No. 41.
Statement of the Hawaiian
Patriotic League.
memorial on the hawaiian crisis
I.—Generative causes.
The strongest argument of the men who, for personal aims, crave for the overthrow of the Hawaiian national monarchy, is that the natives are incapable of self-government, and to this flimsy and false argument the United States minister resident, J. L. Stevens, as a complaisant echo, adds that the natives are always “misled by unscrupulous hoodlum foreigners,” “unscrupulous hoodlum” being apparently Mr. Stevens’ pet diplomatic qualification for every man who does not agree with his diplomatic friends and accomplices.
The historian’s ready answer to these calumnies is that ever since the pacification of the country, which followed Kamehameha’s conquests, the natives when left alone have had a most satisfactory, peaceful, and progressive Government, while all the dissensions, riots, and troubles recorded in the annals of these islands have ever been by or through foreigners seeking to wrench the power and wealth from the poor natives, these being ever the peaceful and patient sufferers thereby, not “misled,” but terrorized and oppressed.
As it can be seen, even in Alexander’s Brief History, all political difficulties experienced by our native Government in the past, up to the present one, have been through foreign extortion and violence, beginning with the outrages committed by whalers and lawless sailors or adventurers down to the intemperate domineering pretensions of foreign [Page 915] representatives, so that a rapid review of ancient history will serve to shed a true light on the present situation.
The unjustifiable seizure of the islands by Lord Paulet (1843), some features of which are not very different from our present situation, was brought about by the high-handed enforcement of trumped-up charges and claims by the English consul Charlton, and the French incident in 1849 was caused by Consul Dillon’s arrogance. As Alexander’s history states it, “for years the Honolulu community was kept in a state of turmoil by consular grievances,” and in 1846 a table of such grievances, prepared by order of the Legislature, “formed a roll 120 feet long.” Every consul, and more prominently at one time the United States Commissioner Brown, insisted on “the right of diplomatic interference with the internal affairs of the Kingdom,” and of “ready access to the person of the Sovereign.” (Alex., 261.) It would now seem that in those early times the various powers represented here were vying with each other to seize any pretext which might give them a shadow of right for taking possession of these desirable and coveted islands, so that the late policy of Minister Stevens and Capt. Wiltse, of lying in ambush and waiting for the most trival pretext to jump on the native Government, has not even the merit of being original with them.
Fortunately, in the past, the various great powers have been generous, disinterested, and honorable enough to disown the political cupidity of their agents, and this is one of the reasons why the natives to-day are so patient and peaceful; they know that the great American Republic is the most honorable and generous of all nations, and takes the lead in all just and liberal ideas, moreover they have such an inborn faith in and respect for the United States Government, whom they have been taught by their early teachers to regard as their best friend and natural protector, that they can not be otherwise than confident that history will only repeat itself and that their precious independence will not be less respected by America than it has been by England and France.
This confidence is all the more justifiable, as this is not the first time that the country has been disturbed by some annexation craze. In 1853 things here reached such a crisis that the foreigners then living in Honolulu, and “especially men recently arrived from California thought that ‘the times were ripe,’ and organized with the view of forcing on King Kamehameha III, annexation to the United States; ‘petitions in favor of it were circulated and signed and strong commercial interests used for its furtherance;’” and stranger yet to say the King got to be “so tired of demands made on him by foreign powers, and of threats by filibusters from abroad, and by conspirators at home to overturn the national government” that he himself declared in favor of annexation “as a refuge from impending dangers.” (Alexander.) But fortunately, at that time, the last remaining faithful missionaries of the old stock strongly opposed the project, believing “that its effects would be disastrous to the native race” (Alex., 277), and the honest American diplomats of the period indorsed that opinion. And here, let it be said to their honor, the early American missionaries have ever been found on the side of the rightful native authorities, advising them and helping them to resist foreign aggressions, and being allowed In consequence full political control. Even to-day, faithful to their original mission, the Roman: Catholic and Anglican clergies are still found on the side of the native independent government.*
[Page 916]But the descendants of the early American missionaries have turned against the honorable traditions of their fathers; they only attend to the natives now to negotiate some ironclad mortgage deed, and they no longer care whether or not the “effects of annexation would be disastrous to the native race,” although the old reasons therefor are just as patent now as forty years ago. Further than that, they have not only ceased to be the trustworthy advisers and helpers of royal authority, but they have been bent solely on using all their moral and financial influence to grasp the administrative power for the furtherance of their own ends and interests, and from these men arise all the present troubles.
This change in the morality of the missionary descendants came to its climax through sugar, and it may here be said that sugar has been a curse to these favored islands, making some few men—foreigners—immensely rich, but impoverishing the masses, the natives especially, and bringing about corruption and greed, and political venality unknown to the converts of the early missionaries.
The sugar greed was of long and gradual growth, the early efforts to give it an impetus by appealing to American generosity having repeatedly failed through the prudence of Congress; and it can be safely said that just prior to the season of extraordinary financial prosperity that followed the treaty at last granted in 1876, by the kindness of our great and good friend, the Republic of the United States of America, all the old foreign complications had worn out, so that the native Government was running smoothly and our people at large were living in peace and in greater harmony than they have ever since. It was a time when we had less wealth and less selfishness, but more quiet contentment.
The divergence of sentiment and lack of harmony came about through the ambition, the sordid desire of foreign residents and sons of missionaries to accumulate great wealth and grow suddenly rich. To accomplish this end the few who had the advantage in lands, money, and friends saw that the main point for them was to control the Government, so as to secure the special legislation necessary to carry out their designs, and especially to procure the indispensable cheap labor and keep them down under labor laws equivalent to slavery. To this faction this country owes the undesirable and un-American introduction of Chinese, Japanese, and the still more ignorant and illiterate Portuguese. Millions of public money, under the fallacious pretext of “encouragement to immigration,” have been spent for the sole purpose of bringing in laborers for the planters, and even the voyage around the world of King Kalakaua was made use of to try to obtain Indian [Page 917] coolies under British jurisdiction, which would have made this country practically an English colony, had it not been for the veto of the American Government, and yet the idea was not entirely abandoned, for only a year ago Mr. Marsden, one of the commissioners who went to Washington to beg for annexation, was sent to India to try to revive the matter, and he reported in favor of it.
This goes to show the reason why so many annexationists in the country have alternately shifted from loyal Hawaiians to rank annexationists, according to what appeared most expedient for their purposes or gain; thus it can be safely said that few indeed is the number of those who want annexation for mere patriotism; for the majority, it is essentially a question of dollars and cents they think they can make out of Uncle Sam, and even to-day, many of the hottest annexationists would turn right over to any other power if they had any prospect of making more money by such a change.
Through the American reciprocity treaty of 1876, which was granted essentially with the idea of benefiting especially the aborigines, American gold began to roll in by millions into the coffers of the planters, who were thus enabled to pay usurious interests to our bankers and capitalists, large commissions (as high as 7 per cent) on all sales and purchases to the commission merchants, the balance of the profits still constituting princely incomes, with which the planters were enabled to travel abroad with their families, while the silent authors of this untold wealth—the poor laborers—got barely enough to cover their nakedness and food enough to give them sufficient strength for their daily task.
This inhuman and immoral system could not last eternally, and the masses, including the foreign laborers, realizing its injustice, gradually obtained control of the Government; this, moreover, culminating in 1886, in the Gibson anti-missionary administration.
When the planters and their missionary friends realized that the administrative power was slipping out of their hands, through the fact that the Kanaka, in spite of all coaxing and bribery used, would not always vote to suit the selfish wishes of that class, nor submit himself to their greedy tyranny, it was deemed a necessity to down them, and from that time dates the determination on the part of the wealthy foreign class to gradually rob the native of his political manhood, which he knew too well how to use; and this policy culminated in the assertion made by Commissioner Thurston, in the states, that henceforth Kanakas must be totally disfranchised and not allowed to vote, otherwise the infinitely small minority of the sugar revolutionists would be swamped. And this is how and why the Kanakas are incapable of self-government.
At the same time the sugar oligarchy began to look out for a political change that would bring their waning power back to them. They thought that they would find the desired goal in annexation, through which they could use the United States as their supporter. Conspiracies were then initiated for the purpose of bringing about annexation, and were continued for over three years against the same King Kalakaua who had been instrumental in obtaining the long-wished-for treaty for the planters. This flagrant ingratitude culminated in 1887 by the first revolution, planned and carried out exclusively by a handful of foreigners at the instigation of the missionary sugar-planters and capitalists, who formed that party afterwards known under the deceptive name of “reform party.” Through the adroitness of the King, [Page 918] this movement was only partially successful, inasmuch as the overthrow of the monarchy, then contemplated, could not be accomplished.
It, however, gave a very severe blow to public liberties and to equal rights, because a reactionary constitution was forced upon the masses, which has since been the law of the land without having ever been submitted to the approval or ratification of the people; and its modification has been strenuously opposed by our plutocrats, because they knew, from its inception, that the said document was a fraud and a snare. It professed to be liberal, but it was about as deceptive a document as the character of the men who inspired it. It disfranchised a large number of natives, while it gave to utter strangers, and to all the illiterate Portuguese then under the influence of sugar-planters and others, the unprecedented right of voting without having to take any allegiance to the Government. The reaction, which naturally followed the violent inauguration of such a retrogade factum, led to the second revolution, attempted in 1889, by some natives under R. W. Wilcox—the only instance in Hawaiian history in which the natives tried to assert themselves politically without foreign help.
The failure of this movement did not deter the natives, but aroused in the masses a strong feeling of opposition to the reform cabinet then in power, which was formed by the very same men who headed the present rebellion. This opposition of the masses showed itself very emphatically in the regular elections following, notwithstanding the inequalities of the franchise, which virtually gave the wealthy classes the control of half of the law-making power of the land; the Hawaiian people, whom the missionary sugar-planters had aimed to control in this manner, repeatedly carried a majority at the polls in all the elections since 1890, and the only method left to the reform party to attain the ends to control the Government has been by bribery and corruption, with that very wealth which the generosity of the American people had given to Kalakaua for the general benefit of all his subjects. Thus the good that the great American nation had intended for the Hawaiians turned out in the hands of a few greedy foreigners to be the means of oppressing those very same natives.
The flagrant inequalities thrust by this revolutionary constitution on the native people, thus disfranchised in their own country, has been the bone of contention ever since. The Hawaiians have been as a unit at the polls in carrying the representative seats for the special object of obtaining a new constitution doing away with the injustice embodied in the present one. They have, for four years, demanded the enactment of a law by the Legislature, authorizing the election of delegates to a constitutional convention, for the framing of a really liberal organic law. In seeking a new constitution, the natives do not want to disfranchise anyone or put any qualification upon a voter other than that he should be a resident in the country for a certain period of time and should know how to read and write in his mother tongue; but they do want equal rights for all.
However, every honest effort made by the native Hawaiians to secure a liberal change of this nature, a change that would give freedom and equality to every soul that came freely into this country, has been defeated by the most unprincipled means that men can be capable of employing; and to their shame, the missionary sugar planters, the descendants of men who preached the eternal principles of good morals and claimed freedom and equality as their birthright, are the very men who stand in the way of the fulfillment of these liberal principles. But the very people who have been represented to the great American [Page 919] nation as being illiterate, illiberal, and not worthy of sympathy, not worthy of the manly right to vote, are about the only ones here who are struggling for liberty and equality to-day, and these are the much traduced Hawaiians. Thus the political situation here for years past can be clearly defined as follows: The Hawaiians have been patiently and peacefully contending to regain by legal means a just political status, whereby all the foreigners would also enjoy equal liberal rights; while the reform party have been intent on realizing, by violent and arbitrary ways, the gradual but total disfranchisement of the natives, and accessorily the control of the poorer classes of foreigners, by capricious property qualifications.
In other words, the sugar oligarchy have sought to override all true constitutional principles and to realize the un-American phenomena of creating a plutocracy of their class, to whom all other classes and interests should be politically and materially subservient.
In this they may have been encouraged by the docility of the Hawaiians in general; but certainly neither the revolution of 1887 nor the coup de main of 1893 have in anyway been revolts against unfair, oppressive administration, while they may be fairly characterized as desperate grabs for personal power, which the plutocratic faction could not obtain by fair, honest means at the ballot box.
Furthermore, the policy of the reform party may be said to be one of gross ingratitude, in the sense that the native legislators—of whom it is safe to say that they always acted with decorum and intelligence equal to any State legislature in the Union—have never refused to enact laws or appropriations for the benefit of the sugar industry, which has been fostered in every practical way. Our statute books are full of liberal laws, and in nowise oppressive, showing ample evidence of the intelligent and progressive character of our Government, and of generous provisions for the protection of foreign capital and fostering of industries conducted here by foreign investors. In no other part of the world, under aboriginal rule, have foreigners prospered so well as here. Even the system of taxation ought to satisfy any men but selfish plutocrats; for it is the masses, the poor people, who bear the principal weight of direct and indirect taxation (which is heavier than in the United States), while taxes on property are very light and easily evaded; planters have never been taxed anywhere near to a just proportion to the actual values, and, moreover, their taxation has been reduced by 25 per cent since the McKinley act came into effect, while no reduction of any kind has been granted to the other classes.
Having regained temporary possession of the power, through the revolution of 1887, the sugar missionaries dropped for a time their annexation schemes, and merely tried to use the United States to keep themselves in power, reserving annexation as a desperate expedient. This is proved by the treaty which they attemptod to negotiate in 1889–’90, in which a special clause, now known as the “bayonet clause,” allowed them to call at any time for the landing of the United States troops, to protect them and any cabinet they might uphold. This treaty was rendered impossible by the turn of the elections in 1890, in which the sugar planters and missionary influence combined were downed by the strong will of the natives, allied with the foreign workingmen and mechanics, who opposed the coolie-labor policy of the wealthy class.
The reform party then turned again to their old schemes of plotting for annexation. Rumors of conspiracies and expected uprisings on their part have been rife ever since 1890, and the liberal results of the various [Page 920] elections of 1892 only increased their desperate activity. Mr. Thurston the reform star, was openly accused of being the leader of these conspiracies, one positive manifestation of which was the movement instigated by the reform party in May, 1892, which lead to the arrest of R. W. Wilcox and V. V. Ashford, both of whom were saved from legal punishment through the influence of the leaders and “respectable men” of the sugar missionaries, who feared being exposed and implicated in the movement.
Unfortunately the popular party was divided into two factions, making three with the sugar missionary reform party. These divisions rendered the last Legislature utterly impotent to carry out strict party measures, and was the means of prolonging the session to an unprecedented length of time, about eight months. It also raised the expectations of the annexationists and plotters to the highest pitch, which increased when they found a willing abettor in the person of the United States minister, Stevens. Hence they resolved to seize the first plausible excuse, the first practical reason for another revolution; and unfortunately this apparent reason and pretext was given to them by the Queen herself, in her endeavors to meet the popular will.
It must be inserted here, that it was only because the immortal principles of justice, liberty, and equality were violated or ignored in the Bayonet Constitution of 1887 that the Queen to satisfy her own people undertook to suggest to her constitutional advisers, the cabinet, the promulgation of a new constitution embodying these desirable features and addressed to the masses, not to a mere faction. Upon the advice of her ministers she withdrew the proposition and requested her people to be patient, to forbear, to wait until a legitimate time, when she hoped they would be enabled to secure the object of their wishes. This act of the Sovereign, too liberal to be forgiven by the reactionary reform party, drove them to a desperation, because it would have forever thrown the control of the Government out of the hands of the wealthy minority. Therefore the missionary offsprings and their plutocratic friends and followers used it as a pretext for robbing the last and only vestige of right left to the Hawaiian in his own country, his independent nationality, his flag, denying him even the claim to be a human being.
Now to show what authority the insurgents had to dictate in the matter it will be in order to resort to statistical points. The last official census, made in 1890, corrected to date, puts the total population of the group at 96,075. Out of this number 15,570 are Chinese, 18,474 Japanese—two races not allowed as yet to take a share in local politics, though the Japanese Government now claims for its citizens equal rights with other foreigners. The balance of the population is distributed into natives and half-castes, 40,622 plus 7,495 Hawaiian born of foreign parents and into 13,912 foreigners, among whom the Americans count only a total of 1,928 “of all ages and sexes,” the British 1,344, the Germans 1,034, the Portuguese 8,602, and other nationalities 1,004. Thus the total American element all over the islands amounts to only about two-hundredths of the whole population and one-seventh of the total number of foreigners.
More especially in Honolulu, which is only part of the country that participated in the insurrection, the Americans number only 767 males, as against 2,003 other male foreigners (among which are no less than 529 English) and against 6,902 male natives. Furthermore, all our American residents are not in favor of annexation; it is only a fraction of this small number of 767 Americans, with a few Germans and Portuguese [Page 921] (therefore a minority unsupported by the rest of the population), who have accomplished the overthrow of the recognized native Government, through the American official influence.
Can it be possible that so small a faction, and so heterogeneous at that, whose only force is to be loud-mouthed and utterly regardless of veracity, should be allowed to impose their whims on the rest of the population, and rule it contrary to all American ideas of popular government?
To cover their numerical weakness, the annexationists’ faction have tried to awaken American sympathies by alluding to the necessity of protecting American capital, which they claim to be so largely invested in these islands. To give plausibility to this assertion, tables have been prepared, purporting (on estimations, not on any positive documents) to show that the total capital engaged in sugar (in corporations and nonincorporated plantations) amounted to $33,420,990, out of which $24,735,610 were claimed to be American, or about four-fifths; $6,038,130 British, $2,008,600 German, $226,280 native, and $299,000 of other nationalities. This fantastic array is contradicted by the mere fact that out of a total of $537,757 for internal taxes, Americans paid only $139,998 (official figures), or one-fourth, while, according to the above statement, American plantation stock alone, outside of commercial firms and other American taxable property, ought to have paid over $247,000. But even allowing that a large portion of the sugar interests may be apparently in American hands, it is far from correct to call it American capital.
It is an undeniable fact that outside of Mr. Claus Spreckels, of California, no American has ever brought into this country any capital worth mentioning, but many have sent away fortunes made here; most of our present American capitalists, outside of sons of missionaries, came here as sailors or school-teachers, some few as clerks, others as mechanics, so that, even if now they do own or manage, or have their names in some way connected with property or corporations, this does not make their wealth of American origin. Those who are now independent run their plantations or business firms on money made here, out of the Hawaiian people and from Hawaiian soil, through coolie labor; the others are simply running on capital borrowed principally from English or German capitalists, and their concerns should be more justly called English or German capital because, in case of bankruptcy, such capital would really be lost, not American capital.
The local Croesus, American by birth, the banker, C. R. Bishop, came here poor and started his fortune by marrying the wealthiest native princess, whose lands and income allowed him to duplicate it by banking on Hawaiian capital; surely his can not be termed American capital. The conclusion of all this must then be, that certainly American capital and interests here can be cheerfully acknowledged as very large and important, and entitled, like all other foreign capital and interests, to every consideration and protection; but American annexation can not be justified on the sole ground of the asserted extreme preponderance of such American capital, or on the pretension of that capital to be entitled to special or exclusive protection or favor, not anymore than German or English planters would be entitled to ask for annexation to their countries on the same grounds.
[Page 922]II.—Development
The phase by which the budding conspiracies of the reform party bloomed out into open rebellion can not be better compared than to the filibustering schemes of the well-known Walker and other historical desperadoes, with this difference, however, that all those expeditions were made without participation of any United States official,-the United States Government, on the contrary, making every effort to check and frustrate those attempts against international laws, whilst the Hawaiian crisis has been helped, promoted, precipitated, encouraged, and countenanced by two representatives of the United States Government. Moreover, it can be boldly asserted that the Honolulu filibusters (for they repeatedly admitted it themselves) would never have dared to attempt their uprising without the moral stimulus and promises of the United States minister, nor would they have had strength to carry it out successfully against the Queen’s well-armed forces and the numerous volunteers ready to fight for her, nor could they have maintained themselves one day in power, without the material armed support of the United States troops on shore and the guns of the U. S. S. Boston trained on the town.
Therefore, this military interference and aid to a mob of filibusters can only be qualified as an overt act of piracy by a United States officer against a defenseless friendly government. The whole proceedings are the most outrageous example known in modern times of naval forces abusing their power without urgent cause and without previous declaration of war. If sustained by the American Government the action of Capt. Wiltse will be a precedent that will set to naught all international rights, all security of weak powers against their more powerful neighbors; henceforth any group of lawless, quarrelsome foreigners residing in any port of other nations will be justified in raising a riot on the most flimsy pretext, and then calling on warships of their own nationality to help them to take possession of, “annex” the place, against the rights and wishes of the aborigines. It will then only be a question of the survival of the strongest, of possible application wherever a weak native government or a pacific population can be cowed by a foreign element sufficiently strong or enterprising; but what renders the facts still worse in our case, is that they have been the result of a long premeditated policy.
The extreme intimacy of Minister Stevens with the various members of the Reform party, to the exclusion of all men belonging to other parties, had been remarked even before Kalakaua’s death, and it was common talk that plotting accompanied dining at the United States legation in Kuuanu street. It was whispered with glee by the Reform partisans that Stevens had been sent here purposely to promote annexation, which the death of Kalakaua seemed to facilitate, hence it is not surprising now to note that, from the start of her reign, Stevens shows himself inimical to the Queen, evidently as reflecting the opinions of his Reform friends. Par from acting like the representative of a friendly government, his relations with the Hawaiian administration were ever unfriendly, meddling, and quarrelsome to such a degree that, at one time, the chairman of the committee on foreign affairs of the Legislature suggested that he be given his passport, and it is greatly to be deplored that the suggestion was not acted upon. The address he had the presumption of making to the Queen, on her accession, was of the nature of a threatening lecture from a rigid Sunday-school teacher to a very vicious child, and was as ungentlemanly as it was undiplomatic, [Page 923] according to the universal rule which prohibits every diplomatic agent to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country.
Then claiming the old forgotten assumption of “ready access,” so abusively used here by consuls fifty years ago, he took the pretext of some flimsy newspaper article to make a display of his ignorance of common etiquette as well as of his spiteful feelings, by forcing himself on the Queen and trying to make Her Majesty and her ministers personally responsible for that article, which eventually did not justify any ordinary legal proceedings.
During the various changes of cabinet that marked the end of the Legislature, Mr. Stevens was satisfied only when reform missionary men were chosen for ministers, and his extraordinary antimonarchic oration on Decoration day, as much as his attitude towards the Parker cabinet, during the days that preceded the revolt, plainly show how biased he was, and bent on embarrassing the Hawaiian Government.
The other actor in our tragedy, Capt. Wiltse, from the time Admiral Brown left him in charge of the station, made no secret of his purpose to secure annexation, and boasted that he would not leave before it was accomplished; if he did not keep his word in its entirety, it is certainly not through any fault of his. During the parliamentary changes of cabinet he openly stated that, in case the Queen did not select for her ministers Reform men, or men satisfactory to that party and to Minister Stevens, the Boston troops would be landed to interfere, and thereby bring about annexation. Even the foreign diplomats were aware of those boasts. Unfortunately Wiltse’s utterances were not taken into sufficient consideration and treated seriously by the Hawaiian Government, but were deemed only to be expressions of intemperate language of an eccentric officer, not to use any harsher term, whom the American correspondents were making fun of.
But there is no doubt now that at all times he has been an extremely industrious intermeddler in Hawaiian politics, frequently lowering his high position by interviewing hackmen on the streets on local affairs. Further than this, the officers of the Boston will probably testify to the fact that several times during the legislative period, and evidently in accord with a preconceived plan of seizing any favorable incident or pretext, the United States troops were kept in readiness for landing when there was not the smallest sign of disturbance or even excitement in town or in the Legislature.
And it must here be recorded that Capt. Wiltse made a veritable debauch of military demonstrations during the Legislature, landing troops and guns several times a week, and parading them through the town as no other foreign vessel had ever done before, with the undoubted intention of intimidating the native population and preparing future events.
After the exhaustive accounts that have been published of the facts of the revolution, and especially after the printed statements made by the Queen and her envoy, P. Neumann, and by the attorney-general, Peterson, the various details of which appear to us perfectly exact and correct, we do not deem it to be in our province to offer a new narration, but simply to point out certain facts and their signification in the interest of the people we represent.
Of the new constitution, which has been the apparent motive for the explosion of the long prepared revolution we have already stated, that it was desired and demanded by nine-tenths of the native population; moreover, to make the position of the Queen plainer, it may be well to recall the fact that in this country all previous constitutions had been [Page 924] granted by the free will of the different sovereigns, until the last one 1887, was extorted out of Kalakaua by an armed mob of foreigners led by the same men who directed the present rebellion, so that the Queen might have considered herself perfectly justified by the local precedents as to her power of granting a new constitution at the request of her own people.
Rumors of this new constitution had been current during the session of the Legislature, so that the surprise assumed by the reform party was not genuine, and it may be well to ask what there was in the document prepared for the Queen so utterly obnoxious to the reform party, and how they could possibly know what its contents were, since its text has not been published?
The first outcome of the Queen’s attempt to proclaim her new constitution (Saturday, January 14), was a meeting in the office of W. O. Smith, of about 70 members of the reform party, which afterwards they had the impudence of calling a public meeting (!) and in which it was decided to support the cabinet against the Queen (for the maintenance of the old constitution), and to exact from Her Majesty “guarantees” against any further move in the matter on her part. But this conservative decision did not satisfy the firebrands who wanted annexation, and who immediately held another meeting secretly, about two dozen of them, at Mr. Thurston’s house, in which a secret “committee of public safety” was appointed, composed of about the same incorrigible demagogues who had concocted and led the “1887 revolution.”
This committee then ordered a mass meeting at the armory (Monday, 18th), to which from 700 to 800 foreigners responded, many of whom were utter strangers, tourists, sailors from the merchantmen in port, and many others only present through mere curiosity, so that it is safe to say that in this meeting (which was going to have such an influence on the political destiny of the whole country) not half of the men present were legal voters, the natives especially being absolutely absent and assembled elsewhere. The object of this meeting was clearly stated as merely to give authority—or a shadow of it—to the self-appointed 13 members of the “committee of public safety,” and to empower this committee to demand and obtain from the Queen “assurance and guarantees of a better government,” id est, a promise to respect the 1887 bayonet constitution, this pet offspring of the reform party. Nothing more was demanded of the public at the meeting, as the perusal of the speeches there made by the most responsible speakers, Messrs. Wilder, Glade, Young, and others, will conclusively show. Not the smallest allusion was made to an impending change of government, and not one man in the audience, outside of the leaders, did guess that the resolution then submitted for approval meant anything beyond “guarantees from the Queen for good government and preservation of order.”
And certainly not one dreamed that in the innocent looking tail of this resolution, running as follows: “And we do hereby further empower such committee to further consider the situation and further devise such ways and means as may be necessary to secure the permanent maintenance of law and order, and the protection of life, liberty, and property in Hawaii,” there could be meant a dethronement of the Hawaiian monarchy by a clique of foreigners without any submission to or indorsement by the voters at large; and worse than that, a subsequent wild rush for annexation to the United States without even consulting the whole foreign element. We claim that, had this meeting realized that such were the intentions of the self-appointed committee of public safety, the revolution would not have been carried, or at least [Page 925] only an infinitesimal minority would have backed it. But this meeting in itself was only representative of a mere fraction of the population, for, at the same hour, at Palace Square, another meeting of between five and six thousand natives and loyal foreigners cordially supported the Queen, accepting her apology for withdrawing her constitution and her promise of leaving the matter to be accomplished constitutionally.
Thus the majority of the population of the town was plainly with the monarchy, and the Provisional Government, which was subsequently appointed by the committee of public safety, represents but the arbitrary assumption of a clique, with no popular backing. We claim that they can sustain themselves through force and only so long as no appeal is made to the electors, but soon as an election be held not one of the members of the Provisional Government would receive even a decent minority of votes, for they only represent the old reform party—that party defeated at the polls in 1890 and 1892, and who is now in power through a surprise under false pretenses. The utter weakness of the Provisional Government and of the party back of it was unmistakably shown on the day of the proclamation (Tuesday, 17th), when the whole population ought to have been in arms if they had been in sympathy with the insurgents (as falsely represented in America); while on the contrary, it was with the utmost difficulty that fifty ill-armed men could be mustered to march on the Government house, for a cash consideration, and with the positive understanding that in case of failure they could take refuge behind the files of United States marines, and from there on board of the Boston.
What was the attitude of Minister Stevens during the leavening of the revolution will be better gathered from the official documents and affidavits of the Queen, her ministers, and her marshal. We need only, in the name of the people, ask that this diplomat should be made to answer positively why he ordered the landing of the Boston troops, right after the two meetings above mentioned had so peacefully transacted their business and so quietly dispersed? There was not the smallest sign of excitement, the whole population manifested only the most pacific disposition, everyone being under the impression that, with the work of these two meetings and the adoption of their resolutions, the whole matter had come to an end, and that things would be satisfactorily and peacefully settled between the Queen, her ministers, and the self-appointed committee of public safety.
Especially the natives, from whom alone any fear could have been entertained of “riot or danger to persons and property” (for such has been Mr. Stevens’ flimsy excuse) were exceptionally quiet or even indifferent, and they are not a fighting race; no groups were seen in the streets, the royal troops had quietly laid their arms as usual in the barracks; there was no display of police forces, and not a shadow of danger breathed in the whole atmosphere, so that the United States troops had no business on shore. Mr. Stevens then refused to give officially any reasons for this landing, and it has since been said that it was executed at the request of the self-appointed committee of public safety, who had yet no legal standing, this going to show that, at that early date (16th) Stevens was already disposed to acknowledge their authority and attend to their wishes in preference to deferring to the regular and legal Government.
The landing was made without any previous official notification, an act contrary to all international rule, and it was evidently precipitated by the fear that, in the meantime, the Queen might have proclaimed martial law, which would have made the position more embarrassing, [Page 926] and probably would have prevented any further complication. We say, therefore, that the landing of the troops was a direct violation of all civilized laws, and ordered for no other purpose than that of helping the brooding insurrection. The further facts of the force being made to occupy the Arion Hall, alongside the Government houses and opposite the palace, when other buildings (the two armories, and the new shed in construction on Merchant street) were available, shows that the intention was to command the Royal Palace and interfere with the movements of the Royal troops, so as to render possible the seizure of the public treasury, and the farce of.-proclaiming the new Government, although it was reported that Mr. Stevens had promised to recognize their proclamation whenever it was made from any building in town.
The official documents and the examination of witnesses will show that when the proclamation was made by the armed mob at the Government house, and there recognized by the United States representatives, the Queen’s full force, with artillery and Gatling, were still in possession of the palace and barracks and of the strong police station, and this last could not have been taken without a severe siege which the Provisional Government alone was utterly incapable to undertake and carry out; therefore, the legal Hawaiian Government was still de facto in power and able to maintain their-situation, and Mr. Stevens has willfully prevaricated in his assertion to the contrary. It was only when it became known that Mr. Stevens had declared that he would recognize and protect against the Queen any government formed by any group of what he would consider (as to him) “responsible citizens,” that the Queen, her Government, and her numerous partisans surrendered to avoid useless bloodshed, and surrendered under protest, not to the insignificant Provisional Government, but to the superior forces of the United States warship.
At that time, the natives would have shown fight, but all their leaders urged upon them to keep quiet, as everything was left in the hands of their constant protector, Uncle Sam, who would see that justice be duly rendered; and most admirably, most deservedly, quiet they have kept ever since, under severe provocation, but confident in American honor and impartiality, that justice would be done.
As soon as all danger had disappeared by the surrender of the Hawaiian Government, a couple of hundred men, all foreigners, and principally penurious Germans and Portuguese, flocked to help the new Provisional Government and take the place of the disbanded Hawaiian guards; but this was not done out of sympathy for the movement, and still less out of a wish for annexation (the possibility of which had not yet permeated the public as being the saving anchor for a weak usurping Government). No, the adhesions to the Provisional Government were merely out of personal convenience, and their number only goes to show, not the popularity of the reform filibusters, but simply how many men there were in town out of employment, who gladly jumped at the chance of gaining a salary.
As the “Liberal,” an uncontrovertible authority in the matter, said: “The revolution was a Godsend to many people out of work (from the results of decrease in business through the McKinley bill), who for weeks had been destitute; they shouldered their guns to fight for bread as much as anything else, and while the guard was maintained (by the Provisional Government) they had a very congenial employment and a good pay.” Very good indeed for these foreigners, but we Hawaiians take this occasion for protesting against the lavish expenditure [Page 927] of public funds, made from a nearly bankrupt treasury, for the maintenance of an extravagantly large, useless, and dangerous military establishment of armed aliens who have no vested interests in the country, mere mercenaries, officered by men known for the hatred they bear against the Hawaiian people. We protest all the more because the very men who thus squander the people’s money on several hundreds of unnecessary play soldiers, are the very same ones who, in the last legislature, ridiculed and opposed a total of sixty men for the Queen’s guard and purposely reduced the police force.
We must here dwell on the fact that no Hawaiians, even from among those few who are said (with great flourish of trumpets) to favor the insurrection, enlisted in the Provisional Government Army, in spite of all pay and uniform allurements; but, on the contrary, we must take good note of the fact that the Hawaiians of the old royal band refused, to a man, to continue their service under the Provisional Government, preferring starvation prospects to perjuring their loyalty; they started an independent organization, with instruments paid with their own money, and the people show their appreciation of the boys’ noble and disinterested fidelity by patronizing their concerts in unusual crowds. And this may be taken as a good sign of the general feelings of the natives against the Provisional Government sprung on them by their old enemies, the Reform party.
But eight days had not yet elapsed before the loyalty, fidelity and patriotism of the incongruous, discordant crowd, who supported the Provisional Government manifested itself by dissensions running riot, to such a point that the only manner of saving the new order of things was to implore Mr. Stevens for a declaration of American protectorate. Since this protectorate has been withdrawn the Provisional Government have certainly had no trouble in maintaining themselves, but simply through the fact that the natives are quietly and peacefully awaiting for the decision of the United States.
It would be foreign to our aim here to follow the Provisional Government in its subsequent career of despotism and intimidation practiced in the name of American liberty and under the protection of American bayonets.
It will suffice to say that we, Hawaiians, do not and can not contentedly acknowledge the right of a faction of turbulent foreigners to dictate in our country for the satisfaction of their greedy selfishness and lust of power; but we are ever ready to bow and submit to the rule of the majority, whenever legally expressed, and we would willingly abide by the decision of a plebiscite, honorably and fairly carried out, if such was the will of America. Therefore, we proclaim that we have not and never will recognize the present Provisional Government, a government sprung out of a coup de main, abetted and shielded by foreign intervention and run by a clique who do not enjoy the confidence of the people, their unpopularity being so thoroughly known to themselves that they expected to maintain themselves only by disfranchising the whole nation. They rule only by the force of bayonets, through martial law and the Draconian treason laws they enacted for their support, and we do protest against their arbitrary assumption of legislation, repealing old laws and making new ones of odious nature, thereby exceeding all rights that a provisional administration can dare to assume.
Of the men of the present Government we have nothing to say, except that they are politicians repeatedly defeated at the polls who want to rule or ruin, or mere boys utterly unknown and of no weight, [Page 928] chosen for the fact of their being willing to jump into a harum-scarum, break-neck policy; but we do protest against their pretention of perpetuating themselves in power without reference to the people; and we most solemnly protest against their high-handed policy of gagging the press, of intimidating officials into taking the oath of allegiance, and signing annexation petitions and club rolls against their free convictions; of spitefully discharging others, especially Hawaiians and old residents (conveniently accused of being “royalists”) to make room for foreigners, new comers, Hawaiian haters, and of calling to the supreme bench and other high public offices aliens of brief residence, whose sole claim is that they carried a gun under the protection of the Boston sailors.
But all coercive measures are of no avail, for the Hawaiians remain Hawaiian, true to our race. To us, Hawaii and our native government are just as dear as America is to every true-born American, and no loyal and patriotic subject of the glorious stars and stripes can blame us for being imbued with a similar patriotism, for loving the dear land of our birth, and even preferring our modest flag to any other, however glorious it may be.
We do not believe that the times and circumstances warrant the present movement of annexation; our people are not yet ripe for it, and we prefer remaining under the paternal rule of our own monarchy that understands our wants and wishes, and under which we claim to be quite capable of self-government. Nevertheless, we want it well understood that we Hawaiians have no objection against America or the Americans; on the contrary, we have been brought up to honor and respect our great and good neighbor, and through American teachings more than half century of civilization and experience of self-government have given us an intelligent appreciation of the political doctrines and democratic principles of constitutional government, with America and Great Britain as chief patterns.
More particularly do we value, respect, and comprehend the fundamental principles of the American Constitution, such as “no taxation without representation,” “the rule of the majority,” and “government of the people, by the people, and for the people;” and we have tried to follow those principles, when not disturbed by an intriguing, bribing plutocracy of foreigners who repudiate such liberal principles and wish to make peons or pariahs of us. Without past political experience of American institutions we could not accept contentedly any such forms of restricted government as the Provisional Government commissioners to Washington, without any authority from the people, have tried to obtain from the United States in order to keep their clique in power. If annexation is to be accomplished with any justice it must be by the consent of the majority, not at the beck of a few adventurers or greedy plutocrats, men who, to further their private ambition or avoid impending bankruptcy, have remorselessly thrown on the United States the responsibility of a very dishonorable action, that of robbing a people of their nationality, men also who, through their annexation scheme, would entangle the United States Government with some foreign problems of difficult solution—the Japanese one especially.
It has not yet been clearly demonstrated that annexation would benefit either this country or America, and to us it seems as if both sides may have much to lose and little to gain by it. In what concerns America we can not presume to pronounce on military or strategic reasons, but we do agree with many eminent American writers that annexation would rather be a source of danger, a cause of weakness to [Page 929] the United States, without giving them better commercial advantages than such as can be more safely and easily obtained by intimate treaty relations with an independent government here. On our side, the gain from annexation to such a distant country is also difficult to prove, while the fiscal policy of the United States may at times place our sugar, rice, coffee, and other tropical products at a disadvantage by binding us to rival interests and preventing our seeking freely the most advantageous outlets.
For all the above reasons and others too long to enumerate, we protest against the present movement in favor of doing away with the independence of our country; we protest against the effort made to force annexation to the United States without consulting the people, and we especially protest against the interference of the United States minister, Stevens, in Hawaiian politics and his violation of our sovereign rights by the unjustifiable landing of the United States troops and the biased recognition of the insurgents.
We particularly resent the presumption of being transferred like a flock of sheep or bartered like a horde of untutored savages by an unprincipled minority of aliens who have no right, no legal power, no influence over us, not even a claim of conquest by fair-handed warfare, and we can not believe that our friends of the great and just American nation could tolerate annexation by force against the wishes of the majority of the population, for such an annexation would be an eternal dishonor, an indelible stain on the pure escutcheon of the leading nation of the world.
It is therefore with the utmost confidence in the wisdom, honor, and impartiality of the United States Government that we respectfully but earnestly pray for our independent autonomy and the restoration of the Hawaiian Monarchy; and our gratitude will ever bind us more indissolubly to the great Union by a stronger tie than any enforced annexation could ever realize.
God save Hawaii Nei.
God bless the great Republic and its magnanimous and just leader, President Cleveland.
- J. A. Cummins,
- Joseph Nawahi,
- Jno. E. Bush,
For the Hawaiian Patriotic League.
- The fact of these two religious denominations not being favorable to annexation may make it interesting to add here a statistical note about the approximate distribution of the population according to religious beliefs, and it must be taken as very significant that, in the last census, the religious element was left out altogether, for the reason that the missionary party who presided over the operations of the census could not allow their decline to be made public together with the ascendancy of their rivals. In the absence of other authorities, the Catholic clergy claim 30,000 adherents on these islands, about 18,000 being natives, out of a total of 40,000; and as the Anglicans, Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists also claim quite a number of converts, it is thus seen that very considerably less than 22,000 natives remain under the spiritual sway of the annexationists’ faction, and, moreover, it could easily be ascertained from the missionary publications that, within the last few years, the Hawaiian communicants reported by their churches have diminished in the proportion of about 90 per cent (2,200 against 21,000), the reason of this is solely the anti-patriotic anti-Hawaiian anti-loyal attitude assumed by the missionary churches and their schools, wherein teaching the children to pray for the country and sovereign has been discontinued. Even in the Kamehameha industrial school, founded with the money of the last of that illustrious native family, the pupils are taught rank republicanism and disloyalty to their country and race, and forced to sign the annexation pledge.↩