No. 57.
Interview with Judge H. A.
Widemann, Honolulu, May 20, 1893.
Mr. Blount. Judge, where were you born?
A. Hanover, Germany.
Q. How long have you lived here?
A. Forty-seven years.
[Page 1002]Q. What offices have you held in that time?
A. I have held every office this country can give. Sheriff of the island of Kanai in 1854; circuit judge there in 1863, and deputy governor of that island at the same time. I held, also, a great many smaller offices from 1854 to 1865—tax collector, school inspector, road supervisor; chief clerk of the interior office in 1865; associate justice of the supreme court in 1869; minister of the interior in 1874. During those years I have been privy councilor; member of the board of health, and member of the board of education. I was a noble from 1881 to 1887, appointed by the King. I was elected noble in 1887 to 1892. February, 1892, I was taken ill and Mott Smith took my place, and when he went to Washington I got well and took the place back. That brings us up to date.
Q. On January 17, 1893, it is reported that the ministers of Liliuokalani, with the Hon. S. M. Damon, went to the palace and held a consultation with the Queen on the subject of her yielding to the movement for a provisional government. Were you there?
A. I was there at the Queen’s request.
Q. Will you be kind enough to tell me in a general way what was said and done?
A. There were present besides the ministers, Samuel Damon, Judge Carter, Paul Neumann, and myself.
Q. What was the subject-matter of the interview?
A. It was a communication from the Provisional Government touching her being turned out of office, her deposition which had been sent her in the course of the day. I objected to reading the document; I didn’t know but it might be insulting. The Queen’s Government was then in possession of the barracks and the police station where the arms and ammunition were. The question was, whether she should make opposition to the Provisional Government. The advice given was that we were too weak to oppose the United States forces, and consequently that she should surrender. The police station was surrendered immediately after the consultation. We were there perhaps an hour in this consultation. Whilst we were, Mr. Stevens’s letter to the Queen’s ministers, saying he had recognized the Provisional Government, was read by Sam Parker, Her Majesty’s minister of foreign affairs. Mr. Neumann and Joe Carter were appointed a committee of two to draw up a protest for Her Majesty. We waited until they had done so. We all approved of that protest, and then the Queen signed it.
Q. Was it dark then?
A. It was after dark; lamps were lighted.
Q. What was the condition of the city as to quiet when the troops were landed on the day before?
A. There were no people on the street. It was as quiet as things could be. I went to the palace to speak to the Queen. I told her that the soldiers had landed and were coming towards the palace. Fearing lest they should attack the palace, I advised Her Majesty to be ready to go with them if they should come to her and ask her to go with them. I said this in my consternation upon seeing foreign troops landed in a peaceful country when there was no show of any disturbance.
Q. Was that consternation pretty general?
A. Most decidedly it was.
Q. Did that state of mind continue until the dethronement of the Queen and the surrender of the barracks and station house?
A. Yes; until we heard of the establishment of the Provisional Government and then we knew what was what.
[Page 1003]Q. Everything quiet after that?
A. Everything was quiet. There was not a dog bark or a cock crow.
Q. Were you in the Legislature in 1892?
A. I was a member by appointment as a minister.
Q. Will you be kind enough to tell me how many parties were represented in that Legislature and by what names they were designated?
A. Three parties and some independents, National Reform, Reform, and Liberal.
Q. How many members had each of these?
A. Nine National Reform; 14 Reform; 21 Liberals, and 4 Independents.
Q. Who were the 4 Independents?
A. R. R. Hind, J. Marsden, W. H. Cornwell, and A. Drier.
Q. How do those four gentlemen stand on the subject of annexation?
A. At the present moment?
Q. Yes.
A. Marsden is an annexation man. Hind is not, Cornwell is not, and Drier is not. I am sure of those two. I am not sure of Hind.
Q. Twenty-five was a majority of the Legislature?
A. Yes.
Q. Did any one of these parties have that number?
A. No.
Q. How did it happen that so many cabinets were nominated and voted out on want of confidence in 1892?
A. In the beginning of the session there was no possibility for uniting the parties to vote out a ministry. The first cabinet held until September. In September W. A. Whiting, attorney-general, resigned, and Paul Neumann was appointed in his place. E. C. Macfarlane, with several others of the National Reform party, sided with the Reform party, and got also a few of the natives to side with them, and voted out the first cabinet.
Q. Why did Macfarlane make this move?
A. He objected to Neumann, a party member, going into the cabinet without the consent of the party.
Q. What party did Neumann belong to?
A. The National Reform. The Neumann cabinet did not meet the approval of the Reform party.
Q. Who were at the head of the new cabinet?
A. Sam Parker, Neumann, Macfarlane, and a man by the name of Gulick It did not meet the approval of the Reform party, and, in consequence, after a week or two they were voted out.
Q. By what parties in the Legislature?
A. Then it was a conglomeration, party lines completely gone. Macfarlane burst the party lines. They were voted out after a fortnight. The Reform party laid down the principle that the Queen should appoint a cabinet from the members of the party that voted out a cabinet. The Reform party never voted out any cabinet because they could not on account of lack of numbers. Then the new cabinet was appointed. They lasted about half an hour or twenty minutes. They were voted out again. A new cabinet was appointed which satisfied the Reform party.
Q. Was that the Wilcox cabinet?
A. Yes. When I returned from San Francisco—I was gone about two months—they were voted out. They got just 25 votes to vote them out.
Q. What party voted them out?
[Page 1004]A. The Liberal party—the native element.
Q. They must have had some other party to help them.
A. The National Reform party.
Q. Then a new cabinet was appointed?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that ever voted out?
A. No.
Q. It was appointed the day before the Legislature was prorogued?
A. Yes; on Friday.
Q. What was the cause of all this turning out of cabinets?
A. The great desire on the part of a great number of the members of the house to get into the cabinet themselves.
Q. The hope of getting into the cabinet made these combinations possible and successful?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were the members who wanted to be ministers?
A. John Ena, E. C. Macfarlane, A. P. Peterson, J. A. Cummins, J. N. S. Williams, Paul Neumann, J. Marsden, Alex. Young, W. H. Corn-well, W. C. Wilder, C. W. Ashford, R. W. Wilcox, J. E. Bush, J. Nawahi, William White, and W. O. Smith.
Q. Was this last Wilcox cabinet constituted wholly of Reformers?
A. Yes.
Q. This left out of the cabinet and representation from the National Reform or Liberal parties?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that produce any dissatisfaction among aspirants for cabinet places?
A. Decidedly. It produced strong dissatisfaction among the Liberal party. They had been told before they would come in. Bush would have cut his throat before he would have sided with the Reformers but for the idea that he would get in himself.
Q. Is he an annexationist now?
A. No; he is an antiannexationist.
Q. On the voting out of the second cabinet, I think, you said they went all to pieces; there were no parties?
A. Yes.
Q. Am I to understand that they just turned loose in a sort of scramble for cabinet places?
A. That was the simple reason for it.
Q. Was there ever a time when the Reform party had anything like a majority of that body?
A. Not in 1892.
I have read the foregoing and pronounce it an accurate report of my interview with Mr. Blount.