to a vote of want of confidence. The vote, however, failed to carry, but a second attempt was made soon after, and the cabinet was voted out on the 11th of January, 1893. Two days later the Parker-Colburn cabinet took office, and the house was prorogued the following day.

During the time I had a portfolio frequent conferences with Her Majesty satisfied me that she was anxious to promote legislation and to keep down expenses of government, going so far as to suggest to me that the first reduction in the appropriation bill should be made in her privy purse and royal state.

In reference to the lottery bill, about which so much has been said derogatory to the Queen, it should be said that Her Majesty was quite willing to see it fail; but a majority of the members of the Legislature had been worked upon by individuals who had circulated petitions favoring the establishment of a lottery, and the bill having passed, Her Majesty declined to exercise her prerogative in vetoing the bill, a prerogative which she refused to avail herself of, excepting upon the advice of her constitutional advisers.

In this connection I should say that the lottery bill was, during my brief ministry, in the hands of a committee and did not come up at all for discussion. My colleagues and myself were, however, a unit against it, and in negotiating financial assistance for the Government I distinctly said so, both to Mr. Damon and Mr. Irwin, the representatives of the local banks.

In the matter of the opium bill, there was a division of sentiment on the part of the Brown-Wilcox cabinet (reform), two ministers voting for and two against the measure, it being a question upon which there might be an honest difference of opinion, the opinion being held by a large portion of the community that prohibition did not prohibit.

What followed the prorogation of the Assembly it is not my purpose to touch upon.

I have the honor to remain, sir, your most obedient servant,

E. C. Macfarlane.