Mr. Gresham to Mr. Willis.
Washington, February 8, 1894.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 29, of January 16, in which you refer to a letter received from the Hon. S. B. Dole, minister of foreign affairs of the Provisional Government, addressed to you under date of January 11, containing statements alleged to have been made by me in an interview with Mr. Thurston, the Hawaiian minister, on November 14, last.
It is true that I had two interviews with Mr. Thurston on the day mentioned, the first of which was very brief. Immediately after the second interview I dictated to a stenographer a statement, from which the following is quoted, it being all that relates to the subject of Mr. Dole’s communication to you:
On the forenoon of November 14 Hon. L. A. Thurston, minister of the Provisional Government of Hawaii, called at the State Department for an interview with the Secretary of State on the Hawaiian situation The minister was informed by the Secretary that it was about time for a cabinet meeting, and he was under the necessity [Page 1306] of requesting the minister to call again at 3 o’clock in the afternoon. He replied that he would do so, but before leaving desired to submit two questions to the Secretary: First, Was the letter addressed by the Secretary to the President about Hawaii and the Provisional Government and printed in the papers a few days ago authentic and official? Second, If it was, and he presumed it was, was it the President’s intention to use force, If need be, against the Provisional Government in restoring the Queen? The Secretary replied that the letter was authentic, but not having time to spend with the minister just then he could repeat the questions on calling in the afternoon. The minister called at the appointed hour, and the Secretary informed him that the letter addressed to the President was authentic, and that no action had or would be taken by our minister, Mr. Willis, which would imperil the lives or property of the officers or supporters of the Provisional Government, and that if they suffered in any way it would be in consequence of their own acts or attitude.
The interview continued:
“Minister. Mr. Secretary, that answer is not satisfactory, and I would be glad if you would be more explicit.
“Secretary. I can not be more explicit at this time. You can draw your own inferences from what I have said and correct any false impressions that may have been created by what has been published.”
I answered the second question in the underscored language from a slip of paper which lay on my table in plain view before me. I did not say in either interview that I was not at liberty to answer either question.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Albert S. Willis, Esq., etc.,
Honolulu.