No. 51.
Interview with Claus Spreckels,
June 5, 1893.
Mr. Blount. Is this a copy of the contract made with laborers by planters? (Copy attached hereto.)
A. It is.
Q. What means have the planters of enforcing their agreements?
A. The law upholds that contract.
Q. Suppose the laborer does not work satisfactorily?
A. That brings him to the police court—make complaint.
Q. What punishment is inflicted?
A. I am hardly able to answer that. I do not know how they carry out the law.
Q. Can you state—is the remedy at law for the enforcement of contracts generally satisfactory to the planters?
A. I would say, yes. This contract is made first with the Japanese Government. This Government makes the contract, and this Government makes the contract with the planters, and that is the contract you have there between the planters and this Government.
Q. Does the Government pay any expenses in the matter of the laborers?
A. No; the planter pays passage money and all expenses.
Q. Who pays for the officers connected with the inspection of laborers?
A. I am unable to answer that.
Q. Are you familiar with the lands in all these islands?
A. I am.
Q. Are they suitable for much else than sugar-cane culture?
A. That is their principal use.
Q. Could the sugar cane be grown here without cheap contract labor?
A. No.
Q. Suppose they could not get it, what would be the condition?
A. They would have to close the plantations.
[Page 974]Q. What would become of them?
A. They would be cow pastures or something.
Q. The contract laborers that have been brought here, the great mass of them, was it done under the stimulus of the reciprocity treaty with the United States or not?
A. Yes, sir; it was.
Q. Up to that treaty there had been little done?
A. We had the first year the treaty was in force about 16,000 tons of sugar—that is, in 1876; maybe 18,000, but I think 16,000.
Q. And after that it increased to?
A. About 140,000 tons. I think this year there was 150,000 tons.
Q. What amount did these islands get in the way of remission of duties annually up to the time of the passage of the McKinley law?
A. When the plantation is in full blast they got in the neighborhood of $5,000,000 per annum.
Q. What do you mean by plantation in full blast?
A. That is to say, as we find them now. It took some time to get the machinery, etc., ready. They were not ready the first year or so.
Q. Were profits great, then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ranging between what figures?
A. In some plantations they never made any profit.
Q. But where they were well managed?
A. I should think some years they have made 50 per cent and even over.
Q. How high would you say—as much as 80?
A. I do not think you could go 80 per cent. Some plantations have not made a cent even with that treaty.
Q. How was that?
A. I should think bad management.
Q. Well, where it was well managed 50 per cent and upward was usual?
A. I would not say every year. It depends on the price of sugar.
Q. Would not the duty itself make a large profit?
A. Yes, sir. A good plantation can hold its own and make mone at the present price of sugar.
Q. What is generally the character of the lands in these islands?
A. They are very rich lands.
Q. Is there very much of it waste land—mountain land?
A. A great deal.
Q. Where do these fine lands generally lie?
A. In the valley—sometimes in the interior—most on the coast.
Q. The great mass of lands, are they arable?
A. No; not the great mass. There would be more land for sugarcane if they had water; but the trouble is, shortness of water in places where they have good land.
Q. Are most of the cultivated lands irrigated?
A. Most of them lie on the trade-wind side where they get the rain. On the island of Hawaii there is no irrigation. On the island of Maui there is most irrigation.
Q. Your lands there are irrigated generally?
A. Yes, and we get some rain.
Q. Have you had to expend much money there to get water?
A. I spent a million of dollars. I have about 40 miles of ditch.
Q. Before you irrigated it, were they useful for any purpose?
A. No; there were a few cattle running on them in winter time.
Q. When was it done?
[Page 975]A. I commenced in 1878 to build the ditch.
Q. Would you have been willing to have invested your money in that way but for the reciprocity treaty?
A. No, sir; I would not.
Q. Has most of the irrigation been brought about under the influence of the reciprocity treaty?
A. Yes.
Q. And the profits, then, have largely come from reciprocity and cheap labor.
A. Yes.
Q. If both of these were abandoned, what would be the material prospects of the islands?
A. There would be no prospects at all. We could get along—the majority of the plantations—without any subsidy if we had labor, but without labor we could not get along at all.
Q. You would have to go out into the world and get cheap labor?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have been how long here—this last visit?
A. Since April 18.
Q. Have you met with any sugar-planters since your arrival?
A. I have.
Q. Those of them who are declaring themselves in favor of annexation, how do they look at the labor question in connection with annexation?
A. They think that the United States will make a different law for the islands. If they could not get labor they don’t want annexation.
Q. But they are satisfied they will get such legislation?
A. Yes, sir; they think and hope the United States will do that.
Q. Tell me some gentlemen who has argued that with you?
A. Glade, of Hackfelt & Go. He is interested in sugar.
Q. Who else?
A. Mr. Shafer; he is opposed, if he can not get labor.
Q. Does he believe he can get labor?
A. He does not think so; not quite so as the others do.
Q. Who else?
A. We have about ten plantations in our control. They all do not want it.
Q. What part of the sugar in these islands do they produce?
A. Our plantations?
Q. Yes.
A. We have 45,000 to 50,000 thousand tons a year—fully one-third—Claus Spreckels, Irwin & Co. We have control of that much. We are agents for 20,000 tons more.
Q. Now, other owners of plantations?
A. Baldwin does not want it if he can not get labor. He has about 20,000 tons.
Q. Does Mr. Baldwin argue that the Government of the United States will relax the laws for these islands?
A. Yes; he believes so. They say where there’s a will there’s a way. We will get it. Now, Judge Widemann, he is against annexation anyhow.
Q. Is Campbell a sugar-planter?
A. Yes; he has interests.
Q. Is it your impression that the calculation of all sugar-planters who are in favor of annexation believe that the United States will [Page 976] modify their general laws against contract labor so that they can maintain a system of contract labor in the islands?
A. I would not say contract labor. They say we may have to give up contract labor, but we can get all the labor we want from Japan.
Q. How?
A. They say: We send an agent there and send money and he sends them here, and when they are here then they can make a contract with them.
Q. They think in that way they can evade the labor laws of the United States?
A. Yes; they think they can get around it. My opinion is that they can not, but they think they can get around the United States laws. President Dole called upon me the Saturday before last and asked if I would not be kind enough to go before the ministry and talk the labor law with them on Tuesday. I went there and I asked President Dole whether he had studied the immigration laws and whether he found that I was correct. He answered that he found that I was correct in that way. “But,” he said, “I have belief that the United States will give us a separate law that we can get laborers here.”
Q. Did that idea seem to be in the minds of other members of the cabinet?
A. Yes; that the United States will give them anything they ask for.
Q. You have been talking politics with these people here. What sort of idea have they as to the kind of government they want and expect for these islands in the event of annexation?
A. Their idea is that when they are annexed to the United States they will have a governor—some of them will be appointed by the President—and leave it to them, so to say, to rule these islands.
Q. Do they ever speak of the Washington, D. C., form of government as suitable?
A. Some speak about that; that they would like to have a government like that.
Q. Are they in favor of a system of government that allows the natives generally to vote?
A. They do not want the natives to vote.
Q. Would they be in favor of any form of government that would leave the natives a majority of the voters?
A. No, sir; they would not.
Q. Would they consider any such government a stable government?
A. They think it would be stable with the United States cutting out the Kanakas so that they could not vote.
Q. This is, then, largely a struggle to take political power from the natives and put it in the hands of the whites?
A. Exactly.
Q. And that is what they hope to get in the event of annexation?
A. Exactly.
Q. What is the feeling of the natives on the subject of annexation?
A. I think that seven-eighths at least would be opposed to it. Some are employed by the Provisional Government. They had to sign the annexation roll or be discharged.
Q. And they signed to hold their places?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the argument made to the native that if he is annexed to the United States his right to vote will be preserved?
A. That I can not say.
Q. What is your opinion on this question: If a vote was had by [Page 977] persons who are qualified under the constitution just abrogated to vote for representatives under the Australian ballot system, in what proportion would annexationists appear to anti-annexationists?
A. I think they would be only one-fourth against three-fourths, if left to a vote.
Q. Have you been studying the question since you have been here?
A. I have studied it very much.
Q. What about whites in the islands—what proportion for and against annexation? I mean Europeans and Americans.
A. That is hard to say; I do not think the people would be more than half for annexation in Honolulu, but in the other islands very few.
Q. What would be the proportion in Honolulu, do you think?
A. In Honolulu it night be three-fourths in favor of annexation, for the simple reason that they are afraid of each other. If he did not do it he would lose trade. He is at heart the other way.
Q. Would you say that there are as many as one-third of the whites—Europeans and Americans—that would be against annexation?
A. I should say so.
Q. Where people had surplus money have they been pretty generally investing in sugar stocks in past years?
A. I do not think they have.
Q. Is there much sugar stock owned in Honolulu?
A. Yes; there is a great deal owned.
Q. Is President Dole interested in sugar stocks?
A. I hardly think so. He may have a few shares.
Q. I notice at the mass meeting held here January 17 several persons made speeches, among them W. C. Wilder. Has he interest in sugar at all?
A. I do not think so. He may have a few shares.
Q. What is his occupation?
A. They run this Wilder Steamship Company. They sell lumber.
Q. They are interested, therefore, in handling sugar?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. H. F. Glade; is he interested in sugar?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is consul-general of Germany?
A. I believe so.
Q. I see Mr. Young making a speech—what is he?
A. He is a sugar planter.
Q. Is he president of the Planters’ Labor and Supply Company?
A. No; I think Mr. Irwin is.
Q. Has Bolte any interests in sugar?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. H. P. Baldwin made a speech. Has he any interest in sugar?
A. Yes.
Q. Large interests?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. J. Emmeluth?
A. No; he is a tinsmith.
Q. A man of any means?
A. I do not think he has.
Q. A man of education?
A. I do not know.
Q. Mr. R. J. Greene. Is he interested in sugar?
A. Not that I am aware of. I do not know him. He can not be of much consequence.
[Page 978]Q. Mr. P. C. Jones; has he any interest in sugar?
A. Yes; some.
Q. Mr. J. A. King; any?
A. I do not think he has.
Q. Mr. W. O. Smith?
A. He has an interest.
Q. Mr. Henry Waterhouse?
A. He may have a small interest.
Q. Mr. Damon?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Mr. Tenney any?
A. Some.
Q. Mr. McChesney any?
A. No; he is a groceryman.
Q. A man of any means?
A. I do not know.
Q. Any education?
A. I do not think he has.
Q. Was Mr. Young at one time president of the Planters’ Labor and Supply Company?
A. Yes; I think so.
Q. Has there been any idea here of trying to get a treaty so as to let pineapples come into the United States at a low rate?
A. Yes.
Q. Do they hope to get much out of that?
A. I really don’t know.
Q. Has there been any idea here among people as to any advantage coming out of annexation in connection with the Pearl River Harbor?
A. Yes.
Q. What do they look forward to in this connection?
A. They think the United States would take Pearl Harbor and improve it and buy their property there for big prices.
Q. Who are interested?
A. Dr. McGrew is about the principal owner there.
Q. Any of the Waterhouses interested there?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Mr. Henry Waterhouse?
A. Yes.
Q. Any others?
A. There is another, named Jake Brown, married to a native woman.
Q. Is he for or against annexation?
A. For annexation.
Q. Is there an idea amongst these people that there would be a cable built to San Francisco if there was annexation?
A. Yes.
Q. Pretty strong feeling of that sort?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the impression amongst business people—planters—as to the increase of the value of property in the islands by annexation?
A. The idea is that property will advance about treble, and a great many are waiting to sell it. They calculate there would be a big boom.
Q. They are holding their property with the idea that there will be big profits in the event of annexation?
A. That is the idea.
Q. The Planters’ Labor and Supply Company is under the control of the planters, is it not?
[Page 979]A. In some ways it is, but they have made a political machine out of it.
Q. But I mean to say that the stock is owned by planters, mostly?
A. No, sir.
Q. How is that stock generally held?
A. I really do not know.
Q. In what way is it used as a political machine?
A. Well, they use the agents for their ends. The agents give the managers directions for the natives—how they shall vote.
Q. That is the way it is generally done?
A. Yes. And the managers will do what the Labor Supply Company say. Since 1886 I have never worried about politics. Stood entirely clear.
Q. Please tell me the members of the Wilcox cabinet that was voted out before the prorogation?
A. Cecil Brown, G. N. Wilcox, M. P. Robinson, P. C. Jones.
Q. What is Robinson’s business?
A. He is with Allen & Robinson. They deal in lumber.
Q. Is he interested in sugar?
A. Very little.
Q. Is he interested in bananas?
A. Yes.
Q. Interested in the labor question mainly in that connection?
A. Yes.
Q. Wilcox—is he interested in sugar?
A. Yes.
Q. Largely?
A. Not very largely.
Q. Jones—has he any sugar interests?
A. Some.
Q. Cecil Brown?
A. I do not think he has any. He may have a share or two.
Q. There is no indication at present of any hostilities between the people and the Provisional Government, so far as you have been able to observe?
A. None whatever.
Q. What is keeping the people quiet?
A. They are waiting to see and hear the Commissioner’s report that justice may be done to them by the President to put the Queen back, who would have stayed there if it had not been for Minister Stevens sending the troops ashore. I was not here, but am expressing the mind of the people as I understand it. Samuel Parker and others have told me.
Q. And that is what keeps them quiet?
A. Yes; they think justice will be done them when Cleveland hears the report, and the truth of how the Queen was dethroned.
Q. Suppose the Government of the United States were to decline to annex the islands, would the Provisional Government be able to maintain itself without outside aid?
A. If the money would hold out and the people were willing to pay what they pay for soldiers they could hold it.
Q. You think, with an army maintained here, that the natives would stay quiet for all time?
A. They can not help themselves. They have nothing. All ammunition taken away from them. Everything like weapons forbidden. I [Page 980] can not bring a rifle here. No native allowed to buy any firearms or powder.
Q. Suppose they had arms?
A. Then this Government could not stand. They would bring the Queen back to the throne. That is my idea. The Provisional Government would never be there if the United States troops were not landed, and they knew that long before they landed.
Q. What class of people make up this army?
A. As far as I know, many who were in the chain gang—many who were in prison; fellows of character you would not like to meet after dark.
Q. The people of intelligence and wealth here don’t participate much in hostilities; they hire these fellows?
A. Yes; they leave it to them.
Q. There are very few firearms in the island other than those possessed by the Government?
A. Very few. The natives are forbidden to have them.
Q. The people, therefore, remain quiet because they have no arms.
A. Yes; they think it better for them to leave it to the President to decide when he can see how they were wronged by Stevens.
Q. What is the weight of public opinion here on the question as to whether or not the landing of the troops and the posting of them at Arion Hall had to do with the success of the revolution?
A. It had everything to do with it. If the troops were not landed there would be no Provisional Government to-day.
Q. Is that public opinion here?
A. It is; but, of course, the other side would say different.
Q. The wealth of the city of Honolulu—was it not largely built up after the reciprocity treaty with the United States?
A. Yes, about three-fourths after the treaty.
Q. Most of the nice homes built since then?
A. Oh, yes; I should think something like three-fourths have been built up since that treaty.
Q. Well, property holders as a general thing are in favor of annexation because they believe a great increase in the value of their private estates would ensue, and that large improvements would be made at Pearl Harbor by the United States?
A. That is what they calculated.
Q. And the cable?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, then you would say that this is a movement on the part of property holders to enhance their private interests?
A. Yes, and a certain desire to rule this country.
Q. Mr. Spreckels, do you know Mr. Samuel Parker well?
A. I do.
Q. Do you know his general reputation for truth and veracity?
A. I do.
Q. And from that would you believe him on oath?
A. I would.
Q. Do you know Mr. Corn well the same way?
A. I do.
Q. Would you from his general reputation believe him on oath?
A. I would; yes, sir.
Q. Do you know Colburn?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know Peterson?
[Page 981]A. I know him by sight.
Q. You know Parker and Cornwell well?
A. Yes; I have known them since 1876.
I have carefully read the foregoing and pronounce it an accurate report of my interview with Mr. Blount.
June 12, 1893.